398
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 23 points 2 weeks ago

It seemed that it was a rejection of whatever political group was in power across the globe for the most part this year. This is largely in part because the world as a whole is still healing/recovering from the damage of COVID, and in the US the Dems were left to clean up an economic disaster left by Trump. And we have a large number of people who felt the effects of inflation and for reasons I can't wrap my head around felt the Dems needed to be voted out. Then we had all the people who wanted to teach the Dems a lesson because of Gaza by making sure Trump was elected to help Israel level the area and make sure there was no future for Palestinians (which is another contradiction I can't wrap my head around).

So really I think the Dems could have had a unicorn candidate (Bernie) and they still would have lost this election, because enough people only vote for themselves.

[-] Naz@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

Fucking THANK YOU, for elucidating this so cleanly into a two paragraphs.

The wandering shell shock on Lemmy for a week was miserable to witness.

[-] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago

Do you guys really believe the populist position is to "vote the Democrats out" and that Gaza was really the reason for voter apathy that effects half the population? Couldn't be messaging or effective policies being lacking, definitely blame anyone against a continually funded arsenal in the hands of aggressive governments.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 8 points 2 weeks ago

Your right. The anti-establishment mood in this country and abroad has been building for decades. Americans have never voted based on foreign policy unless that foreign policy is directly impacting them.

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago

I agree. If we now acknowledge that genocide was a relevant factor in making the Dems loose, this is bad for AIPAC. We need to quickly reestablish different narratives to protect AIPAC interests by claiming it was everything but the genocide. It took AIPAC a few days to develop the new narratives but now we need to embrace them.

[-] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Under Trump, Palestine as understood today will cease to exist and Israel will have two new superfund sites to deal with

[-] hark@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Do you think the outcome would be different under democrats? Please tell me how the party that has given billions in support of israel's genocide for over a year was so totally going to stop it at any moment if they just simply got voted in again.

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

I don't think that the final, final outcome would be different. You are completely right on this. But under Trump it will be supercharged and any restraint that existed to this point will be gone.

[-] Mjpasta710@midwest.social -1 points 2 weeks ago

Calling for a cease fire is definitely the same as what you wrote. /s

Rewriting history isn't supposed to be on the schedule for freedom loving folks.

Someone else assembled this reference for those ignorant of the news.

https://midwest.social/post/19205574/13516874

[-] joenforcer@midwest.social -2 points 2 weeks ago

If you're still asking this question, you are either a disingenuous troll or you are beyond help. You obviously haven't spent even five minutes trying to understand why the U.S. is still funding Israel and the general positions of the two candidates and instead feel that time is better spent riffing on the same Lemmy buzzword.

[-] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

...yuuuup. the US position under the two main parties is about the same on the Palestine issue. The only difference is the speed and intensity that actions will take.

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

The Biden/Harris administration just declared, that their "red-line" for more weapons to Israel, the continued starvation of Gaza with an ultimatum to today, was indeed not a red-line.

Look at the actions, not at the words. There is absolutely no indication by the actions of Biden and Harris, that they would ends Israels US funded genocide. Especially now as the whole "we need to toe the line, because of the Israel-Lobby" bullshit falls apart. The election is over. If the Dems had any serious interest in preventing Israel from annihilating Palestine, now would be the time to do so. They don't. Because they always were and still are in support of Israels genocide.

[-] Kate@lemmings.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

Under the democrats today, this is literally happening and has for the past year now.

[-] CumWeedPoop@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

So really I think the Dems could have had a unicorn candidate (Bernie) and they still would have lost this election, because enough people only vote for themselves.

I always vote "for myself" which meant voting for Harris. Her policies are more in line with my best interests than all that maga bullshit.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

By "vote for themselves" I meant people voting based on the outcome for them personally. My being a white male allows me a large amount of privilege in this country, and so I choose to use my vote to help others (knowing it doesn't put us anywhere close to being treated equal overall). So my vote for Harris was to help women, people of color, immigrants, the kids (who are going to have education decimated now and white washed so much more than it already has been), and for trans kids/adults, for everyone in the LGBTQ+ orbit, and on and on. What would benefit me didn't even play into it, because I'd be fine comparatively (minus the anxiety/depression that Trump causes).

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
398 points (89.5% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1906 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS