600

Considering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from now (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to c/noncredibledefense@lemmy.world

308 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Squizzy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right. I get you but this was completely avoidable if the democrats were competent and not a big circlejerk for themselves. Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.

Gaza is a serious issue, the US is supporting a genocide. If you cant come out against that then why bother, there isnt much more important to a lot of people. I know Trump will be worse for the region, they do too but if you cant take a principled position that aligns with people you cant complain they didnt vote for you.

[-] rarbg@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago

Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right

Ok, but

Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.

Bernie lost in the primaries, it’s our own fault (I voted for him…)

[-] kava@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Bernie lost in the primaries

DNC primaries are a joke. look at this last primary. oh wait we didn't actually have a primary.

they intentionally waited until the "primary" was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.

i firmly believe if Democrats were not trying to game democracy this presidential cycle, DNC would have had a chance to beat Trump

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

they intentionally waited until the “primary” was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.

If that was the case, they would have done it sooner. Kamala stepping in was definitely an unplanned, and unprecedented, move. It's a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.

[-] kava@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

i think it was perfectly timed

a) after the primary was informally settled

b) a couple weeks before the candidate was formally sworn in

If that was the case, they would have done it sooner

sooner and there may have been a real primary contest. too risky. they did it with just enough time to sort of "zerg rush" Kamala into the primary without giving anyone time to mount a meaningful attempt at the primary

and unprecedented, move. It’s a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.

unprecedented, yes. it's the first time in US history since we've been using the primary system that a candidate got the party nomination without a single vote being cast for them

risky, also yes. but they (I think correctly) determined that Biden was a lost cause.

so it was either a) go with the guy you know you're gonna lose or b) go with someone you will probably lose with

b is the logical choice