You must log in or # to comment.
Meanwhile 🦗🦗🦗🦗 from the genocide Joe caucus.
What the fuck are we supposed to say? We spent a year and a half doing everything in our power to show the dems what they need to do to have a chance to win, they chose genocide instead.
Too late to say anything now that you’ve helped elect the orange felon. Too bad you couldn’t stfu before and steered a significant amount of people to vote for the cunt as a protest vote. Enjoy the alternative.
Did you think that maybe uniting behind an evil candidate as your collective sole effort to defeat Trump was a bad plan?
You all say, “if only you all did what we did, we would have won.” That’s true in reverse - if you had all only done what we did, we would have won. And we wouldn’t have had a war criminal in office either.
Why is the Democrat the default vote? How is it compatible with democracy at all, that the one thing we actually control as a people, the vote, isn’t even based on who’s the best candidate?
In my mind, this is very simple, we have a basic responsibility as a people to exercise FULL control over who’s in office, to secure the outcomes we want. And we’re failing to do that. We don’t go through the process of figuring out who out of every candidate is best. The TV tells us which of two candidates to pick, and we pick one of those two. That eliminates all democratic checks on the government.
Congratulations, you enabled the real genocide. I hope you’re proud of yourself.
🤡
And we (informed voters) spent a year and a half painting you a very detailed picture of what was going to happen if you didn’t suck it up and do what was necessary to keep a rapist traitor out of the White House. Hell… even HE spent a year and a half telling you exactly what he was going to do.
Remember Project 2025? Yeah… that is the actual name of what’s happening right now.
Sooo……
What the fuck are we supposed to say?
Start with: “I’m sorry” and work from there. Because anything short of this is unacceptable.
They did their job: telling you about news that just occurred at that moment. For the analysis they will need some time. Which is absolutely right.
So the last and final attempt to steer the United States from fuelling genocide failed.
What should the BBC have done?
Factually state the implications of what Trump is saying, forcefully?
They don’t have to turn into a Fox opinion segment, they can just explain reality instead of blowing past it, then turning to talking heads.
Hey does Pepperidge farms remember all the fucking morons on Lemmy urging not to vote for Harris because she was allegedly complicit in genocide? I sure as shit do.
Know what’s gonna be objectively worse, 100% regardless of the veracity those allegations? The reality that they helped forge instead.
GeNoCiDe jOe!!!
The point was to pressure the Dems into giving up on genocide. You wanna talk about “pepperidge farm remembers”, I got one for ya
Remember when the Dems thought they could win while actively telling people who were anti genocide to go fuck themselves?
Hey, what’s weirder? Not voting for someone committing genocide, or being unwilling to stop committing a genocide even if it costs you the election?
How does it feel that the only thing that Harris had to do was say “I will stop weapons to Israel” and she would of won?
You can’t keep blaming the voters when the strategy was at fault. They knew they would lose votes. They thought they could court the centrists and liberal Republicans to make up for it. They were so fucking wrong. And somehow it’s not their own fault for having the worst campaign strategy known to man.
Like, Christ. Y’all ain’t ever gonna stop trying to blame leftists. You’ll be up against the wall with leftists fighting for your life and you’ll still be like “can’t believe you didn’t vote Harris”. I can’t believe Harris threw away the election over the continued genocide of palastinians. That’s fucking crazy. Is that not crazy to you? You don’t find it fucking insane that the Dems would rather a fascist state than stop actively committing a genocide? Cause that’s the fucking Gambit they ran and look where we are.
Look. I’m pissed. Your pissed. But we are just people with no power. Same with all those voters you wanna complain about. All we have is the ability to yell and vote. And while I voted for Harris out of fucking fear, I cannot blame the people who yelled “I will not vote for you if you keep committing genocide” and were fucking CALLED ON THAT SHIT. What kind of monster gambles with their own base over a fucking genocide?
As a fellow reluctant Harris voter, what upsets me the most is that the numbers people have run shows that no, actually, genocide was not the deciding factor in this election, which is kind of an indictment of America itself, but regardless, I’m sick of leftists being blamed when all the ones I know STILL voted Harris and the data shows that it wasn’t leftist that didn’t turn out, it was centrists. Harris didn’t have a voter base. Sure, some dems turned out, but she didn’t actually inspire people to vote, and that’s basically the only way dems win.
It’s because she has no message. All she could promise voters was stuff like “I’ll give you a little bit of money to help you get a house.” She was all flash and no substance.
That promise for housing gets misquoted as well as what she actually offered was:
First generation homebuyers who no one in their family has ever owned a house, after paying rent in a government approved rental firm for 2 years could get up to $25,000. And stated starter homes would cost between $300,000 and $800,000 dollars depending on location.She did have a point to ask Congress to pass legislation to slow people buying more than 50 single family homes.
This was lost to her wealthy advisors telling her to not go through with these plans as they would impact the investment opportunities of housing.
She barely even got to flash before the DNC tried to reign in anything that might change things.
*for first time homebuyers who have rented for at least 2 years without a late payment
Because there’s nothing that makes a proposal more popular than adding means-testing.
She had a message, it was “more of the same”; when asked what she would do differently from Biden her response wasn’t “Fuck this guy who spent the last 4 years doing fuckall, I would have defended abortion rights, appointed an AG who would have put Trump in prison and gone after Manchin and Sinoma, and any republican, a head of the DEA who would have unscheduled cannabis, etc”, she said the difference was that she would appoint a republican to the cabinet.
100%
She could have read a laundry list of her First Week, Month intended actions and won over huge swaths of voters- if that was her strategy to win.
Instead she chose fuckall, which is exactly what Biden did for 4 years.
voting is power, hell not voting is power. is it a fair system?
fuck no, but not voting did help get us here
disclaimer: gerrymandering and voter suppression also played a huge role
You know who committed genocide?
Stalin killed thousands of Poles. The USA had lynchings going on all through WW2. I’m not even going to start on the UK.
And they were all better alternatives than Hitler.
Greatest defence in the world. Vote for lynchings, better than extermination camps.
Or. Hear me out. Put a fucking bullet in both of them some bitches and stop accepting the lesser evil.
Honestly not sure why it hasn’t been suggested that the ‘no vote’ bullshit was a tactic to get Repubs the win. Sure as hell worked and didn’t do anything to solve the issue, as we can blatantly see now.
Wasn’t the idea to get the Democrats to explicitly state they were a anti genocide and promise policies to back that up?
That was the big ask, yes.
It absolutely was. And it was pushed by tiktok, a Chinese psyop.
So, every hypothetical situation besides Trump winning, in the end, did not play out, due to the failure of the American population to mount a united opposition to Trump. Harris didn’t win, De la Cruz didn’t win, Stein didn’t win, West didn’t win, etc.
Now let’s focus on this question for two seconds, because I don’t think you all have ever actually addressed it. Putting aside the supposed “viability” as a reason for to vote for them - since that’s circular logic before the election has even happened. Putting that ASIDE. Of all the non-Trump candidates, who, in the seat of the Presidency, would have been the best candidate for the job? Who, sitting in that office, would have produced the best outcome for Americans, or the world as a whole?
I don’t think history looks back negatively on any “I won’t support [a little] genocide” crowd, if there isn’t maybe this will be the first.
Is there a particular “this group of common folk opposed Hitler wrongly, everything’s their fault” narrative that is common? I meant this as a rant, but I’m too ignorant and perhaps there is. Obviously, Nazis and Nazi supporters are criticised. There’s those in power that handed it off to Hitler that take some flak. But those without power and also didn’t support Hitler what criticisms do they come under
Learning the lessons of history and who future generations are going to blame for the here and now. Is it going to be leftists that didn’t vote Nazi?
Harris was complicit in genocide.
Trump loudly talked about how he would make the genocide worse.
Why absolve Harris in an attempt to strengthen your argument?
nobody is absolving Harris. She was the lesser evil, and many people chose not to choose, resulting in the greater evil anyways.
I mean she entirely was.
And considering the US blocked every ceasefire under her and Biden, and people pointed out even a year ago that the US and Israel want an alternative to the Suez canal, and people pointed out that Israel was moving Palestinians out with the US’s help in order to do this, all that happened. Pretty sure it was going exactly the same way. If you haven’t noticed, democrats aren’t exactly sitting up and saying this is ethnic cleansing or genocide even now. Or trying to fight it.
You’re an idiot and the reason Trump won and is ruining the country. Congrats you enlightened centrist. Stupid fuck
Hey, everybody, we need to ignore trolls like this. They’re trying to divide the left. Instead, we have to unite to fight Trump.
My guy I’m exceptionally left wing in my politics I’m not even close to centrist. I’m not sure how you got that from my response.
It’s also obvious that Trump and BB we’re coordinating during the election to ensure Biden couldn’t get a ceasefire deal in place in order to harm him politically. But as soon as Trump takes the office they just agree to a ceasefire no problem (as if that hadn’t been the plan all along) aaaaaaand then Trump goes off about finishing the job and annexing the whole west bank for the US. What a fucking surprise.
I thought the ceasefire happened under Biden, but after the election had already been lost?
It did, but it was Trump’s representative who got the deal done. Trump didn’t want to deal with the hostage crisis along with everything else he had planned.
‘allegedly’
The mental gymnastics will only intensify as these fucking crypto-nazis get to distance themselves from their beliefs and actions of just a few months ago.
I still can’t get over how they were essentially presented with a simplified version of the trolley problem and chose to not pull the lever.
By their own narrative that “the democrats are complicit in a genocide in Gaza”, they were aware that Palestinians were metaphorically tied to both tracks, yet decided to not pull the lever when America itself and every marginalized person living within was also on the track the trolley barreled towards.
It’s almost like single-issue voters aren’t very good at logic problems…
I suspected that many of the accounts were Russian plants or Trump supporters trying to divide the Democrat vote. Most of the time when I checked account age they were made either that day or the day before.
I know that Lemmy is new and all but still was sus.
I haven’t gone back to accounts to see if they are still active. I suspect that they aren’t.
I suspect that what we saw here on lemmy were actual people who had been indoctrinated elsewhere.
Lemmy isn’t really big enough to be a target for bots and so on.
Bots are cheap to write. That’s naive to think there wasn’t a disinformation war going on with bots being on the forefront of it.
Calling it simplified does a disservice of the real world impacts of the “trolley” - especially since unlike a thought experiment - this trolley problem is physically constructed by people to achieve imperialistic goals - so expending energy blaming random lemmings for this - instead of figuring out who built, maintains and presents the trolley as the only option and how to dismantle it seems useless.
I believe we should avoid infighting and actually organize to do something so we don’t have to choose if we pull the lever or not every 4 years (if there even is another election…)
I find it scary how easily people where fine with having genocide on both sides of the ticket.
Not having a choice and being fine with with the choice you have are drastically different situations, and it’s concerning how many people are incapable of unwilling to tell the difference between the two.
I would argue the entire problem is the self-defeating mentality that the D vs R choice is the only choice. It’s in fact the population believing that - in itself - that results in the poor election outcomes for third parties. Something which was not true as recently as 30 years ago.
The population, in fact, has the option to vote for any candidate on the ballot, or even write in candidates. The so-called “viability” of third party candidates is a mental fiction. The “viability” only has to do with people’s willingness to vote for them, which, in a massive circular logic, is based on their perception that the rest of the population will not vote for them. That is the actual mechanism at play here (besides the truly brainwashed, faithful supporters of the two major parties, at least).
In fact, the entire U.S. constitutional system is only a tradition/custom, that we have the option to up and abandon when it no longer serves us. The reason we get stuck with it is the various state actors (cops, military) who do not understand that it’s not some sacred inviolable thing, or actually support it, and are willing to use violence on the population to enforce its implementation. What actually happens if the indoctrination of the entire population - Trump and Harris supporters and all - is undone, and we come up with a different, better vision for our society?
The real world isn’t black and white, like in your morally superior fantasy. I hope your satisfaction lasts through the takeover of the nation, you shortsighted twat.
We are enjoying the fruits of constantly lowering our moral standards. We see more anger towards those who where critical of the genocide than those who needlessly insisted on perpetuating it.
That anger is deserved, did you read the image in this post?
That anger is extremely misdirected. You demand unity behind your political candidates, from people who refuse to support them on account of them seeing absolutely horrendous flaws that you refuse to see yourselves.
Why would a mass murderer deserve unity behind them, but a non-mass-murderer doesn’t? The fact that you’ve arrived at that conclusion at all demonstrates the absolutely bankruptcy of your political reasoning - the things that we’re trying to achieve with a social system in the first place are sacrificed. Human life, economic equality, quality of life, all of it.
You’ve lost sight of the entire goal. That’s the logic of drug addiction - chasing a high, diminishing returns, at the cost of your health. You’re continually investing in something which provides you worse and worse outcomes, and refusing to acknowledge alternate choices.
Any reasonable person could tell we had choice between Trump and Harris and we ended up with Trump.
No sane people were fine with it, but sane people have to live in the real world and not believe some fucking fantasy that there was another option at the time.
Let’s start with the very basic logic here. Let’s say 80, 90 million people come out and vote for, say, De la Cruz. Accounting for the electoral college and all that, enough to secure a victory. Is it not true that virtually all of us had the option to put a check next to her name, or write that name in? It is true. Is it true that we would have had a better outcome for the society with De la Cruz, than we would have with Harris or Trump? That is also true. So what - SPECIFICALLY - stopped this from happening.
The democrats did have another option at the time.
We all did.
Cool, we remember - now what? What do we materially do now to resist that isn’t just blaming non-voters online?
Get ready to vote Dem really hard in 2028 /s
Blaming other people and feeling superior is how Democrats win! Aren’t you paying attention? Hey, where are they taking us??!
There aren’t many options… Which is probably why op is blaming non-voters, who are complicit in creating our current situation.
Which is probably why op is blaming non-voters
Should probably blame the people who actually voted for the guy and not an unrelated third party
Bunch of butthurt authoritarians whining about people they failed to engage and saying “but that’s the system we’re in” like that doesn’t apply equally to having to convince people to vote FOR you
Blaming both camps is the best way to go. But why spend efforts blaming the Trump voters? Presumably, they aren’t subject to appeals of logic or compassion or they wouldn’t have voted for him in the first place. So we know they’re pieces of shit. But the jury is still out on the protest non-voters. Did they fail to vote because they disagreed with kamala on a minority of her positions, or did they just not want to elect a brown woman? Assuming that they understood the choices of outcomes between candidates, they voluntarily chose to ignore the greater good for their own personal disagreement. Additionally, there’s evidence that if those protest voters had voted for Kamala she would have won. Therefore, they are to blame. To ignore that is to be an apologist for those at fault.
I remember the BBC manufacturing consent for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris complicity genocide as well.
Interesting that such a fucked system exists that could allow the 50/50 chance that who wins an election could singlehandedly decide if everything is fascism and genocide or not, with what appears to be no real checks of power in place.
And you choose to blame those who have nearly no control over said system.
Lemmy is also a tiny community relative to other similar communities online. Lenmy is also not even just people in the US. You also don’t know how many of those posts were trolls or bots.
It sure seems to me that the larger system and set of choices are completely fucked to begin with and gives the “people” next to no options or say in much of anything.
But yes. If Lemmy people had not slammed Harris… then… something might have been… different?
That’s the thing American citizens/voters need to remember if/when we get past this term: Trump didn’t do this by himself. He was enabled and empowered by Republican (and a significant number of Democrat) members of legislation, as well as crooked judges across every level from state to Supreme. Trump will be kicked out and Republicans will say “Phew, that guy was a disaster! Right, guys? Good thing we all worked together and survived it.” And we can’t just let them do it; everyone currently serving in office from the GOP and 60% (if I’m being very generous to the remainder) of the Democrats should be barred from holding office again. Extend that to the judges too.
The GOP has worked hard to sew shite into every strand of the fabric that binds the nation together. And so insiduously that many idiots will stare at a shite-brown rag and say it’s still the same, ol’ Red, White, and Blue they remember.
The system is fucked but we exist within that system.
So, yes, if you were in front of the trolley lever, you’d remark “Wow, this system is fucked. Why do we even have trolleys? Shouldn’t they have brakes?”
…and then not pull the lever.
None of you crypto-nazis can be honest about this discussion. You keep lying and presenting the choice as between two unequally bad options. If anything the democrats have been objectively worse in hindsight. There would have been no ceasefire if you had your way.
Now that Trump is in office you want to put on your resistance hats again like we didn’t all just watch you rabidly support the genocide yourselves.
It was the same cease fire that was on the table months ago, the only difference was that Isreal was going to continue the genocide until it looked good for their choice of president. And they didn’t even honor it.
You keep lying and presenting the choice as between two unequally bad options.
This is why people disregard your opinions, because you lie and pretend that they weren’t unequally bad options.
They were both bad options, but saying they’re equal tells me you don’t pay attention or are intentionally lying.
Man I really wish you guys elected Harris or Joe Biden to sit back and watch this happen instead of talking about it openly, that would have been great for the Palestinians.
I’d rather have someone watch me fight a bear then have them help the bear by shooting me, and the rest of my family, repeatedly while I fight it. So yeah really would’ve been a lot better.
And by watch, I mean supply the bear with billions worth of bombs
I’m not the one that made the claim. I’m merely carrying on the anaolgy. Read what I replied to you jackwagon.
What the heck are you even on about? Did you reply to the wrong person?
Removed by mod
Man I really wish you guys elected Harris or Joe Biden to sit back and watch this happen…
This is you. You said this. You made the claim like mere minutes ago.
Watch this happen, as in: they wouldn’t have “managed” Gaza themselves, but helped Israel or something like the PA control it. Even if I actually claimed that, you are telling me you didn’t know the US was helping Israel when Biden was in office?
You made the claim. I continued by pointing out that the alternative is WAY worse using your same claim. Are you really this obtuse in real life? Or just on the internet?
Why are you quoting someone being objectively correct and dancing around like you won something? Have you spontaneously grown a brain and are now taking exception to the fact that the democrats are worse than ‘just watching’?
To clarify, I don’t think any of us are winning. They made the claim that Biden was just sitting and back and watching. I’m asserting, using their same claim, that the alternative is worse, while also making fun of the fact that watching someone fight a bear and not helping is objectively terrible. Do you really think this analogy makes Biden/the DNC out to be a great people?
It dishonestly presents them as being better people than they are
China really needs to start throwing their weight around on the global stage if they want to be anything more than a regional power.
China should be filling the vacuum on the global stage that the US is vacating.
China already is extending their hand to places affected by USAID being shut down, I believe.
Everyone had this prediction that China would become the world’s number one superpower at some point, but I don’t know if people predicted that was because the U.S. shot itself it the face.
the hostile corporate takeover is in full effect in the USA. The downfall of America is happening in realtime at an accelerated rate. Capitalism will be the downfall of whatever democracy was left in the US.
China is just sitting back and letting the U.S. hang itself. They’ll step up and step in once America is well and truly down for the count.
edit: autocorrect
Can’t help but notice this. Turns out, the communist plot to destroy America was the billionaires we made along the way.
To be fair to the BBC, they’re ‘supposed’ to report the facts without judgement. How successful they are at that is debated endlessly, you can find anyone of any political flavour who will swear blind the BBC is ‘obviously’ biased against ‘them’. They can’t win no matter what they do.
Nah, I remember back when Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party and the BBC gleefully participated in the campaign to slander him, including in a news program having as a background a large picture of him digitally altered to put a Soviet hood on his head.
I also remember countless “two side” discussions hosted by the BBC on things like worker rights or the Environment were they put a professional politician on the side against it facing a total amateur on the side for it.
The BBC’s “two sides” has always been a multi-layered propaganda format, starting by the small detail that any social and political subject which is not ridiculously simple has more than 2 options to interpret and tackle it - in other words, more than 2 sides - and going into the above mentioned point that their supposedly open “giving equal voice to both sides” is actually controlled by their choice of the subject matter, who represents each side and even the interviewer’s take on each side and accompanying materials (a typical example would be them reporting as event as “such and such happened” when the source is IDF versus “According to Hamas such and such happened” when the source is Hamas).
The BBC are very sophisticated in how they do it, but their output is heavily spinned and propagandistic.
That this is a very poor excuse at propaganda because the BBC goes out of its way to use “loaded terms” when it comes to adversaries of the empire.
Here is an example from yesterday. https://youtu.be/34Ta0IcQi-E?t=85
Impartiality goes out of the window when the BBC needs to remind everyone that “the Palestinian health ministry is ran by Hamas which is designated as a terrorist organisation in America, the UK and Europe” every single time the death toll in Gaza is brought up as well.
of the empire.
I thought sun already set on that
“The unprecedented attack on October 7th.” is here to justify Israel slaughtering tens of thousands of starving civilians.
They had a bazillion complaints (and still get them) that they report the figures at all and that they don’t treat Hamas being a terrorist organisation as a statement of fact. For a couple of weeks after the October the 7th attack, the reporting was more neutral, and the whole rest of the British press was up in arms about the BBC being antisemitic, and the current situation was the compromise that calmed it down. In a world where Israel having done nothing wrong ever is somehow part of the Overton window, this is what counts as impartial. Impartiality is a bad thing when it’s forced to apply to viewpoints divorced from reality.
Watch the video I linked if you are not convinced. I considered the introduction to be rather long so I timestamped over it. But it sounds like you might need to watch it from the beginning. The video is not about Hamas by the way. That is only another example.
It’s not factual reporting when one side refuses to interact with the truth
The problem for the BBC is that not all stories have equally valid opposing views but they are forced to treat both sides equally at all times… So as the world drifts further and further to insanity, their reporting makes crazy positions seem legitimate as they have to be aired alongside more mainstream views.
It worked OK when the world was fairly stable and political positions were close together. It doesn’t work when political positions are so polarised and extreme.
Case in point: Brexit. The BBC really struggled in challenging extreme positions and outright lies during the brexit campaign.
Unfortunately though I’m not sure there is much alternative. Its fat from perfect but provably the best a public service broadcaster can try to do. At least it tries to provide the facts so people can make up their own minds - that in itself remains laudable.
One of the newsreaders said after leaving that they could easily find 60 economists willing to say brexit would be disastrous, and 1 saying it would be good. Come the show, they’d present one of each to demonstrate balance, but it was very lopsided. Before he went mental, they had Graham Linehan and his wife on a current affairs show to tall about the stress of getting an abortion in Ireland. The producers were then lambasted for not having a pro-abortion person on.
Although, IIRC, the original director general in his diary wrote “the government know they can trust us not to be truly impartial.” You never get Anarchists or Communists on discussion shows.
hey maybe they did. any anarchist & communist with a brain understands that the majority of people will have a knee jerk reaction and shut down if you utter the various trigger phrases (such as “anarchism/communism has some good points”). so they’d probably water down their beliefs for easier digestion
but if you mean an outspoken anarchist who gets invited to talk about anarchism then yeah you’re right, this isn’t happening unless for a joke or to make them a scapegoat
Definitely agree with you there. In an effort to appear balanced they try and present different sides of an argument as if they’re both valid. I guess that’s how Farage got on so much.
I’m all for impartiality. But if a dude says “We should kill everyone who isn’t like me!” You don’t have to say “Before you judge, let’s hear his side.” You can start judging immediately.
They are not impartial on this one
If both ends of the spectrum are saying it, they’re probably threading the needle pretty well.
“Both the Palestinians and Israelis are saying they are being treated unfairly. This means we are treating both fairly”. - enlightened centrist after Biden refuses to send one shipment of 2000 pound bombs to Israel.
that is not sound logic
So much for “never again,” eh? More like “whenever we feel like it” if trends in global hegemony are any indication.
Still #Undecided?
Please don’t engage with trolls like this. They’re trying to divide the left.
We still litigating this?
The dems ran a deeply unpopular candidate on status quo in an election about how the status quo was hurting non-rich Americans. They shoved leftists out of the way in favor of more moderate and conservative leaning people trying to reach out to those that were already not going to vote for them.
I did vote, and I voted for Kamala; that vote wasn’t an excited vote, but one in the hopes that she could win and we could inch another 4 years to a hopefully better candidate set. The amount of emails sent to both Biden and Kamala, and the amount of shitty responses about how its totally OK was deeply disheartening, but I still voted, even though it felt like nothing would change.
Those that didn’t vote due to Gaza, which if memory serves was a small block, specifically stated they just wanted to be recognized. The campaign instead tried to go on Joe Rogan and “toured” with a Cheney.
There’s not some crazy reason people stayed home. They stayed home because either choice felt like doom, and probably felt they didn’t want to participate in either.
That’s all without even getting into the amount of actual voter suppression in general.
But yea, blame those voters.
They stayed home because either choice felt like doom, and probably felt they didn’t want to participate in either.
This is the false equivalency trap they were led into.
Neither side was supporting their cause, but one side was supporting Israel while trying to push for getting aid into the country, and the other side literally said Israel wasn’t killing Palestinians fast enough. You have to be a special kind of dumb to think those two things are the same.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. By not voting, they contributed to the win of the candidate who thinks Palestine shouldn’t exist.
Yes, I absolutely hold those people accountable, for this and every other action he takes. Sitting on the sidelines is immoral. Not participating because they couldn’t get exactly the outcome they wanted isn’t ethically defensible. The system is the way it is until we who are working to change it succeed (which may be never), and until then you pick the lesser of two evils, because not voting isn’t going to prevent the election.
Maybe they argue that by not voting they “sent a message.” Ok, maybe they did. As a consequence, the cost of their message is likely to be the extinction of Palestine.
Many of us tried to “send a message” in 2000, and it changed nothing; those of us who voted for a third party in protest are directly culpable for the war in Iraq and the continued expansion of the Republican agenda in courts and state legislature through two terms.
The protest voters, and protest non-voters, in 2024 participated in what’s to come.
The most infuriating thing about this is that it seems nobody learned anything from WWII. This is like Ghandi preaching passive resistance to German Jews; I have no respect for these people who refused to take a side knowing full well that one candidate was a worse outcome for Palestine.
they just wanted to be recognized
Well they got their wish. They are certainly recognized now.
What a takeaway lol.
Dude, I’m also super angry, but blaming people for wanting to be seen isn’t going to help. If anything, its just going to setup for further divisions, which is what this administration wants.
deleted by creator
Do you imagine this wouldn’t have happened if the election had gone the other way? Yeah they’ve gone mask off, so it’s harder now to pretend it isn’t happening, but the results for people in Gaza are pretty much the same, since this was already Israel’s plan for decades and the US government continued to supply them with the weapons to carry it out. The only real difference is the republicans language saying it out loud and making it harder to ignore.
If we buy into the idea that the situation in Palestine would be exactly the same, that means not voting for Harris because of Palestine was choosing all of the other horrible shit Trump is doing for zero benefit to Palestine.
Really showed them Dems!
Sure, I didn’t make any comment about the internal situation in America, I’m not American. I do think it’s valid to have voted for the democrats for those reasons though, absolutely. But like, even now the democrats are enthusiastically cooperating with the current republican agenda and not really bothering to do anything against it, so I don’t think they care that much either way, even if they wouldn’t have advanced it as fast.
I also think that you have to speak to people’s concerns to win elections and they clearly did not do a good job of that. Of course you can to some extent blame voters for being uninformed, but they are not the ones with a billions dollars marketing budget to communicate what they will actually do to improve things, so I don’t think you can blame them the most.
Removed by mod
The last resort of someone who knows they have no valid argument…
But this was expected right? Is there anyone who genuinely thought this wouldn’t happen? I thought all the people calling out “Genocide Joe” were right-wing alts breaking up the left.
Sadly some of them were just single issue idiots with half a braincell
The BBC has been complicit in the last 16 months of genocide and for good reason.
Robbie Gibb, who is on the BBC’s Board of Trustees, is also Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a fanatically Zionist rag whose funding is hidden but suspected to be tied to the Israeli embassy.
Raffi Berg, BBC News online editor, is a former state department employee, fan of Netanyahu and has been described by one journalists as "This guy’s entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel”
More here:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage
