91
But don’t call these people stupid. That would be racist.
People I’ve interacted with on Lemmy 👆
Edit:
No no no,they saved Palestine, remember?
Now that the Dems aren't in control all those Palestinians are perfectly safe.
Right, tankies? That's all you were screeching about back in November. Now it's cricket chirps, like Palestine even mattered to you lot. Disgusting.
I'm not from the US but I know that I would really struggle morally to cast a vote for either party.
Yes, voting for Trump because of Palestine is stupid, but I can easily see how voting for the party that keeps sending money and weapons, and supporting them in the UN, while pretending to ask them to "be more careful about killing civilians", would not be very desirable either.
The US electoral system is absolute dogshit, but in my opinion the Dems lost this election all by themselves.
Edit: are the downvotes because you disagree, or because you're upset that I'm right?
hypocrites, these people are two faced hypocrites. they get what they wanted with the election and now their all upset? if these people are not the definition of a hypocrite idk what is.
anti genocide voters are not hypocrites.
People who ignore the realities of strategic voting in a FPTP system, then pat themselves on the back for their moral superiority are hypocrites. Anti-Genocide wasn't even on the table. Ignoring literally every other issue that was on the table just so they can feel good about throwing away their vote makes them hypocrites.
The Palestinian people have gained absolutely nothing from those anti-genocide votes. They're virtue-signalling at best, intentional spoiler votes at worst.
Meanwhile, there are labour protections, checks on corporate enshittification, mechanisms to slow down the accumulation of wealth and institutions of democracy that the incoming administration will tear down (or at least try to) that the alternative wouldn't. All of these are victims of that arrogance, to think that an anti-genocide vote is worth more than an anti-christofascism(+genocide) vote.
They’re virtue-signalling
Harris lost across nearly every single demographic. Thats disengagement, not virtue signallers. You wish it was virtue signallers so you would have someone to be mad at besides Harris.
Oh I have plenty of people to be mad at - Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, Harris, Biden, the DNC, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, authoritarian bootlickers masquerading as leftists...
Voter disengagement is an issue, yes, but people advocating for voting against Harris on grounds of voting against Genocide (which, you know, is the whole topic here) fail doubly: First, they pretend it's the core issue of the election and their vote puts them on the anti-genocide side, and second, they pretend it was a topic of the election at all, such that there would even be an anti-genocide side to put them on.
So yes, I am mad at people pretending that voting against Harris somehow makes them more virtuous. I'm even more mad at the people voting against her for actually relevant reason, but that's not the topic here.
load more comments
(10 replies)
voted for Trump hoping he would bring peace to the Middle East
what
I guess you could argue that total eradication of anyone that Israel hates will bring peace so they were sorta right
Like bringing balance to the force by murdering all the Jedi. Technically correct
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
91 points (92.5% liked)
politics
24106 readers
2319 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS