1279
Punish the Democrats, she says (discuss.online)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world
833 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 135 points 7 months ago (142 children)

Even knowing that Trump was going to actively help Bibi? That's the thing I didn't understand: sure, the Democrats were not doing much to stop the slaughter, but from the previous Trump administration we knew Trump was going to actively help.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 142 child comments
    •
  • [–] 100 points 7 months ago (72 children)

    Ok, but you see how massively demoralizing this conversation is, right?

    Making logical points weighing up two distinct yet similar stances on genocide is only going to suppress voter turnout.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 72 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 7 months ago

    What is more the "Democrat are bad because Palestine" was the opposition's framing. The argumeny was pretty unanimous that the policy on Palestine was going to cost the Democrats the election. The Democrats were bad because they knew full well they were going to choose to lose over changing that policy.

    And that's just tunnel visioning at only the Israeli policy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 74 points 7 months ago* (48 children)

    It shouldn't. It's basic harm reduction.

    One side probably won't stop it, but they're on our side so there's a sliver of a cintilla of a chance we could pressure them into it.

    The other side absolutely would not, vocally stated he would help accelerate it, and would laugh in our faces and do even more to accelerate it for no other reason than it made us mad.

    The choice should have been obvious, even if I and everyone else would have preferred better options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    We don't live in a world of "should", in the real world of course it is demoralizing and affects the vote turnout.

    We all know the US government will back Israel no matter what... and the voters can only punish the incumbent party for doing so.

    65% of Democrats don't want to finance Israel. Two thirds of their own party, that's massive!

    Voter turnout will continue to fall; D and R parties will continue to lose voters (now down to 30% registered voters each) and the Independents will continue to grow (now up to 40% of voters).

    Why? Because our major parties ignore what their constituents actually want, and we can only punish one party every term.

    It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
    load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 24 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    The very fact that the Trolley Problem exists as a thought experiment and there is still active discourse over the correct solution should tell you why people didn't all feel that they had a responsibility to vote for harm reduction. You can't expect an election that resembles a famously divisive philosophical thought experiment to turn out with everyone arriving at the same conclusion, and it's pointless to dwell on the fact that everyone didn't fall in line with what you think is obvious rather than adjusting to the reality and acting accordingly. That means getting candidates elected in primaries that aren't going to put us in the same trolley problem come time for the general.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    That means getting candidates elected in primaries that aren’t going to put us in the same trolley problem

    You can also put pressure on candidates mid-campaign to change posture.

    I can tell you this, the Venn Diagram of the people itt blaming voters for the Democrats supporting a genocide in 2024, and the people who didn't want Biden to step down is basically a perfect circle. Its also the same circle which shielded Harris from any critiques on her support for genocide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Really wed be at war with iran? Wed be blowing up random boats and killing people in the caribean? We would have snatched up other country leaders?

    Israel would be, and therefore, we would be too. Yes.

    We would have completely desgrpyed world trade by tarrifing every other country on the planet?

    You'll recall that Biden actually kept many of the Donald tariffs, so yes, it's likely we'd be okay with disrupting trade to some extent.

    We wpuld have all but destroyed the NATO aliance by starting said iran war and also threatening to violently invade greenland and canada?

    Not Canada or Greenland specifically, but considering Obama was at war in 7 countries when he left office (that we're able to confirm, at least. Could be many more.), and Biden was bombing several countries as well as aiding and abetting genocide and a manufactured famine in Palestine, it's hard to argue that we wouldn't be doing stupid shit militarily regardless. That's especially true given the bloodlust of Israel and the Democrats' insistence that we continue to hand them WMD's on demand.

    Do you need a prescription for this severoty of blindness

    Thank you for the suggestion. You need to stop pretending that the Democrats are meaningfully different from Republicans, especially considering the Democrats also ran a candidate with publicly-evident brain damage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 58 points 7 months ago (22 children)

    See people aren't exclusively machines.

    I know people who felt that both sides at least tacitly supporting the genocide was so depressing that for their mental health they basically checked out of politics.

    No, that response isn't helpful, but it's a very real thing that happens to real people. They needed a candidate that cared that people's lives were ending across the sea, and neither side offered that.

    That hurt Kamala's chances in a very real way, and might even be the deciding factor for Trump's second term.

    While you and I can look at this and go "Wow, that's not logical, she's way better than Trump", the Democratic campaign should have had political scientists and psychologists that knew about this well-documented phenomenon. I imagine they did, and ignored it, because siding against Israel would've cost money.

    So while it's true that the choice was still objectively obvious, it's also completely true that the Democratic campaign absolutely mishandled it, because this isn't some new phenomenon, and group human psychology isn't unpredictable. It's also not the fault of those who didn't vote because of that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    While you and I can look at this and go “Wow, that’s not logical, she’s way better than Trump”, the Democratic campaign should have had political scientists and psychologists that knew about this well-documented phenomenon. I imagine they did, and ignored it, because siding against Israel would’ve cost money.

    D and R parties both need independent voters to win any election. For example, even if every D voted for a D, they would lose without independents voting for them in significant numbers. This has been a political fact for many years.

    So... why did the Harris campaign target REPUBLICAN voters (instead of Ds and independents)? They wasted a lot of vital time on that ("He doesn't need to know who you voted for" etc), and they knew that they would lose if they did so.

    She knew it too, Harris isn't stupid. She took a knee.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I'm not fully convinced the conspiracy is that deep, but also if hard evidence came out saying so, I wouldn't be surprised.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    I’m not fully convinced the conspiracy is that deep, but also if hard evidence came out saying so, I wouldn’t be surprised.

    You don't have to believe my word, but answer this question. You are a Democratic veteran. You KNOW for a FACT that you need Democratic and Independent voters to win. Simple mathematics demands that you do so to win.

    Why, oh why, would you pursue the Republican vote? They've never done this before in a Presidential election. It can't work. It's never worked before, anyway.

    This was discussed openly during the campaign, tons of Republican outreach and advertising with the Harris run... why?

    I cannot think of any other reason, I would actually feel a lot better if there was a logical reason, somebody help my troubled mind

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    load more comments (3 replies)
    • load more comments (14 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It shouldn’t.

    Perhaps. But that's not the world we live in. Demanding an electorate to suddenly change in a way it never has and start behaving like Homo economicus is only going to lead to further loses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    Honestly, people behaving like Homo economicus is how you get MAGA.

    Think about it. Isn't Trump's pitch to voters ultimately an argument in rational self-interest? It's all "I'll make an in group and an out group. You'll be in the in group. I'll pull up the in group while pushing down the out group."

    Racism and sexism are rational. Or at least they are rational from those that benefit from them. Think about a white male living in the Jim Crows South. Your life was made soooo much easier by racism and sexism. There were whole career fields where they were the only quarter of the population that were eligible for them. They were automatically in the top quarter of society, simply by their race and sex.

    Anti-immigrant zealotry is rational. If you're a native-born US citizen working in the construction industry? Every legal or illegal immigrant being deported would cause your standard of living to soar. Economists would tell you that on net it will harm the economy. But if suddenly the pool of construction workers is cut in half, any US citizen who knows how to swing a hammer is now rolling in dough. That's the rational terror of fascism - every time another group in the "first they came for" poem is liquidated, someone ends up with their property, their jobs, their place in the social order, etc.

    You NEED to have a respect for persons built into your ethical framework, or else you can end up justifying evils of all sorts, all in the name of the greater good. Hell, Dr. Mengele slept well every night, content in the knowledge that he was doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    If every election is a decision between the lesser of two evils and both evils become more evil over time then harm isn't actually reduced in the long run. This is why harm reduction is a failing long term electoral strategy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    No the only ones who accomplished their hoals were those trying to get americans to think that the above candidate was the same as harris.

    She was the same as Biden. She said she was gonna govern like Biden, and no one was happy with biden except centrists. Centrists loved how he broke every last one of the promises he made to the left in 2020. You loved it even more when he broke the law to sell weapons for genocide.

    Progressives were swindled and then told that no change for the better would be coming for at least 8 years, under a candidate that was appointed without a primary by the guy who lied to us and supported genocide.

    Maybe bring more cheneys next time. Maybe treat more constituents with contempt. Maybe if you look enough like temu fascism, you'll pick up those imaginary moderate republicans you use as a justification for moving so far to the right that genocide support wasn't negotiable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    the floating pier from day one was to have israeli guards at the end of it. It was a pretend situation where Israel could have instead just opened one gate into gaza instead for the exact same effect. Its a transparent and idiotic PR game and always was, and evidently you fell for it. Or you're pushing the same braindead propoganda narrative with a straight face. How was the pier any different than a gate on land?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Your shitty system will always produce fascism as long as you don't hold the slightly less fascist party accountable. Last election the dems threw immigrants and palestinians under the bus in the name of 'appeasing the center' next election it will be trans people that will lose all political support and some time afterwards the dems will fold on womens rights in their stupid attempt to become the republicans lite edition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Ironically, I use Blue MAGA to refer to people like those Grads.

    Then you are using it wrong.

    BlueMAGA is abwd/ Biden & Harris toe suckers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You are just using the word wrong. It's pretty well established what blueMAGA is, and the words been in use in that form for almost 12 years.

    You pretending it means the other half of the Democratic party doesn't make it mean that.

    And if being opposed to a genocide is too much of a purity test for you, leave the party. Go be a fascist. We can't win elections with you here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Again YOUR ignorance has no inherent meaning. You deciding waffles means pancakes does make it so.

    You are actually blueMAGA, and the terms been around since at 2015. Go do any amount of research into the term instead of... Whatever this flame out of yours is.

    And I can tell right now you are a blueMaggot. It's all over your sentiment.

    So hop into the googler, type in blue Maga into know your meme, and begin learning about yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Flail and cry you fucking want, but the term blueMAGA was made to describe you, specifically.

    And the world doesn't blame people for whom a genocide was a bridge to far in 2024. They blame Democrats who couldn't do the right thing and they blame apologists like you who gave Democrats the runway to keep being a party of genocide.

    You are why 2024 went to the fascists and everyone knows it, except needle brain blue maggots.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yes. Because what so many folks can't seem to get is that different people are different. And they have different ethics.

    This is literally the entire point of the trolley problem. Yes, you can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "always pull the lever for the track with fewer people on it." But that's just not how ethics works. Utilitarian ethics is one way to live life, but utilitarians have this incredibly annoying habit of assuming that theirs is the only valid ethical system, and that you're a complete moron if you follow any other school of thought.

    You're demonstrating a utilitarian sense of ethics. One who follows a respect-for-persons belief system would say that the ends don't justify the means. That it's not fine to pull the trolley lever, even if that would result in a net saving of lives. That it's fine to vote to hold people accountable, even if that will objectively result in net material harm. It's not always about the greatest good for the greatest number. Otherwise, for example, we would never put any research dollars into studying cures for rare diseases. Those dollars could always objectively do more good elsewhere.

    Hell, even our criminal laws don't follow a utilitarian sense of ethics. You can't legally get out of consequences from killing someone by saying, "this on net saved lives." Even if you can objectively prove it, you're not legally allowed to kill people. It doesn't matter if your murder on net saves lives, you're still a murderer. If a gang kidnaps your two children and tells you, "you must go kill this other one person if you want them to live." If you do that, if you go and kill that stranger to save your own kids? You will be charged and convicted of murder. You're not allowed to kill one innocent person to save two innocent people.

    Many people voted against or refused to vote for Kamala because they were trying to punish her and the Democratic Party. Voting is the only way we have of holding politicians and parties accountable. Millions of voters saw the horrific haughtiness and barbarity of how the Democrats acted around Gaza, and they wanted to punish them for it. It was about holding them accountable. It was about justice. Many voted against Kamala to punish her for supporting genocide. And if the likely thing came to pass, if Trump supported genocide as well? Well those voters would vote against him for the same reason. They vote to hold people accountable for past actions, not to speculate on future ones. Maybe not how you vote, but again, people are different and can use whatever ethical system they want in choosing their vote.

    Again, you can argue greatest good for greatest number, but that isn't the only system of ethics out there, and it's not even the system that defines the foundation of our legal codes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    You’re demonstrating a utilitarian sense of ethics.

    And even more specifically, act utilitarian ethics. This incredibly narrow focus on the immediate effects of actions on the individual level which they treat as the only possible way of looking at things with absolutely zero examination.

    I'd describe myself as a rule utilitarian, and from that perspective, the rule of "Don't support genocide, period" has a much stronger track record historically than, "Don't support genocide, unless you have a really good reason."

    There is not one single time in all of human history that a stubborn refusal to support genocide has produced undesirable results. There are countless cases of people committing genocide because they see it as a "lesser evil" or "the only viable option." "If we don't kill them, they'll kill us, so we have no choice, this is the lesser evil." But not only are liberals utterly ignorant about moral philosophy, they're also ignorant about history, or they refuse to learn from it.

    Modern American liberals are the ideological inheritors of the people who took the more "progressive" approach to indigenous people of subjugating and forcibly assimilating them, killing any who resisted, as opposed to the people who simply wanted to exterminate them all (who now live on through republicans). It's no wonder that they struggle to understand any perspective more progressive than "humane" genocide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (46 children)

    Yeah buddy I wasn't saying not actively working against it was helping it. I meant literally helping it. That Administration was actively arming the Israelis and aiding in the genocide. Super weird that you didn't know that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (23 children)

    Its illegal to send weapons or money to a country that is committing genocide. Biden could have simply said he cannot legally support Israel in any way and then just not. Instead Biden chose to lie for Israel aboiut 40 beheaded babies and provide unlimited diplomatic support, going so far as to bomb Yemen for resisting.

    Democratic leadership knew this would decrease turnout, they prioritized unlimited support for Israel over winning the election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    Here's a list of domestic laws that were violated, to say nothing of international law:

    The Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids the provision of assistance to a government which “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

    Arms Export Control Act, which says countries that receive U.S. military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security. Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza goes way beyond self-defense and internal security.

    The U.S. War Crimes Act, which forbids grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and unlawful deportation or transfer, perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces.

    The Leahy Law, which prohibits the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.

    The Genocide Convention Implementation Act, which was enacted to implement U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention, provides for criminal penalties for individuals who commit or incite others to commit genocide

    https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/us-weapons-to-israel

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (18 children)

    Do you understand that a lot of politics is theater? You have to watch what people actually do, not what they pretend.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago*

    Because Biden's base was less pro-genocide, so no matter what Biden himself did, strategically the republicans would always be a safer bet.

    There was no level of support the dems could offer that would have caused Netanyahu to support them over the republicans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (18 children)

    Pretty trivially easy question. Biden could have done a lot of things -- vetoed funding and stopped running interference for Israel in the UN. And he could have called it a genocide and illegal on the world stage. Biden refused to call it a genocide. He could have called for an international force to stop the killing. He also flew recon missions for the Israelis with US drones over Gaza didnt he.

    And "starting a war"? with who, Israel? Are you stupid? That war would last 5 minutes. Biden took massive amounts of money from AIPAC his entire career, and called himself a zionist all the time. Your pretending he had no choice and was simply a victim of circumstance is pure lies. He was massively bribed. A corrupt peice of shit genocide supporter. He would absolutely lose his case and be imprisoned if the US had done the right thing and signed onto the ICC. He belongs in an orange jumpsuit, sharing a cell with trump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (15 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Even knowing that Trump was going to actively help Bibi?

    The US was doing it anyway before Trump2.0

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    Imagine having to, because the most self-righteous, selfish people that possibly exist, opted to take “absolutr worst” over “bad”… and are still justifying it.

    I voted for harris.

    You think genocide is as wholesome as lemonade.

    A big part of maturity, perhaps all of it, is recognizing that sometimes, you do need to degrade yourselves for others.

    You've never had to. You got your refreshing cold glass of country time genocide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I see you're determined to not give Joe Biden credit for his record.

    And that's okay. It's much easier to ignore his support for genocide than to acknowledge you voted for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, Trump at this time did say that he was going to put American boots on the ground in Gaza and pave it over to put up a luxury beach resort, so I wouldn't say that they're literally the same on this, but it's a measure between actively supporting genocide and actively supporting and taking part in said genocide through direct military action.

    Both parties love Israeli money, one just also happens to be run by a man who would love to wipe non-white ethnicities off the planet and build more towers to his inflated ego where they once lived.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (7 replies)