You forgot the swastika and the pedobear under Trump.
post

Ok it's paraphrased but like yeah I really felt like she had our backs in this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbVPee2UdJk
the US system is broken, this is what happens when there is only two choices 🥲
Sadly, similar stuff does happen even when you have more parties.
In my opinion, what's happening here is that the policies of the parties do not align with the opinions of the public. If you care about not doing a genocide, there wasn't a candidate to vote for last cycle. If you care about universal health care, there wasn't a candidate to vote for. And so on.
And you can measure this. Research has been carried out into the congruence between policy and public opinion in the US. For example, in the paper Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, it was found that the impact the average American (as a group) has on policy is miniscule compared to the influence of economic elites. You and I don't benefit from invading Iran, but the owning class sure does, so that's what we do. All this is independent of who's in charge.
And so now you might rightly theorize that since there are only two parties, the democrats can fully cater to billionaires, as long as they're less bad than the republicans. And as time goes on they move further and further right, since they really don't have to care about voters, because the only other party consists of actual demons, and people will vote for them anyway.
However, you see this effect (the wealthy having a disproportionate amount of influence on policy) in pluralistic systems as well. Norway has about 9 major political parties, yet the study Affluence and Influence in a Social Democracy finds that here too, the rich have an outsized influence. Similar studies exist for other western European countries, most of which (if not all) have more than two major parties.
So I don't think the root of the problem is the two party system (although I'm sure it doesn't help).
The system is not broken. It's functioning exactly as intended.
So you have an average normal politician running against literally Hitler. And people vote for literally Hitler.
And you don't think the problem is the people voting for literally Hitler?
Don't get me wrong, the US voting system is also bad. But that is really, really not the main problem here...
IMO the bigger problem is that the "average normal politician" managed to be so bad that voters didn't feel motivated to vote against Hitler.
This should have been a slam dunk - and there were literally a number of easy ways to motivate voters, like promising to stop the ongoing genocide the country is funding. But when given the choice between "letting Hitler win" and "stopping the genocide", Harris and the entire DNC leadership chose to let Hitler win.
Isn't that deeply fucked up?
It was a slam dunk. I still know trump supporters who think everything negative said about him is a lie. Why did this never happen in human history before (an unrelenting smear campaign running for over a decade against an innocent man)? Meh I dunno something about woke.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Harris's win obviously wasn't a slam dunk, she lost.
yeah but she COULD have won retroactively if we browbeat people who already vote blue for the next ten years about it
I meant she was the obvious choice to anyone with >3 working neurons.
She was! But since a rather large portion of the US public seems to have 0-3 neurons, it's not enough to be the obvious choice for everyone else.
Harris and her campaign knew this. They had polls clearly showing that she's so bad at motivating voters that she'll likely lose.
your whole comment is provably false. claming the attack on the 7. was a genocide is laughably false.
do not forget that Israel has made gaza a concentration camp long before that time.
claming the attack on the 7. was a genocide is laughably false.
I linked a source (Well, a wiki article which itself link sources). You spew bullshit.
you linked the wikipedia article. it's allegations. if you had read it you would first notice that the allegations are about "intent" and genocide. As the power imbalance is laughably.
The empire long called the rebellion murderes with genocidal intent. When the rebellion hit what they could, the empire killed their own to avoid hostages. The empire then told all that the rebels had murdered babies and made up other lies to make the rebels look bad.
it’s allegations.
So are the current allegations against Israel, right?
To be more than allegations, there would have to be a ICC judgement in either case, I think?
As the power imbalance is laughably.
Just because you are laughably weak, it does not mean you can't do evil.
lol. if its a genocide then US has done one just now when bombing a school
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Palestine?wprov=sfla1
"uhm palestinians can do gencide too, i promise they are evil tooo" lol. imagine being a shill for evil nazi empire 🤷
Do you even know what a logical argument is?
logic is a feeling, and is just as good a basis for argumentation as anger is.
also. I support hamas. I would have been worse than them if I had to grow up in concentration camp gaza and see the world do nothing. seeing the zionists kill our children, steal our water, demolish homes and wells and kill crops.
also. I support hamas.
Ah, you are OK with terrorism. This is my total lack of surprise.
and you just sit on the sidelines saying "uhm actsjually both sides bad"
Terrorist is just the other side of rebellion.
“uhm actsjually both sides bad”
I did actually say that Israel's initial invasion of Gaza was legally and morally justified...
I don't feel like I am just saying "both sides bad". I point out specific actions to be good or bad.
right. but you are ignoring the entire history that came before oktober 7. the decades of injustice, occupation, murders and so forth.
what else can the palestinian people do other than fight back?
edit: to add and clarify.
if 7. oktober justifies Israel going into gaza and doing all their shit there - then the earlier history between israel and palestine would justify attacks against israel.
ah. right forgot you beilive zionist lies.
The oslo accords were breached by Israel. they have not kept to a single agreement ever reached. The goal of hamas is no israeli state, but a palestinian state, in which jews can live as well.
but lol you keep saying "but hamas bad too, and cant solve it" as if hamas started this.
Israel created hamas. it would not have existed without them. Empire creates so-called "terrorists"
you are OK with terrorism. This is my total lack of surprise.
And you're obviously ok with genocide, apartheid, and settler-colonialism. In comparison to that, "terrorism" isn't that bad. Especially when it's only "terrorism" when the victims fight back.
Thought terminating cliche, nothing unexpected from this user.
"I can excuse genocide but I draw the line at scary terrorism*"
*Terrorism is when brown people fight back
A wiki page listing people who have called it a genocide doesn't exactly prove that it was one, and regardless the israelis have long been oppressing the people in gaza, including illegally capturing land by force for many years, so them striking back would be less a genocide and more an act of war, a warcrime in this instance as they largely attacked civillians, but so does israel which is why both the leader of hamas and israel are wanted war criminals
It's like saying the slave revolts in ancient rome were genocides because the slaves were attacking romans, who else were they supposed to attack? And could you really blame them for striking back at their oppressors?
Ideally it would have been resolved peacefully but the international community turned a blind eye to what was happening, and israel sure as hell wasn't about to stop out of the kindness of their heart
“Gaza did a genocide in Israel” is actually fucking insane.
If you had this system in Europe you would not like the results. Best outcome: 200 years of middle of the road conservative shit Christian party
Average normal politicians don’t give Hitler weapons to commit genocide.
What do you mean? Hitler committed genocide, so Hitler was given the weapons. And Hitler was given the authority for those weapons through a democratic process, by way of average normal politicians (Paul von Hindenburg, specifically).
Considering how land has more political power than people in the US, the voting system is still a major issue.
If we had the National Popular Vote for US elections, then more people living in deep blue states would have more reason to show up to vote when their candidate already is going to win by well over double digit points in their state.
When low population states are overrepresented in Senate and Presidential elections, then we can end up in a ruled by the minority situation.
Yeah, I agree. If this can ever happen all you can really say is that us culture is cancer.
Yes but more importantly this is what happens when people are so ignorant and uneducated that someone like Trump makes it past a humiliating response to a social media post about him considering a run for president. Then he is a horrible president, killing thousands of citizens through negligence, commits an insurrection, and voters are like "I dunno he's not that bad. He's male at least"
More importantly, he should have been charged for all the crimes he did in his first term. Shouldn't have even been able to run from his prison cell, or at least not between all the court cases he'd need to be worrying about.
SCOTUS ruled that the POTUS cant be charged with literal crimes while in office, so...yeah.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that happened after Trump was reelected, meaning there were four whole years of Biden as president where he was never prosecuted.
Because he didn't lose the 2020 election remember, Biden stole it. So therefore he never left office and was covered.
/s
Truthfully, I'm not sure why it seemed to be retroactively applied to his first term. Reality is probably because its all fucking corrupt so of course it did.
Brother she ain't running no more. What are you fucking talking about?
Isn't she considering running next elections?
I mean I seriously doubt it, but maybe if she wants to try to grift some more money she will. She certainly wouldn't be the first. However she has no chance in hell of winning a primary much less an election. So I doubt it'll be a serious, or seriously funded, campaign
People not voting for her is why we're where we are today.
Kamala losing is like part 250 of a 250 part shitshow that started with Reagan and that is why we're here. You're just conscious enough to be around for this latest bit and aren't taught the previous ones in school, makes ya think?
Genocide is non negotiable. If you think it is, I hope you're prepared to defend your property when the fascists comes to take it for themselves like they're doing in the West Bank.
Or maybe the fact that killing innocent children in Gaza was more important to her than winning the election is why we're here today.
Every single candidate who could have won was pro-Israel. That's the default position of the US government regardless of which party's in power. It's NOT the default position to randomly genocide, say, Iran, though. It is BS that you have to vote for more genocide support or less genocide support? Yes. But voting for more genocide support or not voting at all so the ones that support more genocide win worked out really well, huh?
If Israel wants it, then it is the default position. If you don't think Harris would have bombed Iran, then I have a bridge to sell you
So you're saying the default position was to lose the election. She made the conscious decision to not want to win. All I'm hearing. There's a pathway to win she chose to do the opposite.
You realize that presidential candidates also have to take international relations into account, right?
So breaking from Israel to win an election may not play out great with Israel after being elected. That goes for any of our allies.
But hey, we got a felon rapist pedophile that lets Israel tell him to do whatever they want him to do. So I guess that worked out for us, right?
Nah. We're here because braindead Americans can't accept that they aren't going to get a perfect candidate and are willing to burn their nation to the ground in retaliation for that.
Adults make the right decision, even if it isn't perfect. Adults don't need a candidate to be perfect in order to do what's right for their nation and themselves.
Perfect is really doing some heavy lifting. Sure shes better. I would have voted for her if i was an US-American. But shes still garbage. She kind of is controlled opposition. Making us look away from what would be actually good vs whats better than the worst option. It serves to legitimize their position in fear of the alternative. Thats not democracy. I am not saying that you should not vote, endorse or even accept the shitstain we get in the USA that is represented by Trump but running to the Democrats as the goal or seeing voting as the primary political action is a big blunder in my eyes. (again do vote).
You simpletons keep confusing "perfect" with "the bare fucking minimum"
If only Harris had been an adult and made the right decision to try to win the election instead of sacrificing it because killing brown people was more important to her.
You make it sound like democracy was a mistake
lololol you think this is democracy? Its not. The vast majority of both parties dont support the actions of the elected representitives. The US runs on bribes and rich people's wishes and has for a long time. Theres a reason law enforcement dont prosecute the rich, even when they are caught raping kids on an industrial scale.
What an utterly simplistic and reactionary statement.
Damn didn’t know people standing up to genocide are the reason we are still letting Israel genocide people. TIL.
The people who "stood up" to genocide allowed the ones who genocide MORE into power. Good job!
The people who “stood up” to genocide allowed the ones who genocide MORE into power.
Is there any point at which you think we should draw the line in supporting our own party, even if the other party is still worse?
Yes, but by that point both would be so ridiculously evil that there's nothing left to do but burn the whole thing down.
Oh so you can never hold anybody to a higher standard since there’s always someone worse out there. Interesting. Must be miserable always settling in life.
You can indeed! But voting in the horribly broken US system is about harm reduction.
Alright well, enjoy voting for Gavin Newsom I guess. Crazy the election is 2 years away and we are already talking about “harm reduction”. Hope the DNC paycheck is worth it.
Just like Biden, voting in Harris would have been harm reduction in the short term, and harm multiplication in the long term. She would have continued to do nothing to address the treason that Republicans committed, and she would have done nothing to mitigate the terror that the next Republican president would bring. The only way voting for conservative Democrats is harm reduction is if no Republican ever wins an election again, and Republicans are going to win some elections.
The biggest difference if Harris had won is that Republicans would win in 2028, and they would have a competent fascist in the Oval Office. We need democrats who will fight Republicans, not just delay them.
Oh so you can never hold anybody to a higher standard
Literally no one said that. You're saying that to try to make your point stand, which it doesn't.
there’s always someone worse out there
Sure is. Now they're in power and things really aren't going well.
Must be miserable always settling in life.
It's called being an adult. A big part of being an adult is damage control. Welcome to reality, it's far from perfect and sometimes you have to choose the path of least destruction.
Shame too many people are willfully ignorant to the blood on their hands.
So if this is why the Democrat candidate failed then the next candidate they put up won't support Israel since the Democrats will learn from their mistakes? I would like that, but I don't think it will happen. I think the new candidate will be the same as the old candidate and the Dem's will have learned nothing. Pro-business, pro-Israel, soft on regulations, soft on Republican lawbreaking, and corrupt as hell.
Yes, yes - everyone knows Trump is worse. Please fix your corrupt and insane political system
How many times do I have to say it? The party lines are drawn in such a way to distract you from the actual cancer of late stage capitalism. Yeah yeah, "vote blue no matter who". How about "educate your neighbors no matter who" to get some actual fucking change instead if this ridiculous in-fighting?
You act like there's a way to get a republican to not vote republican. Hell, I don't even know if there's a way to get most democrats to not vote democrat. People don't like having to think about a choice they already made. They've got their favorite political sports team, and they'll wear those colors until they die.
Even my father in law, who is one of the most politically left people I know in real life, and has a degree in political science, thinks that anything more left than Obama is too far left. I've been trying to get him to admit that Bernie would be a better president than Obama for over 8 years now. If I can't even change his mind, what chance to I have to change the minds of people who honestly think Trump is a viable choice?
Instead of responding with something I'm sure you've heard before, consider this. You're right, most people view politics as a group activity. They get a sense of community from participation. A lot of the times, their viewpoints aren't as set in stone as you might think, and that goes in both political directions. Now forming these communities, thats the hard part.
Well, yes, if third party was already a large enough community to even come close to rivaling the 2 established parties, people would be more likely to view it as an acceptable alternative, but that's putting the cart before the horse - it requires success to have already been achieved in order to start seeing success. We would need to find a way to get people to convert without having an established community, because that's how we would start building a community.
Sure, we've got over a million people who vote 3rd party in presidential elections, but that's a tiny number when you're spreading that group out across the entire US. I'm literally the only person I know in real life who thinks the Democratic party isn't acceptably politically left, and I know a good amount of people - there simply isn't a community for 3rd party in my social circle, and I'm in a blue state.
I'm tired of the whole "if a bunch of people suddenly start caring, we'll change the world!" I just don't believe that such a scenario will ever happen. People don't just start caring out of the blue; we need to find a way of forcing real, observable change with only the numbers we already have right now. People will start to join in once that happens, but I just don't have a clue how that can be done, or if it's even possible.
And so, to avoid this from happening again, next time the Democrats are going to propose a candidate that doesn't have that weak spot, right? RIGHT?
top 99 comments