this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
141 points (92.2% liked)

politics

30937 readers
2668 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (7 children)

The logic is that it's simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, "yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!"

It's just a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy. The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others, who want to do what they can to make a positive difference in this world. And Kamala's brilliant plan was to appeal to those bleeding hearts with a message of, "yes, I'm fine with genocide, but the genocide will go even faster if my opponent is elected!"?

What dirt-fucking moron thought that was a good idea?

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 15 points 2 years ago

The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others

That hasn't been true since Clinton and the blue dogs. They became what Republicans used to be over the last 30 years. It has been said many times, but there simply isn't a viable left wing/worker's party in the US. Other countries have labor and social democrat parties for that.

They used to be a hell of a lot more radical. The "new deal" was originally planned to go a hell of a lot further with social policies. We could have had taxpayer-funded healthcare in the 1940s.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy

Sounds like a description of the GeNoCiDe jOe crowd who helped end democracy

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Imagine believing the USA was ever a democracy.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Yes because it was a piece of shit already so let's make it worse and pretend to be moral while doing it

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 9 points 2 years ago

Maybe you missed the statements calling for a cease fire.

Someone else assembled this reference for those ignorant of the news.

https://midwest.social/post/19205574/13516874

[–] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

who want to do what they can to make a positive difference

Then they elect Trump. Smart.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You have to understand Harris accepted millions in bribes from pro-Israeli lobbying groups.

It was a hard choice between genocide and money, but Harris found a way to sell out America and keep both.

[–] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As did literally every other president for the last 40+ years. Now you've elected Trump instead. Smart.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Libs trying to argue for participation in the system by pointing out how it's a complete failure.

Standard dem election strategy.

[–] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah better elect Trump. That'll sort it.

Vote now. Protest later.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If they didn't want to lose because of protest votes they should have thrown a bone to the protesters before the election.

The DNC chose this, everything else is just an attempt to deflect blame.

[–] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not saying they weren't shit. But electing Trump was not the way to protest.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago

I have a hard time blaming the voters for anything when they live in the most heavily propagandized country on the planet. Ultimately the voters opinions don't matter when they can be shaped by billions of dollars in ads and media time.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

The logic is that it's simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, "yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!"

This has been explained. I worry that going over it again will somehow not be helpful. Just let the leopards eat all our faces like you decided.