493
Surely we can learn from this?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
493 points (84.0% liked)
Political Memes
5519 readers
929 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Honestly, the voters voted in a way that made sense, given the information they had, which was either nothing - complete and utter lethargy, or a hyper-partisan distortion of reality reinforced by a multi-billion dollar propaganda industry backed by, among many others, the literally richest man on the planet in addition to an entire network of propaganda stations blasting disinformation 24/7. The voters being wrong is intentional and has been in the making for decades.
They did vote in a way that makes sense. The Harris campaign offered nothing in the way of economic relief, while committing genocide. That's an insanely bad proposition. Stop blaming voters and look at your dogshit candidates.
Trump offered less than nothing in the way of economic relief and he will accelerate the genocide. The voters didn't vote in a way that makes sense, and that is Harris's fault.
Be honest: you claim that Harris offers no economic relief because you yourself never bothered to look up her actual policies and you've been told that she has none. It's wild to even compare anything she's proposed to Trump's economic policies and conclude that she offers the general populace less when all Trump has done is to massively shift wealth from the bottom to the top and will most likely continue to do just that.
Name them.
Go to her fucking policy page and read them. They're still there. Off the top of my head, additional support for parents, anti-gouging laws limiting price hiking, tax incentives for creation of more housing supply, among others that were expressly mentioned by her and can still be found on hee campaign page.
You understand we're talking about messaging here, and that most of the electorate does not read the policy pages. I guess you don't actually otherwise I wouldn't have to write this. The electorate sees the ads, the debates, and if they're really engaged, maybe the interview. Compare those with Obamna's interviews and so on. His were inundated with references to health care and the like. Hers with quaint stories about how she was a small business when she was growing up or some shit, and maybe uncritical support for apartheid.
Sure, you're talking about messaging now, but that isn't the context of the thread this sits in, where you very obviously implied she had no substantive policy contrasting her with Trump. I agree that messaging was apparently poor--the American electorate apparently cannot be expected to make even a minimal effort at diligence--but that is not the same as there being no policy. So I think the real lesson is that American voters are even dumber and lazier than the democrats give them credit for, which unfortunately is not conducive to shifting the Overton window leftwards for once.
Here's the thing; if, "go to her policy page," is your answer, you're proving their point. There was some stuff in her platform that I actually really liked, but I didn't hear about it for a while, and I'm terminally plugged into politics. What I heard a lot about when I listened to her stumping was middle-class shit like small business credits and first-time homebuyer's assistance. For Americans living paycheck to paycheck, you might as well be offering them a butler subsidy. The stuff that would have helped the poorest Americans, like grocery price control, was on the sidelines when it needed to be the center of the campaign.
Opposing price gouging alone would be a step that aims to prevent corporations from conspiring to drive costs up at will for everybody who doesn't profit off price-gouging. Compare and contrast that to Trump's biggest achievements, massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich and getting his cronies the commission to build a tiny fragment of a wall that Mexico yet has to pay for, and everybody who's not rich enough to own a TV station should be on her side.