557

Yeah, both sides amiright?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago

Well, to all the folks arguing with me on how voting for Harris was bad because of Gaza: CONGRATULATIONS! You REALLY made a point there.

Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders. The candidate and strategy that you embraced was a gamble tbat you could support genocide and still win the election if you just recycled enough bad faith talking points at the people who consistently oppose genocide.

As you can see, you were wrong. And yet here you are trying to blame others rather than learn this lesson. Do some self-criticism instead. I hope you can forgive yourself for supporting genocide for a cynical loser like Harris.

The Palestinians had a chance under Harris.

Harris, of the Biden-Harris regime, has had an identical line to Biden's during this 13 months of US-backed genocide. Unconditional material support and some empty rhetoric trying to PR handle their base rather than change policy.

What do you imagine when you say, "had a chance"? Is it the current mass civilian bombing campaigns? Children burned alive? Mass starvation and malnutrition? Those are the things you've gone to bat for, that is the realized vision of the Biden-Harris regime.

you did nothing or voted for genocide

The people voting for genocidal candidates like Harris or Trump voted for genocode. That was something you seem to have done, but not I.

You did it from the other side of the world, where you won't have to suffer the consequences.

You cannot make your support for a genocider into an anti-privilege clapback. Do some self-criticism because this is gross.

[-] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders.

Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won? As in, showing more support for the genociding party and demonstratively siding in all points with the genociders with not even rhetorical pushback, just pure endorsement of the genocide? Which lesson will analysing this election yield again?

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago

Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won?

If it must be fully spelled out, it is that you cannot rope people whose politics is premised on empathy into supporting genocide and you will lose unless you demand better. If you want to fight against the forces of reaction, you cannot triangulate towards them, you have to actually have a semi-principled political program, not one premised on tokenization and "vote for us or the other guy will kill you even more".

[-] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

You seem to be wrong. Donald Trump didn't demand better and he didn't lose. The more pro-genocide party objectively won.

[-] Jentu@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

people whose politics is premised on empathy

You must not have read this part. Republican politics don’t rely on empathy, but democratic policy supposedly does, thus less turnout for a less empathetic democratic candidate.

[-] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

That's a very narrow grouping you draw there. Because in that group you are describing, the democrats got the most votes bar none. Nobody in that narrow category got even got close.

[-] neanderthal@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Those are the things you've gone to bat for, that is the realized vision of the Biden-Harris regime.

There's a difference between making the best of a bad situation and going to bat for it. Your choices were someone who there is a chance of reigning in Israel or someone that told them to do whatever they want with weapons we send. The latter is obviously a bad choice unless you agree with Israel.

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
557 points (94.1% liked)

politics

31602 readers
2669 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS