Cory Booker Demands that congress fund Israel in Wake of Attacks from Palestine - October 2023
Booker Calls for Congressional Action in Wake of Hamas Attacks Against Israel | U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
You're viewing a single thread.
This is why I didn't vote for Harris. You can't gaslight me into believing you care about the rights of marginalized groups of people, the environment, democracy, housing, healthcare, and freedom, while you are openly supporting fascism, apartheid and genocide with my taxes.
You really showed people how to make a difference now that... Trump is in?
Ignore for a second that voting does not actually makes a difference in U.S. foreign policy.
Every third party anti-genocide protest voter changing their vote for Harris in every battleground state is not enough to make up for the margins Harris lost by. But keep believing in the narrative that somehow it's the left's fault and not the goofy ass campaign decisions and Biden clinging to power until the 11th hour.
She was always doomed.
I don't think it makes sense to keep up with this "look what you idiots did" garbage i see so often because, as you said, it isn't a guarantee that it would made a difference, unsolicitedly gloating at someone that their poor decision has lead to increased misery is gross and counterproductive, and it inherently reduces the ultimate culpability on Republican voters that did in fact directly vote for this and should all be held to account. That said, there is a good chance that between abstentions, third party protest votes, and the distribution of both across the critical EC votes, the movement may have tipped the scales--but there is really no way to know either way.
I'm not the one that keeps attempting to punch left and blame leftists for liberal failures. It is only liberal Harris defenders that continually bring this up. But let's fact check this.
The data shows that you cannot blame third party voters for the failures to garner enough voters to beat Donald Trump. Even if you convinced every single third party voter it still wouldn't be enough. There's no way count abstentions, but you have no proof to make the claim. Liberals need to stop making the claim and lying.
Are you replying to the wrong post? You are effectively agreeing with me but just wrapping it up in a shitty unnecessarily aggro tone?
No I am not replying to the wrong post. I am being aggressive towards the gaslighting that liberals are not to blame for their own failures. I cited the best data we have available to us and it points to the narrative that third party voters did not hand republicans the election like liberals like to claim in order to deflect all blame away from themselves. It's an undefendable position because it is one not grounded in reality.
Yea, ok. Just gonna block and move on. Another hyper aggro .ml just doing the same bullshit as libs on the flipside of the same shitsucking coin. Have the life and day you deserve!
LoL, you think their vote either way is how they would make a difference. I too would not vote for anyone who is pro-genocide. What a shit voting system. Democracy my arse.
Muh democracy!
proceeds to not vote against the singular largest threat to democracy in almost a century.
The US has never had genuine democracy. The US has political theater. Trump in power is not changing that fundamental truth, the US public has never had real democratic control to begin with.
While I do absolutely agree, the commenters here not marshalling every effort and yes, even compromising on issues, to get the lesser of two evils elected I can't help but see as a poorly thought out excuse. Have your disagreement over policy AFTER you prevent the catastrophe.
The US had Turbo racist Hitler Satan running a platform of oppression to supplement and fund oligarch dictator fascism for the foreseeable never ending infinite term regime and some didn't vote for the literal only option to stop that happening because of some infantile dream that dissenting 3rd candidate voices will matter to either side that has and always will govern. I find the moral grandstanding utterly absurd in the context of a 2 outcome race, yet here we are.
They do have faux-democracy, they do have the illusion of representation, they are at the mercy of lobbyists and corporate corruption and bribery, but only one of the two political choices has ever taken those discussions and attempted improvements. Only one side was ever trying to regulate and debate these things, but go and see where naive optimism gets you. You're all planning where to put your beach towels in front of a tsunami.
The thing is, the DNC is not trying to stop any of that. It's all theater, the opposition they put on display is theatrical. Nobody seriously believed a third party would win, the goal is to encourage more people to abandon an electotalist approach to political activism and adopt a more millitant, organizational approach, which has a far better track record at actually influencing policy in a major way.
I hope I see an America that does gain enough awareness to mobilize and dismantle the systemic oppression you're talking about. I, personally, would have voted in the party that doesn't disappear journalists and critics, burns books and refutes facts, I would have rather taken up arms against a politician I could convince of right and wrong than a unified front devoted to evil, but that's my heady optimism getting in the way.
A friend of mine said of the Bush administration that it "had to happen" to show Americans how bad it gets when you let these snakes get power, and no one would vote Republican again after they witnessed the shitshow in action. I think they were optimistic too.
I think the biggest divide between our POVs is that the DNC definitely does all of the things you accuse them of not doing. We cannot simply talk to the DNC and convince them to do the right thing, they aren't incompetent but well-meaning, but a different wing of the same brutally oppressive Empire.
If I am correct in my analysis there, we must do what we can to adapt our strategy and find solutions that work.
I can see where you're coming from, I'll try to summarise with metaphor and will likely sound asinine but here goes:
If I'm a hitchhiker and I see a suspicious car pull over and offer me a ride, even in the wrong direction, I'm going to take it over the driver that stops, gets out with a chainsaw and runs towards me screaming "go back to your own country", where you're focusing on how this first option is a very bad option. I'm not in disagreement that it's a bad option. It is most definitely a broken, non-functional option. It is however not the lunatic with a chainsaw, which I take as an incredible positive argument for it.
I don't need a metaphor to understand your point, I've heard the argument before. My point is that if we view the historical response to labor organization, both drivers are chainsaw wielding murderers, just one of them puts on a more polite face. The task is the same regardless, it is not any easier if the murderer is more polite about the slaughter if the slaughter is the same.
would have voted in the party that doesn’t disappear journalists and critics, burns books and refutes facts
The Democrats absolutely do those things, just look at Gaza.
I would have rather taken up arms against a politician I could convince of right and wrong
So not the Democrats
I don't know how many times I can restate that the "both sides bad" argument does not make sense to anti-Trump sentiment. Yes the Democrats are shitty, yes they do bad things, but in a choice between that and exactly that but 10x worse I literally cannot wrap my head around this smug superiority of not-ascribing to either side trolling. You do know that undermining Democrats is getting Republicans more power and enacting more of the things you're against?
Ok. What I said is still true though.
You can't vote against somebody in the US. You can only vote for people.
A vote of "no confidence" would be great, though; the idea being that if "no confidence" won, they'd have to re-run the election with all new candidates!
That's the essence of proportional representation, you get to say a quantifiable amount of approval. However, in a two party 'someone -will- win' type system, voting for one party is directly equivalent to voting against the other. Abstaining from voting has absolutely no effect (if 98% of voters abstained, the remaining 2% would still decide the leader)
I voted for an anti-genocide candidate: Jill Stein.
The biggest threat to democracy, by far, would have been Democrats -- the party you view as the good guys! -- doing a genocide and not even suffering an electoral setback. If you can do the literal worst thing humans can do to each other free of consequences, whatever you government have isn't worth supporting, regardless of what you call it.
Aww, my democracy is running fine bud, cause I'm not an Americunt. Besides, Donnie is not even the biggest threat to the US democracy. Their shitty two party system with both parties openly bought and paid for by oligarchs is a much more insidious threat.
Nazis aren't the biggest threat to democracy? Cool story, bro
The Democrats were the one doing a genocide -- that's the most direct comparison to Nazis.
Trump also being a Nazi does not excuse Democrats. It was an election between Himmler and Hitler, and you're upset some people didn't vote for either.
No, they aren't. Neolibs are far more of a threat. Remember what happened to the nazis last time? The Red Army destroyed them. But the neolibs are still destroying democracy everywhere in the world.
Agreed! Not singling you at all, I made a comment that intended to be more a generalised dismay at the mindset of not voting for the opposition to facism because of high ground morality.
I agree on two party systems being more insidious against true democracy, but even so having half a country agree to such tyranny isn't something democratic processes can fix, only voter mobilization.
Opposition to fascism was not on the ballot. The party doing a genocide abroad is not anti-fascist, it's fascism farther away.
Trump and musk are destroying the empire