Holy shit what a dumb take
This argument boils down to, “I want to be told there isn’t a genocide while there still is. I just want the media gone and the watching orgs defunded and threatened so that I don’t hear about it. Yes it’s still happening at full speed… yes, it’s probably even worse now… but I would have heard about it everyday with Harris. With trump, the news is talking about the gulf of America, so I don’t have to see it anymore.”
I don’t remember hearing any Dems talking about turning Gaza into a beach resort after they purge the locals.
They didn’t say it out loud, but they allowed the Israeli government to bomb the shit out of Gaza.
Trump said it out loud.
Act matter much more than word
If you honestly believed he wouldn’t act when he was back in power you need to have your head examined.
As much as it might displease you the fact is since Trump has won Israël Palestine have truced and civilian are not longer dying on a daily basiq
What a meaningless thing to say in this context, as both parties act the same way: supporting Israel.
So the only difference we have to go by is words. And Trump’s are the most ghoulish shit any elected politician has said so far.
What a meaningless thing to vote if whatever you vote both parties act the same. I’m glad we have more than 2 political parties in France
Same here in Germany, but these two parties are not at all the same, even if they don’t differ much in that one (and a bunch of other) issues.
Get fucked and civility be damned. Permaban me
Can’t hear them over the sound of the bombs they send
Edit: to everyone who upvoted the guy below and downvoted me, check their latest comment in the thread. In case they delete it:
Well, you might recall that the funding was approved by Congress, and Presidents should be impeached and held accountable for overstepping those bounds, like how trump was impeached for withholding aid to Ukraine in 2016. Furthermore, Israel is a long term ally, who suffered a brutal terrorist attack in October, and they are in a precarious situation, as their neighbors are not found of their existence, so we have to toe the line between supporting our ally, but also resist genocide and ethnic cleansing. Turns out, geopolitics is not simple.
Oh, did Trump stop sending bombs? I was under the impression he was escalating things.
There’s an ongoing ceasefire, trump is all words, but you’d know better if you actually cared about Palestinians more than performatively. The daily deaths are much lower so far than under democrat administration. This is surely not thanks to trump’s good desires for Palestinians, he’s as much of a genocidal ghoul as any American politician, but the numbers are the numbers
If you had a working memory, you’d recall that trump has been calling Bibi and torpedoing ceasefire and foreign aid talks.
Also, there are a lot fewer Palestinians in Gaza left to shoot, so it would make sense that the numbers went down.
Oh, and the current ceasefire was negotiated by the Biden administration.
But you’d remember all that if you cared “more than performatively.”
the current ceasefire was negotiated by the Biden administration
Source? I feel like you just make this up. It was enacted literally the day before the inauguration wasn’t it? Why enact a ceasefire the day before the inauguration of your political opponent after 2+ years funding the genocide and talking about Pissrael’s right to defend itself and arresting students at campuses for protesting a genocide?
Also, there are a lot fewer Palestinians in Gaza left to shoot, so it would make sense that the numbers went down.
God you guys are fucking vile, trivialising stuff like that and pulling out bullshit arguments. The ceasefire is ongoing, that’s the reason why orders of magnitude people are being murdered, not a lack of Palestinians to be genocided. Nazis ramped up their industrial elimination of “Untermenschen” when they saw they were losing, despite “fewer left to shoot”.
Source? I feel like you just make this up. It was enacted literally the day before the inauguration wasn’t it?
Pop quiz… Who was the president the day before Trump was inaugurated in 2025?
Why enact a ceasefire the day before the inauguration of your political opponent…
Maybe because the preservation of human rights and life should be pursued regardless of who the President will be tomorrow?
Maybe because the preservation of human rights and life should be pursued regardless of who the President will be tomorrow?
So how is that compatible with the 2+ years of funding and supporting genocide?
Lol is this real? I’ve never seen a real person make that argument.
I assume they are just not-so-secretly endorsing Trump. Like, nobody is that dumb.
The Green party is fucking worthless.
Especially with Jill “any attention is good attention, have you heard my album?” Stein at the lead. She doesn’t want a political platform she just wants a taller soapbox to shout from and act smug from.
https://lemmy.ml/post/25756796?scrollToComments=true
The Harris campaign didn’t want my vote so I didn’t give it to them. The Harris campaign was fine with losing as long as the genocide could continue.
The genocide was more important to them than beating trump. Think about that before you tell me I should’ve voted blue.
☐ Genocide and things stay pretty much the same
☐ Extra genocide and things get worse
☐ Waste vote (get extra genocide anyway)
“Democracy”
Its almost like money and first past the post elections only serve to narrow down political options.
But now you can stay at Trump hotel, Gaza! Think of the amenities!
I can see the golf course now, wasting more water than Nestle just to keep the greens in shape.
Extra genocide? It’s the same amount of genocide…
Do tell that to all the brown and queer people in America. I’m sure they’ll all be reassured that there won’t be any more genocide.
You might want to reassure the Navajo while you’re at it. If you can get to them before they’re put into what is definitely not in any way a concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay.
Getting mad at people for not being willing to condone a genocide is a really wild take to me.
If you’re saying that genocide over there is okay so that genocide over here doesn’t happen as quickly then I don’t really know how to argue that.
We got to this point because the Democrats themselves have been toothless for much of the last 25 years, and prop up the same system that the Republicans are fast tracking even more. The dems did not lose this election just because of the Gaza vote, they lost it because they wouldn’t listen to or support the regular people on the street. Dems had the chance to enshrine things into law - they controlled senate and house for the first two years of Biden. They did not codify any protections for trans rights or abortion rights, then used both as a fundraising event.
Over 50% of white men and women voted for Trump this time around.
So instead of getting mad at people who could not conscientiously condone a genocide, why not get mad and dismantle a system wherein a few billionaires get to buy the entire world and commit genocides on a massive scale? The US has been bombing half the world for almost its entire history. That doesn’t change because Republicans are in power or Democrats are in power.
The current system is between ultra rich and everyone else. If everyone else keeps shitting on each other that won’t change.
What people get mad at you about is your insistence that checking the box next to somebody’s name on a ballot is a gesture of 100% support for everything on their agenda and everything they have ever done.
The genocide over there and everywhere else is not okay. The fact that the US supports it and does tons of imperialist shit is not okay.
I voted for Harris and genocide is not ok. But you know what else? I have a smart phone and exploited foreign labor is not ok. I have to drive my old car to work and fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, unwalkable towns, and microplastic pollution are not OK. I eat food, and both exploited underpaid migrant farm workers and corporation produced ultra-processed foods are not OK.
The fact that the US is imperialist and supports Israel was simply not on the presidential ballot in the general election. That is not OK, but it is true. Changing that part of the world for the better means working to make the next election’s choices better, whether that means the peaceful rise of a charismatic progressive candidate or a bloody revolution accelerated into being by shot Trump is doing.
You seem to have forgotten your previous post where you said, “It’s the same amount of genocide.”
No it isn’t, now there is more genocide. Of brown people, of queer people, and apparently they’re coming for the indigenous as well.
But arguing about the election is far more important than acknowledging that, isn’t it?
So you are ok with genocide then?
You’ve had two chances to acknowledge that there have been several domestic genocides added in the U.S. and you have not been willing to, so I think you should be asking that question of yourself.
How have I failed to acknowledge that? I said genocide there vs genocide here. Seems to be an acknowledgement
However by your own logic, you have not said you don’t support genocide.
Technically it’s actually less, there’s an ongoing ceasefire. Hope it lasts, but no hope tbh, Trump definitely doesn’t care about Gazan lives.
People should be free to vote for who best represents them while still counting their vote if their preference didn’t win.
Passing state level electoral reform will not only empower the creation of stronger 3rd parties, but also force the legacy political parties to have to compete and actually represent people.
No more safe seats, no more hostage situation, no more voting while holding our noses, only democracy. More democracy was always going to be the solution to this problem. Who could possibly be against more democracy?
Videos on Electoral Reform
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.
RCV please
RCV is a bad option that’s presented as if it could fix anything.
RCV was first invented in the 1780s, and the inventor wrote about it as the bad idea that it was, but because he was a mathematician, he wrote about the dead ends in the search for something better than the simple First Past the Post system that was in use in America.
The inventor, by the way, was Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis of Condorcet. His life was fascinating, and his death tragic, but for the moment we’ll focus on his efforts to find a better voting system.
He created a criteria for a better voting system, now named in his honor. The Condorcet Winner is the candidate who can win against any other candidate in a one on one race. They’re sometimes called the pairwise winner.
The point being, RCV, or it’s older name of Instant Runoff, cannot reliably elect the Condorcet Winner.
This was why Condorcet abandoned the system.
It was revived by some guys a few decades after Condorcet’s death. They didn’t care that it was a flawed system, just that it was slightly better than the only other option available at the time.
But that was 200 years ago. We now have quite a few options that are not deeply flawed.
First is Approval. It’s a dead simple system that always finds the Condorcet Winner.
How Approval works is thus; you get a list of names on your ballot. Mark any and all that you approve of. You may mark more than one candidate for each position.
The candidate with the highest overall approval wins.
Then there’s STAR. It’s brand new as far as voting systems go, only created in 2014. But it’s also the best system designed to date.
Basically the voter rates each candidate on a scale of 0 to 5. Multiple candidates can have the same rating. To find the winner, you simply add up the ratings for each candidate, then you take the highest two and look at each ballot. The candidate with the higher rating on that ballot gets the vote. If neither of the top two is rated higher on a ballot, either being not rated or rated the same, then the ballot is counted as No Preference, and that number is reported as part of the final tally.
As you said, STAR is arguably better in some ways but Approval being dead simple to explain to people and technically already supported by existing voting machines is worth a whole lot on its own as far as being a good voting system.
Try explaining STAR or Approval to someone who is only familiar with FPTP, see which one they understand more quickly.
Because “Vote for everyone you’re OK with winning the office and it counts as a vote for any of them, whoever gets the most votes wins” or “It’s just like what we’ve been doing, but you can pick more than one person and your vote counts for all of them” explains Approval voting.
As opposed to having to do a cumulative total across all ballots to figure out if your ballot counts as a vote at all, before figuring out whether your vote actually counts as a vote for someone you voted 5 for or someone you voted 2 for.
While I agree that first past the post is the worst possible option, we need national reform as well.
STAR or RCV has the potential to break the 2 party system where votes are counted, but it comes up short against the electoral college system. As long as the electoral college is how we choose our President we will only have 2 viable candidates and the parties will have elevated power to not only choose our candidates but to elevate their preferred down ballot candidates which hobbles alternative voting mechanisms.
The electoral college combined with citizens United gives the parties practically unchecked power.
I’m wondering what the best path forward is… it doesn’t seem likely to pass in either Texas or Florida, but sometimes purple states will surprise you. Backup plan is getting ballot measures in enough of the smaller states to make up the same number of electors. The captured SCOTUS would probably shoot it down somehow, but I think enough people would literally riot in the street over that that they’d at least think twice about it.
Add to that, would also be great if we actually had proportional representation that matched population growth.
Here’s the thing, in a sane world, the president wouldn’t matter quite so much. If you actually had a more reasonable legislature, they would have the political will to actually hold the president accountable for going beyond his scope.
That is to say for those wanting a more “perfect” president than some moderately inactive centrist, don’t expect that out a country like this. It’s a singular position and really should be the second choice of people who want a more hardcore candidate, with a failure to build consensus on ‘the’ hardcore candidate.
Very true. One thing that struck me about the last 8 years was how beholden the Republicans were to Trump during this entire time. It was batshit and I cannot remember any other time the legislator was so beholden to a President. We need them to be an independent branch, not scared of one man.
National reform will only happen from the bottom up. Need to change the local elections first and push every incumbent out of their seats. The current people in power will never cede.
Pretty much this, and all the focus on the presidential election when they have some shot at winning some districts and such.
France has a runoff for president
Whoa, either they’re incredibly unaware of the recent news in Gaza or this is quite mask off about their side and goals. “the moral stain of reelecting genocide”? Give me a fucking break, the conflict was self-resolving right before Trump’s inauguration. Now he’s fanning the flames.
the conflict was self-resolving
yeah, exactly as self-resolving as it is now. It will “resolve itself” when Israel is finished ethically cleansing Gaza. Did you seriously think a Democrat president who wasn’t going to stop arms shipments under any circumstances was seriously going to change the dial on American support for the genocide?
Was a ceasefire deal and prisoner exchanges not happening days ago? Were people not out there on the streets rejoicing that the fighting had stopped? Were Gazans not forming lines along the shore walking miles back home? Are we reading the same news? Are we reading the news articles at all?
If you have special words for what that was let me know. Because it seems that you think I’m taking about something else and doubling down with typical irrelevant American conservative brand whataboutism without asking clarifying questions.
Oh, you mean the ceasefire that Israel near immediately violated? The one that Hamas is now back to holding the hostages over, because they have no assurance Israel won’t further reneg on the deal? That ceasefire? The one that was basically invented just to make Trump look good as it happened under him?
The Genocide of Palestine has been happening since the 1950s with continued US support the entire time. The fighting has only ever been paused. If there really was dancing in the streets, which I never saw, it was naive and far too soon.
deleted by creator
The one that Hamas is now back to holding the hostages over
That’s only happening because Trump keeps yapping. He had Netanyahu over just days ago at the White House and he feels reinvigorated after his trip to the US. His change in attitude was so obvious. lol
The one that was basically invented just to make Trump look good as it happened under him?
That happened BEFORE he was sworn in, literally the last week of Biden’s. It was THE reason why both Biden and Kamala apparently and a bit awkwardly reacted during Trump’s inauguration because their administration had been part of the peace talks and Trump was wedging himself in trying to be in them. They wouldn’t let him take credit. lol
The Genocide of Palestine has been happening since the 1950s
Nobody’s talking bout the Israeli-Paliestinian conflict as a whole. I’m talking about the one happening right now where Israel was dropping bombs. The crisis. The big one we just had.
If there really was dancing
I said rejoicing. lol
See what I mean? xD
The mere fact that you refuse to understand that the current crisis is merely another moment in the broader conflict is reason enough for me not to engage with you further.
Oh, now I refuse to understand basic ideas! Cute.
You know, I don’t mind it that you don’t reply. Actually, I’d have appreciated it if you hadn’t replied the first time with your little attitude. I won’t suffer if you don’t do it again. Please don’t reply again and waste my time.
It’s all about perception. There’s plenty of people living in a generational walled garden. They don’t see your discourse. They don’t see consenting discourse. They see the infallible word of their chosen demagogue. End of story.
the conflict was self-resolving
Peak liberal delusion.
Lmfao I guess I don’t read the news every single day, huh. You tell me what’s been happening with Gaza. Go ahead, explain with your superior intellect for us delusional vermin who crawl out of the rocks.
Typical insufferable, better-than-thou and pretentious Lemming. A dime a dozen.
Not that delusional, the genocide was running in a pretty steady pace.
Until there was a cease fire, and prisoners/hostage’s were being released.
But then Trump went on TV with Netenyahu and said the United States was going to take over Gaza, kick everyone out, and develop it into expensive beachfront property.
I mean, that’s what actually happened.
Socialist tend to be
i mean i disagree but have an upvote for at least being honest about your experience and positions.
i was getting sick of all the accelerationist people screaming “lib” at me for daring to be a tad upset that trump is the president and the multipartisan means by which we got here.
Y’all wanna blame anyone but the Dems for their shitty campaign. Last time I checked adding all the green party votes to the Democrats wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Both things are true. Dems ran a campaign they didn’t care to win but thought they were owed and Stein is a terrible leader welding the green party like a dog she’s neglecting because she thinks it makes her look more responsible.
I can agree with that 🤝
Why blame the better of two bad options?
Be honest and blame both bad options.
(I’m not referring to the greens here, they aren’t a real option)
Don’t get me wrong I hate trump and the Republicans too. I blame the Dems because they manage to lose to Republicans. Beating them should be ridiculously easily but they always find a way to loose or not have enough votes to do the good things they promise. Every election they move further to the right. If we had an actual left wing party and not controlled opposition we wouldn’t be in this situation.
For sure, I’m just saying that the actual fascists should always get the majority of the blame, even if it’s pathetic for their rivals to fail to prevent their win.
Messaging matters. There were multiple Republican and Russian backed propaganda campaigns to pin Israel’s genocide on Harris, and urged people to abstain from voting. So it’s more than just the 3rd party votes that are potentially missing from the tally.
“To cut off your own nose to spite the face” is the only thing that comes to mind here.
He has yet to stop the genocide for that to hold a colander’ worth of water.
In fact, he wants to take over Gaza and kick ALL the Palestinians out. And people STILL make the argument that a vote NOT for Kamala was somehow opposing genocide. It was never on referendum, for any of the candidates.
Hey, look, it’s [90% of the people I argued with on Lemmy before election day]!
And it’s now 90% quieter. Hmmm.
This but it’s the green party whistling at genocide under Trump because they get to LARP hunger games on their social media accounts now.
Wait, so how is letting Trump get elected a win for those who oppose genocide?
Opposing genocide is a losing battle to begin with. A political movement organized around a policy, changing policy was resolutely rejected, and the movement was crushed.
It would be more accurate to say letting Trump win was preferred over opposing genocide than the other way around.
no one here is cheering genocide.
i wasn’t even shaming voters, i was shaming leadership and saying “wow i sure wish trump wasn’t elected”
it’s clear you have more emotional investment in snarky internet comebacks than any other value you may genuinely hold. get back to us when you can reprioritize your shit.
I think I’ve already asked you this and you’ve already refused to answer, but I’ll ask again just in case:
If I challenged you to send an email to a prominent person- a politician, a celebrity, a business leader- asking them to use their power to speak to the media in order to speak on behalf of Palestinians every time you brought up the election, would you do it?
