this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
365 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39165 readers
2065 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich endorsed President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, stating it’s “time” to extend full Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.

This comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted his alignment with Trump on the “Iranian threat.”

Tensions in Gaza and Lebanon have escalated following recent Israeli airstrikes, with regional leaders gathering in Riyadh to address Israeli actions.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog is set to meet President Biden, though Biden’s influence on Israel may be limited following Trump’s win.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Over 50% of the god damn country voted for a man who has so many major, should-be career ending flaws we don't even need to list them anymore. If he kicked a puppy it wouldn't even make the top 10 worst things he's done. The democrats lost to the stupidest president of all time, a man who's entire economic policy revolves around tariffs that he fundamentally doesn't even understand and who cannot seem to open his mouth without lying.

....and you're here dunking on the people trying to oppose America's blatant complicity in genocide. Well, you sure showed them.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 16 points 2 weeks ago

Tbf the 50% that voted for trump aren't here, plain and simple, so that's why you don't see engagement with them.

The only political engagement you'll see here on Lemmy shifts overwhelmingly left for all parties, so you'll see mostly squabbling between various left factions.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

while youre busy opposing genocide, you got someone significantly worse elected instead. Well done.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Why do so many "moderates" insist on acting like the politically engaged people they run into online are the same people who are were so politically disengaged this year that they just didn't vote?

Like, could you please explain the thinking that someone wouldn't vote and then keep spending free time talking about it?

It's not just you, and you're not the first one I asked.

But everyone else just down votes me for asking and never respond.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Well here's a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.

I'm not going into the thinking behind it, but it's certainly happening.

Being politically "engaged" on Lemmy doesn't mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I've seen plenty of folks with a "democrats have to earn my vote" sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Did you link the wrong comment?

What you linked is just someone saying they can understand why someone who thinks both party's won't help, won't be likely to vote.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

someone who thinks both party's won't help

I don't read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won't change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn't vote.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So, the issue is you're not understanding what people are saying....

You're thinking they said something they didn't and you're getting upset about nothing.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Can you point out where they say "if wage earners think both parties won't help"?

If not, then you're the one selectively interpreting this...

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?

To avoid confusion because it seems likely:

If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point

A more indepth response:

What you linked:

Weird. A bug in the app switched up my replies.

What I intended to say was:

I can understand. If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

And when you point this out to other people, all you get in response are excuses.

They're explicitly saying that the people whom didn't vote, didn't vote because both parties are too similar and won't help. They're saying those people need more than "not trump" to vote D.

I'm struggling to see where your confusion is coming from.

If this still doesn't make sense, can you try asking for clarification in greater detail?

It just seems so obvious to me.

And this isn't a new conversation, we've been having it since 2016, it's been 8 years man... Hell, really 12 because we started seeing the drop in 2012 when we realized Obama wasn't who he said in 08

What aren't you getting about this?

Like, this is the bare bones basics of modern political history in America.... Go back decades and the most likely response from a non voter about why they didn't vote is "neither party will actually help".

You never learned any of this stuff, like, ever?___

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

You'll notice that's different from

If you’re a wage earner in this country and you think your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren't affected by voting therefore they shouldn't bother voting. IF you're a wage earner THEN there's no point in voting".

The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn't see change being discouraged.

Like you said in your own post,

someone who thinks both party's won't help

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

someone who thinks both party’s won’t help

So this entire slog I've went thru to help you understand...

Is because when someone says:

Apple pie is delicious

You take that as a statement of fact and not their opinion because they didn't say:

I think Apple pie is delicious.

There is nothing I can do to help you here or with anything else you may have difficulty with in the future.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

EDIT: removed a block of text that took all too long to type out because I'm not going to spend more time further arguing the interpretation of someone's comment as if it were religious script.

Quite frankly it hardly matters. You asked for proof of folks politically engaged yet not voting, I shared what I thought constitutes proof. You believe it doesn't qualify, but other folks reading this can draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for keeping the conversation civil - have a good one!

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Probably for the same reason so many terminally online "politically engaged" people insist that they're clearly morally and intellectually superior to everyone else despite the fact that all they do is whine about how the "lesser evil" (in just one of thousands of elections, no less) isn't good enough for them.

Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn't argue with you so much.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think you're confusing me for someone else

I voted D like I always do, so have most progressive on here from what I've seen them say.

What me, and them, have been saying is that Biden and Harris had our votes, but every indication show d they wouldn't get enough to beat trump.

It's fine to be upset about that, we are too. Probably more than any moderate, we're literally losing more than you all, that's why we care.

But what's scary is this has all happened before. Moderates refuse to acknowledge they're unpopular with Dem voters, and rather than reach out to progressives for help reaching non-votera...

You all just seemed obsessed with turning more Dem voters away from the party.

Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn’t argue with you so much.

The change we need is better Dem candidates, how the absolute fuck will that happen if we're not allowed to acknowledge we keep running shitty candidates?

Do you even remember how a fair and open primary is supposed to work?

How is one of those ever possible if no one is allowed to criticize the party's favorite?

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

So your solution is less criticism of the party? No wonder the Dems never learn.

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I really didn't.

Edit: meaning I am not American and if I was I would have voted Harris, not that Trump is not significantly worse.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

For some reason they still think they can bully people into voting for their guy. This has been thoroughly disproved but still they persist.