I have problems with people who abstained. The hard thing is, how do you change voter behavior?
You give them something real to vote for. Give them a reason to turn out. And there’s a reliable way to do that. Hard policy. Universal Healthcare. Free education. Raising wages. Stuff that actually improves people’s living conditions in their daily lives.
Because believe it or not, The World’s Most Powerful Military and genocide do not excite any democrats that aren’t members of the DNC Services Corp.
The hard thing is, how do you change voter behavior?
Give them something to vote for. You can write articles of many paragraphs to analyze the course of the election, but in the end it boils down to this: The DNC pissed off too many of their voters and offered nothing in return.
Exactly this! You can’t just “lesser of two evils” your way through life as you slide towards hell. “Lesser of two evils” isn’t a choice, it’s a hostage situation.
Choosing the bigger evil ain’t the way out of it though. Unless you are an accelerationist that believes things have to get worse before it can get better.
You can’t get out of a hostage situation by making out with either of the two bank robbers.
no one is making out, but you if it’s life or death you would listen to their demands until help arrives/opportunities arise.
This ‘logic’ (and metaphors are not logic) is why help isn’t coming.
then are people actually punching the robbers themselves?
The reality right now is the bigger robbers are now taking things even more brazenly.
By not voting, you are telling both robbers “both of you are free to do whatever you want”
God I hate the stupidity of blue MAGA.
I did vote. You don’t know me.
Your stupidity, and the reason you can justifiably be called blue MAGA, is that you don’t understand what the primary responsibility of the politician is, and instead blame the political parties failures on the voters. Because the Democratic Party can never fail. They can only be failed, right?
There is one group that can and should be blamed for identifying, and then happily handing power over to fascists. Hint: it isn’t the voters.
Blaming the voters is some Stockholm syndrome level bullshit to protect the campaign consultants and other unelected assholes that got rich off of this loss. That is who you are protecting.
I had some vote blue no matter who nitwit yelling at me the other day about this. i asked them what are we supposed to do when 2028 is Mitt Romney (D) vs Trump ®. They said you vote Romney.
People who voter shame others when both parties have crossed their personal morals are the reason the Democats don’t ever run on anything substative. They have forgotten they have to earn votes. They’re not owed.
And they have forgotten that when they lose, real people suffer deeply for it. The democrats sin of apathy is often worse than the republican sin of cruelty. At least the republicans are honest about how they want to screw over the country.
They can’t answer since they were bots
🤖 I LOVE [america] SO MUCH I MUST VOTE FOR THE [blue] CANIDATE NO MATTER WHAT I AM TOLD
Hope you like the consequences of [not voting blue for virtue signalling]
I voted blue. I am just willing to not idolize the candidates I vote for.
My original comment was against people who incited to abstain or to vote third party tho. Yeah I agree with never idolizing a politician
have gotten multiple answers. opinion debunked. get real.
There are a lot of people who decided to fully support a genocide and lost. So all they have left is their support for genocide. They’re not going to be able to use principled opinions anymore.
The spot won’t come out.
Weird how you got downvoted for the simple truth. 🧐
they were all bots /half joke
At some point I think it’s projection, downvoting everyone they disagree with and then blame “tankies” when bad takes get called out
Democracy is being dismantled as we speak. Agency by agency, loyalist by loyalist, executive order by executive order. And instead of building community, helping each other and organizing with those around you, I see people, who supposedly care about democracy, about human rights, about those they accuse; and what are they doing? They are blaming people who are powerless and desparing. Thereby further dividing the populace and making the takeover easier for the fascists in power. Be careful: You are telling on yourselves and your values. And we can see you.
They are blaming people who are powerless and desparing.
you reap what you sow, these are the same people that were proclaiming EXACTLY what you’re proclaiming now, just a few months before the election, 6 months prior, a year prior, two years prior. We’ve been saying this the entire time, nobody listened, nobody has started listening, and nobody will continue to listen, what are we to do if not watch the world burn?
This is exactly what I am talking about. Do you care about democracy or not? Do you care about human rights or not? Do you care about Palestinians (Americans), African Americans, Latino Americans or all the others that are being blamed or not?
If you do, you don’t just play the blame game, sit back and ‘watch the world burn’ as you’ve put it. As long as you’re divided, you’re powerless.
Instead of blaming, you unite. Instead of antagonizing, you organize. Instead of resignation, you fight.
Liberals have decided people opposing genocide are the problem rather than politicians willing to lose to even more fascist politicians, rather than accept less genocide.
“liberals” have decided that people who make their only personality trait being opposed to one specific event of genocide are quite annoying and probably not very productive to be around. Especially in the off chance that the one thing they care about turns out to be wrong. (this is the problem with issues voters, and this is why nobody likes them)
Looks like the tankie instances have invaded with their downvotes. Lol. It was pleasant to see the conversation being at least somewhat rational for a while before they discovered this thread.
The quiet downvote of the tankie is a new one.
I have a (conspiracy) theory that those “genocide Joe” and “killer Kamala” folk are astroturfing for MAGA.
Everything I don’t like is a psyop
It’s not wrong to say that the right/outside actors made the issue more pervasive, but let’s not exonerate the “adults in the room” who decided it was better policy to unflinchingly support war criminals and a slow motion genocide, instead of defusing the wedge issue and forcing Bibi’s hand. Israel is nothing without US political support and weapons. Recognize “who’s the fucking superpower” and act like it when your client state gets out of line in a way that’ll cost you domestically. China does it with North Korea all the time when they got testy. Russia routinely interferes with domestic politics of CSTO members.
Nor should we pretend that all criticism was astroturfing. Some of us wanted to drop Biden before “we beat Medicare” made him obviously unelectable. And called it that Harris was going to lose swing states like Michigan for maintaining Biden’s posture on Israel. If team blue is all I can realistically vote for, I’m going to call out shitty policy that loses elections and kills voter enthusiasm. It’s up to you to listen and understand that we need to do better
Okay so this may come across as crazy, but myself and many other people didn’t want to vote for a candidate that supported ethnic cleansing, even if they were on “our team”.
And given the shitty system we have, any vote, or non-vote, that wasn’t for Kamala was a vote for trump (by way of it being one less vote he needed to win). Can’t walk into a chess tournament and start putting checkers on the board just because you don’t like chess…gotta change the game first or you just lose and get kicked out.
My crazy idea here is maybe the DNC should run candidates people actually like. There’s no way in hell if they ran a primary Kamala would have won the nomination given how unpopular she was as VP.
Find me one Kamala voter as excited for her candidacy as the average Trump voter was for him, and I’ll find you a dozen who were only supporting her because whe wasn’t the other guy. Same story with the Biden campaign in 2020 and Clinton before that.
They could have run a dead fish didnt matter for this election. “Boohoo, don’t like candidate” isnt a valid excuse this time. Sry, it’s the weakest argument outside “oUr PRoTEsT voTe DiDnT matatTer” (mathematically true I’d you ignore any that may have been swayed by their constant pushing of a single issue instead of of everything at risk).
What? Running a candidate people like is probably the most important thing in an election. And the DNC knew from polling that she was unpopular as a VP. Seriously what on earth are you talking about that having a candidate people like doesn’t matter.
There was definitely a large amount of foreign influence pushing that narrative.
Honestly? What is the actual difference?
Harris would stand by and allow a genocide while Trump cheers on a genocide? And you think Harris deserved my vote because she wouldn’t be so gauche while being complicit in genocide?
You’re welcome to that opinion, I guess, but spare me the smugness.
My honest question: Why are liberals so caught up about how Leftists voted instead of any issue that might have changed the outcome? Why aren’t there daily posts about Biden waiting until July to drop out? Democrats are more obsessed with blaming the left for their failures than winning against the right.
Honestly? What is the actual difference?
Well, as of now, at least tens of thousands of dead Palestinians and their families. You people claim to care about Palestinians, and yet you say shit like this.
You mean the 40k that were killed under Biden or are you claiming that Harris would be different?
What has Trump actually done differently? There has been no policy change.
No policy change? He’s attempting to get the US out of the UN, he’s trying to sanction the ICC, he’s trying to roll back the hold that Biden put on delivery of 2000lb bombs, and that’s just what I could find on a quick 5 minute search. No policy change? Get the fuck outta here man
He’s attempting… He’s trying… He’s trying…
So…no change, got it.
He’s issued executive orders for all of those things I listed you disingenuous walnut
he’s trying to sanction the ICC
“We’ve made our position clear on the ICC. We don’t recognize their jurisdiction.” - Joe Biden
Honestly, the election was three months ago, and we have bigger fish to fry right now. My default assumption now is that anyone still trying to relitigate the Gaza voters is a Russian troll trying to sew division among the left.
Haha no hate I just think it’s funny you arrive at the same “Russian troll” conclusion as the people trying to relitigate the Gaza voters :Pe: i think i misunderstood your comment, retracted
This push to demonize the strawman protest voters is an ongoing propaganda campaign to cause poor people to infight.
This is a real propaganda campaign
Only speculation, but I believe you are right. This only started 2 days ago after Trump’s Gaza comments. It’s disheartening how easily it is to sway online discourse. Jokes on them, this only motivates me.
We can now say that anyone who could and didn’t vote for Harris in magastan is a genocide enabler.
That’s not how logic works.
Yes it is and it’s such a good example of logic that its archetype is now a formal part of game theory in the prisoner’s dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Thank you for this. It’s always nice to have valid reasoning backing up something you find so obvious lol
Not even close. Did you consent when voting for Biden that his administration could do a genocide? I hope not. This logic implies that we have a moral obligation to vote, which eliminates the free-will of individual choice.
To put it another way. If I am morally obligated to choose the lesser-evil, then that eliminates the freedom of choice. Let’s say you are in a coma during election season. Are you now complicit with everything Trump is doing because you couldn’t vote? Of course not.
By conflating voting with moral obligation, this sophist argument is an example of plausible reasoning.
A vote is a preference, a choice. It carries no burden of complicity. This is separate from ideological support. If one voted for Trump, but then regrets that support, they are no longer responsible for Trump’s actions.
A vote is a preference, a choice. It carries no burden of complicity. This is separate from ideological support. If one voted for Trump, but then regrets that support, they are no longer responsible for Trump’s actions.
Wrong. A vote is an action. And one that has the ability to negatively (or positively) affect others in your sphere.
If you voted for Trump, me and other LGBTQ people are now at immense risk, as are many other populations. Even if you regret your vote you are complicit and have responsibility for the action you took (or didn’t take).
It’s also false to claim that because something is a moral obligation that eliminates freedom of choice. Even if you have a moral obligation you can always choose to do the immoral thing.
I’ll concede the elimination of freedom of choice, but it does constrain and limit the freedom. By implying that voting is a moral obligation, it elevates voting higher than political activism and organization:
He was equally alert to the problem of voter fetishism: voters mistakenly thinking the vote is an exercise of power, when in fact power in a capitalist society is collective, social and located largely outside the parliamentary realm. source
If voting is the end of political participation, the people will always lose.
By holding grudges against Trump voters who regret their vote, we limit our ability to effectively organize against the incoming fascism. I would gladly march alongside anyone who opposes Trump, and I hope you would too.
By implying that voting is a moral obligation, it elevates voting higher than political activism and organization
For the layperson, I think this elevation is mandated.
He was equally alert to the problem of voter fetishism: voters mistakenly thinking the vote is an exercise of power, when in fact power in a capitalist society is collective, social and located largely outside the parliamentary realm. source
I am not a marxist or communist. I am a self-professed and proud liberal, so while I appreciate your good faith reply, I reject your source as a valid authority.
If voting is the end of political participation, the people will always lose.
Unsupported claim. But also I don’t disagree. It’s important to become involved in other ways than just voting. For example running for office at all local levels and becoming a local politician. Neglecting to do this and complaining that there are no good candidates is an exercise in lazy whining. Become the better candidate. Run on your principles.
By holding grudges against Trump voters who regret their vote, we limit our ability to effectively organize against the incoming fascism. I would gladly march alongside anyone who opposes Trump, and I hope you would too.
I don’t think people really have any excuse for being ignorant enough to vote Trump. At some point, individual responsibility comes into play. If such a person takes real action to correct the harm they have done, I may consider forgiving them. But this forgiveness will not come preemptively nor should be expected or taken for granted.
The other problem is that I don’t see these people. I have yet to meet a leftist who is truly sorry about their actions during the election. They’ve dug in on blaming everyone but themselves for the situation that they’ve put us in. Which is why in practice, I cannot forgive my grudges, because they truly are not repentant.
So, the 80 million nonvoters in 2020 voted for Biden? I voted for Biden and Harris. That does not imply my consent for genocide. Complicity is only maintained through inaction. When I denounce the genocidal action, my complicity ends.
Since we’re erroneously referencing logic thought experiments, the trolley problem refutes the prisoner’s dilemma.
The thing about the dilemma is that you need to realize that the prisoners are rational, feeling people. They have good reasons to do what they do, often enough. Often their goals are good ones, compassionate ones.
They aren’t trying to scheme or sabotage one another. But they wind up doing that, because the only success condition is mutual cooperation.
That didn’t happen for us, and the outcome is boolean, pass or fail. Any move except sticking to the coalition and acting to cooperate would have doomed the effort completely, and we didn’t do that. So, here we are.
Where in the Wikipedia article does it mention “voting for the lesser evil “ is an archetype for the prisoner’s dilemma? I’m willing to change my mind, but I need actual reasons to do so.
A better understanding about the logic of voting:
It’s a varying application. It usually models opposing groups during diplomatic tensions, but it can also apply to groups within coalitions who face the same problem together but disagree how the coalition should proceed.
In the process of applying things, you have to consider the outcomes and think of the prisoners as “trapped” by the circumstances of the decision they face. Trapped here means that inaction triggers consequences, so it explicitly models inaction as a choice facing the circumstance.
Usually during negotiation that follows this kind of pattern, the prisoner’s dilemma is applied to figure out the best way to articulate the circumstances at hand and the choices everyone has. It’s a way to connect the cause and effect of everything to everyone in the negotiation, and to illustrate how their actions flow into those consequences, in a way that frames everything as less a “you vs me”, and more of an “us vs the problem”.
And that’s where the logic part comes into play: here it works as a mechanic to introduce cause and effect group logic to humans, and connect the notion of it all to their emotional needs. It helps demonstrate that negotiation and compromise are hard but valuable, logically and emotionally.
If you haven’t read it, “Getting to Yes” is fantastic. I highly recommend it, and although it doesn’t speak about the dilemma directly, the entire thing is about navigating compromise tactically in situations where everyone may be very correct, yet still have a hard time with each other.
This is why I don’t think the dilemma is comparable:
However, in real life this is rarely how people judge how to cast their votes. Generally, Democrat and Republican voters are afraid to break rank because if the voters of one party vote 3rd party, and the voters in another part stick to party lines, this means that voters who voted 3rd party will end up with the short end of the stick. This incentivizes voters to stick to party lines and vote for candidates who are “good enough” (which represents the worst option of the prisoners dilemma in which both of the prisoners confess), reaffirming the two party system and preventing the possibility of more viable 3rd parties which can represent the views of the people better. source
Taking a thought experiment and scaling it for millions of voters is a fool’s errand. We’re dealing with social dynamics and fluid variables. I can agree that on an individual basis, or a small group, it could be a helpful tool. But, with large numbers it ceases to be viable. It fails to account for irrational prisoners that both confess, leading to the worst outcomes.
i think we would learn a lot, as a society, if we got together and did a study on the IQ of the collective voter, not necessarily the average voter, but the collective one.
How smart are we as a voting base. I feel like there’s probably some useful knowledge there.
IQ is a flawed measurement, and its racial and cultural bias would skew the results of your study in one specific direction.
yeah no shit.
I mean, based on how often I see idiots on the internet trying to use it as the be all, end all measurements of a person’s worth, I thought it was worth mentioning.
this was mostly a funny comment remarking the collective intelligence of the voting populous being significantly outside of the expected range, which i think is a reasonable assumption, and worth studying, IQ is just a commonly accepted, albeit flawed way of measuring this perception in a simple manner.
I suppose you could provide some sort of ethical test or whatever, but that’s boring.
They were on the correct side of the value system, but could not bring themselves to agree to the tactical compromise.
Genuine question, why should I keep agreeing to a compromise that every time I look back has run farther and farther to the right and away from what my values are. You can say protest and advocate for change but when that happened they where shamed arrested and expelled. The railway union was forced into an unfavorable contract by the democrats. At what point is it that this compromise is less a compromise and more a pacification, and me lending my support to another right wing extention? Where is the red line? are individuals not allowed to have positions where if you support them they will not suport you? or even if you get enough of them?
The ratchet effect is real and people should abandon both parties.
That being said there was 0% chance someone besides a D or R would win the 2024 election, so D was the objectively correct choice for anyone who isn’t rich.
That being said the protest voters didn’t actually impact the election in a meaningful way, and the insane pushback against them now is part of a propaganda campaign to keep the poors fighting.
I like you. Welcome to Lemmy.
why should I keep agreeing to a compromise
*Motions broadly at everything* Is this not enough to look past your ideals in a rigged system?
Look, I get it and I share your values. But come the fuck on. You guys got had by the One Issue being pushed around while everyone else told you not to and now the US lost everything and there’s lasting damage and many more people will end up suffering and dying for many other reasons. 20/20 vision now says Harris was the right choice all along. It’s frustrating.
I mean it is not one issue, I have multiple issues, I had one issue that was the straw that broke the cammels back. I needed enough cleared up, or my none starter cleared up first.
Second if we have the same values, why did you compromise on them, and how are you able to sleep with them so compromised.
Third we had more than 2 choices, I would not say of the multiple people running Harris was the best, HECK Harris was not the best potential Dem nominee, she flat out ended her be neighborly and the GOP is wierd because her C-Suite brother in law asked her to stop. She had a good start, and she chose the right VP but threw it away to appease the rich.
I just don’t understand people railing at the non voters and the people who voted for Trump. It seems as backward as a rocket scientist raging at drag and wind breaking their rocket. “How dare the wind do this! Don’t they know this will progress humanity!?!”
It’s your job to build a rocket that can withstand the air at those speeds. The air is always a problem you have to deal with, and no, you can’t shame the air into doing what you want.
Genuinely the democratic campaign seemed more like they were pushing a trolley problem than a future. So why is everyone so shocked it failed?
You compare voting to the laws of physics. They’re not even remotely similar. Politics is choice.
A more apt comparison would be a little kid crying that he wants a chocolate ice cream, his mum says he should order that, then to be funny/petulant/assertive he orders strawberry - and gets mad at his mum when the server gives him strawberry. “It was your job to make me choose what I wanted!”, he wails.
Edit: my phone can’t spell ‘comparison’
Reminded me of when the Republicans overrode Obama’s veto of that one 9/11 bill, and then complained that it was his fault and he didn’t warn them hard enough.
Your comparison is worse.
The options weren’t chocolate and vanilla. They were getting kicked down a steep hill or kicked off a cliff, and you seem flabbergasted that some people chose to flip the bird instead of groveling and thanking the democrats for only kicking them down a steep hill.
Especially when in the next 4 years their options are gonna be slightly steeper hill or another cliff.
The options weren’t chocolate and vanilla. They were getting kicked down a steep hill or kicked off a cliff, and you seem flabbergasted that some people chose to flip the bird instead of groveling and thanking the democrats for only kicking them down a steep hill.
See, what you’re doing is pretending that there was a third option of walking away and flipping the bird, when in reality that was never a choice.
Bingo
Instead of choosing to die off the cliff, they should have chosen the steep hill and then climbed back up to kick ass for having been kicked down a hill.
Apparently they’d rather choose the obviously far inferior of two options (even in their own analogy) and then complain about how bad it is, because at least they didn’t have to grovel?
Pointless to engage further I think.
Yeah, I don’t think their analogy suggests what they think it suggests.
They tell us the two options right there, and then immediately say they chose a nonexistent third option of walking away… Very apt comparison, just not in the way that they think.
Bad analogy dude. The wind isn’t sentient. You cannot speak to the wind and convince it to change direction.
I think you’re getting your roles all mixed up with your analogy. The anger you reference is at fellow voters. It isn’t the average voter’s job to build a better rocket. And the wind is not alterable but voter decisions are. The anger is at the decision makers who chose the rocket that was less capable of dealing with the harsh wind or chose to not pick a rocket at all, knowing that would result in the lesser rocket being picked.
The air and the drag are entities without a brain.
excellent analogy.
airflow and friction can be manipulated and corrected. Trump knows this and has been doing it for 8 years.
sure, wind drag is an infuriating factor, i get pissed off at it sometimes, but it will never take the majority of the blame from me compared to the people forcing us all into the damn rocket.
Y’know what this thread has made me realize? All the dumb memes of “the left fighting the left” are bullshit. I can respectfully debate other people on the left with me. I can change their minds about some things, they can change my mind on some things, we can come to compromises. I don’t agree with the communist 100%, but I agree with them at least 70-80%, and would happily work alongside them to accomplish that 70-80%.
You know who loves infighting though? Centrists who have deluded themselves into thinking they are leftists. You can find comment after comment in this thread from right-leaning centrists, gleefully demanding that they were “right all along” and how everything is our fault for just not being as smart as them. There is no political group that loves infighting as much as them, even more than the fascists. They want to spend the next four years trying to find out all the ways they can assign blame to the left, instead of organizing and doing anything.
I can tell you as someone who lives in a deeply left state, in a very left city that there are absolutely unfathomable levels of infighting amongst the left. Almost my entire family and work are also very left.
I am basically surrounded by varying degrees of leftist people 24/7 and I have lost count of the times I have seen someone start to question the Ideological homogeneity of the left only to be “corrected” by several others around them. It’s almost cult like watching people stamp out individual thinking in real time.
Anyone who dares think about something even slightly differently is either yelled at to step back in line or they are immediately cast out from the group.
I have witnessed this first hand from several old leftist friends and I have talked to other moderate lefts who have seen the same behaviors over and over.
Hell even moderates on the right love watching you guys push out people who were on your side so they can welcome them in with open arms. Nobody converts questioning leftists into full blown right wingers quite like the left can.
The left only wants your vote if your vote is exactly the same as their vote.
The right doesn’t care how much you agree with them as long as you vote right.
Really funny after you remember the horrible phrase “vote blue no matter who” that the left loved to chant.
I swear y’all are your own worst enemies sometimes.
I wrote the comment below on a thread that got locked while I was writing. TL;DR: Any bonehead who thinks that every single voter is politically-engaged and fully-informed, and that 6 MILLION of them all made a rational, reasoned decision to sit out the election is dumber than they look.
Oh, well, 18 months, what a slog! /s
Look, I’ve spent close to 30 years now detailing that this fucking insane “lesser evil” slide-to-the-right thing that Democrats were doing was going to end in evil. (That is, fascism.) Either the Democrats themselves would become what we feared, or the greater evil would happen to win.
Guess what? I was fucking wrong. I admit it now. I didn’t guess that BOTH would happen simultaneously. It was bad enough more than 20 years ago when my Senator was the only vote against the PATRIOT ACT. It got worse when Obama decided to abolish due process and the rule of law. But by 2024, Democrats were straight up aiding and abetting the biggest war crime of all. Jesus jumpin’ Christ on a pogo stick, how did we get to a place where that is the lesser evil?
Y’all couldn’t vote for Nader in 1996, because “he can’t win.” Well, guess what, bucko, we had to change course somehow. He, or a spiritual successor, had to win, or we’d get… well, look around. It was clear even back then. We had to at least try something different, other than the lesser evil every time.
As they say, the best time to change was then, and the second-best time is now. But, no, Kamala Harris couldn’t change her mind on genocide to win. No, sir! We have standards of evil to maintain, you see. Meanwhile, the billionaires weren’t going away. The wealth inequality wasn’t shrinking. Late-stage capitalism wasn’t on track to make the serfs’ lives better. The climate crisis would still loom. Charismatic fools like Rogan et al. are still young. So the choice in 2024 was fascism now, or fascism later. 2032, most likely, when the partisan pendulum would predictably swing the other way. 2028, possibly.
Is it any wonder that many voters felt overwhelmed, hopeless, defeated, and declined to participate, through the fabulous power of denial? Politics is depressing, the system is big, my vote is inconsequential… Y’know, denial, that power that we’ve all honed through a lifetime of practice—knowing the horrors of industrial meat production and still ordering a burger, knowing the role of CO2 in the climate disaster while waiting in the car at the drive-thru window for it, knowing the causes of cardiovascular disease and still eating it?
Knowing that someday, eventually, we have to fix our political system now that radicals have found its cheat codes, but still browbeating those disengaged voters that they are the ones responsible for this calamity. Yeah. Denial.
The same denial as 30 years ago. This election has been a long time coming. A year and a half? Get outta here.
Truth
Democrats then: “We’ll win without appealing to Arabs in Michigan or anyone who demands we stop funding Israel. Shut them out of the DNC and scold them at every turn. Who cares how they react or that they’re forming PACs like ‘Arabs for Trump.’ We don’t need their votes.”
Democrats now: “We lost because you STUPID Palestine-lovers wouldn’t vote for us. Your country needed your votes, Gaza needed your votes. It’s actually your fault that we didn’t bother appealing to you.”
So basically, still in denial about how Trump and Netanyahu are going to absolutely wipe out Gaza from history now while gaslighting’ing as hard as r/conservative. The overlap with the way Trump voters handle politics is astounding.
What does any of that have to do with what I said? I’m talking about the strategic decision the Democrats made to not make concessions to the people inflamed by the genocide in Gaza. In no way did I deny that Trump is far worse than Kamala/Biden. Pointing out that Kamala/Biden made a conscious decision to not move left on this issue isn’t gaslighting, not that you’re even using the term correctly
Americans had one vote, and you guys continue to gaslight what it effectively was, for Trump or against Trump. What it wasn’t was an opportunity to change the system by making a political statement, and now all anyone who has fallen for this rhetoric has done is cemented where it’s heading to now. To change it you would have had to work outside the system. Now, even attempting to do so is far more likely to get you locked up. Congrats.
you guys continue to gaslight what it effectively was
You keep using that word but I’m not sure you know what means.
What it wasn’t was an opportunity to change the system by making a political statement
I’m not even advocating for people to vote third party or boycott the election. I’m just making the argument that if a political party wants a group of people’s votes, they should court those people. If they fail to do so, and those people choose not to vote for them, the political party only has itself to blame
Don’t worry, the US looks like US voters won’t have to worry about being able to have any effective choice for much longer.
You are over reacting.
No amount of exposure to news will convince people like you of your narrative. But how does your mental lapse even work? First, you gaslight about Democrats, then you claim to be aware of what the GQP is going to do, and now after demonizing or recognizing as bad any of the two choices you have you now try to argue that you have a choice? Consistency is not your forté.
