And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?
this was a Russian troll campaign, in every tankie on Twitter that fell for it is a moron
The more you delude yourself, the more you erode any chance of a DNC victory in 2028.
Oh it was, she was way to restrictive on Israel.
Also the argument for most of the voters was “woman” wich isn’t my opinion (I’m not voting in USA) but its clear that the minorities she counted on… Don’t like her.
because americans see voting the same as buying and endorsing a thing which is objectively wrong.
Not buying a product hurts the manufacturer.
Not voting does jack shit. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
America has powerful Karen/Kyle energy where people overreact to a slight flaw in service and this argument is the Karen/Kyle Tantrum argument over genuinely bad policies supported by Harris. They think if they take a fit this election they will be in a better spot next election. The reality is that more poeple will be homeless and out of reach. The media will be in worse shape.
Voting is always a trolley problem.
But overall I don’t think that’s the biggest group of people. The majority of people that didn’t vote I think were tuned out of the election because of ongoing failures.
Consider how you’d go about exploiting the opposite case.
If people will always vote for the slightly-less-worse candidate, then you only ever have to be slightly-less-worse than the opposition. You can sleaze right up to them and be almost as corrupt and evil as they are, so long as there’s just a little bit of extra sleaze sticking out that you can point to as the worse alternative. And you can farm the shit out of that, because then the other side never has to improve either - it’s an anti-competitive duopoly, where they both agree to only compete over surface details, not their overall horribleness, leaving them free to sleaze right up to the fucking-monster end of the spectrum.
Presumably a percentage of people refused to enable that behaviour, and said that slightly-less-genocide is a bridge too fucking far.
They made it plain from the outset that if the dems wanted to play chicken on this, the dems would lose. That they were not to big to fail, that daddy wouldn’t bail them out this time; put down the bombs or you’re getting kicked out for real.
The morally-correct choice would have been for the dems to stop supporting genocide, especially with so much at stake.
There’s this huge narrative that’s been consistently pushed that the actions of politicians are beyond accountability, sent down from on high like acts of god, and that moral responsibility lies only with the voters; that it’s meaningless even imagine any obligation for the ruling class to try and be good enough to vote for.
You know, the way the fossil fuel lobby found ways to shift the blame onto the consumer instead of themselves. The way the opioid manufacturers did the same. The way the gun manufacturers did the same. The way plastic manufacturers did the same fucking thing as well. We’ll act however we fucking well want to, and if you don’t like it, that’s literally your problem.
Oh no, you can’t hold us accountable now, it’s the worst possible time. It’s too soon to have this conversation, how can you be so insensitive, can’t you see there’s a highschool full of dead kids?
Somewhere, sometime, people have to say enough. And they did.
My own argument to these people has been that I’d prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won’t get elected.
In this election’s current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.
If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.
Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.
The best argument I came across went something like this: if we show the Democratic Party that we’ll accept something as horrible as genocide as long as the Republicans are worse, then we’ve completely surrendered our agency as voters.
Powerful statement. It was the most coherent, rational, well thought out explanation I’d seen. It didn’t come off as a condescending lecture on morality, either. I actually considered their argument for a couple days, but ultimately, I decided it wasn’t strong enough to risk another Trump administration.
It is a stupid fucking statement. “If you aren’t perfect on every single issue, then we won’t vote for you.”
- Step 1: take a conflict your nation did not start
- Step 2: tear your party apart over a conflict your nation did not start
- Step 3: lose the electoral fight in your nation to trump
- Step 4: ensure the war in that other nation is decided in the way your side did not want it to go
- Step 5: call Joe Biden a genocidal maniac
Maybe I don’t want the people who think this is a valid course of action on my side, since they will sabotage my side. If there is a next election, I want these folks ejected from the party and gone. They can vote for trump if they want, because that’s essentially what they did.
Israel is an arm of the US, Gaza is a proxy war. American presidents bear direct responsibility for the genocide
Chatgpt translation of a french politician’s analysis on the matter :
Spoiler
In this election, the United States of America couldn’t choose the left because it simply wasn’t an option. Vice President Kamala Harris aligned herself with President Biden and thus approved everything he did—and everything he didn’t do, especially when it comes to the genocide in Gaza. Biden allowed it to continue in all its aspects, month after month, for over a year now. And today, he stands by as Lebanon is invaded and airstrikes occur in neighboring countries. Therefore, the Democrats are directly and personally responsible for this genocide, and it has sparked outrage around the world. How could such a powerful and wealthy country, a political model for so many, which funds and arms 70% of Netanyahu’s war, do nothing to stop this genocide? This heavily discouraged working-class voters and, more broadly, people with a strong humanitarian conscience sensitive to the suffering of others.
Trump won because Kamala Harris and this American “left” were unable to mobilize the popular electorate. One could even say they kept their distance from it to appeal to opposing voters. Yet, society showed its left-leaning pulse in referendums held alongside the presidential election. Even in states where Trump won, votes on reproductive rights resulted in victories for the “pro-choice” side. In states where referendums on wages or quality of life were held, left-leaning solutions often won. So we are witnessing a shift to the right in the United States, as in France, but it is driven by the political and media elite. The elites on both sides resemble one another, with their media outlets and pollsters, seeing society as more right-leaning than it actually is. This is devastating when the left fails to stand its ground: the right gains free rein, and the popular left demobilizes. There was no political expression available for those voting in favor of leftist measures in various states. The Harris presidential candidacy didn’t represent these views, so voters didn’t turn out. They gave up. Out of frustration, some may have even voted for Trump, but I believe this was minimal.
Harris tried to convince people that, since all the economic indicators were positive, their lives were therefore better. And here we touch on another dimension of this election’s outcome. In the U.S., as in France when President Macron boasted, we heard on all sides that things were improving: lower unemployment, rising income levels, and so on. But ordinary people, those who live by their labor, don’t see things that way. Most Americans know their wages haven’t improved. Most Americans see that they must work harder to maintain a lower quality of life, working more to earn more only to pay for things that cost increasingly more due to inflation, like food. But also the everyday essentials that go unmentioned! While we discuss taxes to denounce social security contributions, we never talk about “private taxes.” Profits and dividends are essentially private taxes on production, benefiting only a few, while public taxes benefit everyone. This is the reality. How many other costs are never counted in mandatory contributions? You’re required to insure your car, your home; you’re required to buy a certain number of things without which you could be penalized for not having. All these costs have risen!
[…] So, if you work more, maybe you earn more, but you live less comfortably and life becomes increasingly difficult. And ultimately, you live in an ocean of poverty. Even if you have a quiet home, which is your right, when you walk through the streets, you see people sleeping on the ground. You find all kinds of signs of human distress, which hurt you because you can’t pass by without noticing. Above all, you feel personally threatened by it. That’s why what just happened in the United States is a preview of what will happen in all democracies. Today, leaders shift further to the right, scapegoating immigrants, young people, and, broadly speaking, life itself, criticizing it and its risks. All while saying that people are ungrateful because things are supposedly getting better. These leaders will be increasingly punished at the polls. But the situation for those in power remains the same. Trump is a billionaire surrounded by billionaires. He still plans to cut taxes. He still plans to raise tariffs on imports, hoping to make it more attractive to produce things domestically. His form of protectionism is not the same as the protectionism we advocate as the “insoumis.” We support “solidarity-based” protectionism, which aims to protect local production where it’s necessary. For instance, we need to protect local agriculture from imports. But in other areas, we must stop letting the market dictate everything as is happening now. We see factories closing one after another because they can’t compete globally against countries with cheaper social and environmental standards.
If Trump imposes the tariffs he has planned, prices in the U.S. will rise until domestic production fills the gaps. It’s simple: these goods will cost more. You can’t avoid them, and they aren’t made locally, so you’ll pay more. He hopes this will push Americans toward local products. Let’s hope there are any to turn to. Personally, I don’t believe the U.S. can rebuild a productive base strong enough to compete with “the world’s factory” in China and the rest of Asia. This goes for us in France, too.
Let’s draw some lessons from this. First, for democracy to thrive, there must be real debate on programs, not just on personalities. When all candidates say the same things, there’s no space for real discussion. This is why it all ends in insults and a pitiful spectacle, as we saw in the U.S. There must be genuine policy choices that engage society’s intelligence rather than relying on rejection, hatred, and the discrediting of others. Two worldviews are facing off, in the U.S. as elsewhere. And society understands this. Is it “everyone for themselves,” or is it “all together”? We need this discussion, but in the end, we need to make choices based on concrete, opposing options—not just endless repetition of the same ideas.
We must also draw a strategic lesson: society needs alternative choices. That’s why we’re fine with being called the “radical left.” It’s not how we, the “insoumis,” see ourselves, but at least people understand we are proposing something different. Otherwise, people turn away from voting or lean increasingly to the right, looking for scapegoats. The second lesson is that good or bad economic numbers alone don’t convince people to vote a certain way. When people are told the numbers look good, it’s really just a way of saying they have no choice but to vote to keep things the same. People know that under capitalism, their lives are unlikely to improve, but their environment could be entirely devastated. And for those with bad numbers, it’s a way to say nothing can change because of that, as we see in France. Good numbers, bad numbers—the conclusion is always the same. But if we keep things the same, we’re heading for disaster.
We can’t win against the “every man for himself” mindset unless we explain why “all together” is essential. An election should be a vision for the future. The world is entering a dangerous phase. At each step, we must reflect on what has just happened and learn from it. The next time challenges come, we must reflect and make informed choices.
Kamala Harris, like President Joe Biden, bears personal responsibility for the genocide against Palestinians. They armed those responsible and stood by when they had the means to stop this catastrophe. Harris and Biden are responsible for once again mocking the public, providing none of the answers that American workers expect from a Democratic Party that wants to be the U.S. left. Americans need to break free from this stifling two-party system that prevents progressive choices. I regret that Bernie Sanders and the left of the Democratic Party continued to carry water for Kamala Harris and that Party.
Everywhere, we need the courage of our convictions. We must stand firm. Even if we lose because we couldn’t convince others, at least we fought. The worst thing is to lose both our ideas and the elections. That’s why we must learn a lesson from this. And broadly, everyone who wants to break with today’s system must take this lesson seriously—politically, socially, ecologically. We must all believe it’s crucial to stand firm, without compromising to seem more acceptable to our opponents, as Kamala Harris did. This world is unbearable for the majority. A different future must be possible for life to be bearable. And we must take this personally. We must act, not just let events unfold without doing anything, shedding tears before and after—tears of fear, then tears for what we’ve lost.
And the following are statements from before Nov 5th, before the election results:
Spoiler
When both candidates say the same thing, it creates a stifling environment. It becomes impossible to discuss topics that neither candidate has brought up—such as the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population and the invasion against the Lebanese people. This is an issue that provokes a reaction and deep thought globally. But in the United States, whether it’s Trump or Harris, both support the genocide. The current Biden administration, being Democratic, provides weapons and financial backing to Netanyahu, supplying nearly 70% of Israel’s arms. Occasionally, they make hypocritical statements about ensuring humanitarian aid access, while funding the genocide and destruction.
Trump and Harris both support the genocide and give unconditional, if differently worded, support to Netanyahu’s government. They also agree on handling capitalism, with neither willing to tax windfall profits of corporations. They both avoid addressing public health issues, among other critical matters. Although Democrats at least recognize environmental issues, Harris has boasted about the strong oil industry performance under Biden’s administration. There’s little space to discuss anything outside a narrow range of topics, which is why U.S. election campaigns inevitably become personality battles and insult matches.
There’s a lot here that we recognize because we see it at home, too. I find it amusing when the media says U.S. campaigns are “too personality-driven,” or that “the arguments are rudimentary,” or that polling institutes are always wrong! Isn’t that also the case here? We have dominant narratives that are just as basic, comparable to Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. We also have racist discourses that rival Trump’s, and our polling institutes are often off the mark, misleading the public about voter intentions. There is a reflection of the American system in the French system: Kamala Harris and the Democrats resemble the Socialist Party and Le Monde, while Trump is like the National Rally, Eric Ciotti, and Le Figaro.
Right now, we’re being cornered to take a position on the U.S. election. Recently, I watched the morning news with two French left-wing representatives. Both were asked to choose between Trump and Harris. But let’s remember: we are not U.S. voters. If we take a position, it’s to clarify our general political priorities. What matters to us in this election? The campaign has been reduced to very little, offering no choice on major issues impacting North Americans’ daily lives or those of people living under U.S. dominance. These issues, tied to critiques of capitalism, are unaddressed. Inflation erodes the income of the poorest Americans as much as it does in Europe or France, yet this is never discussed. Nor is anything said about what will be done for industrial areas where factories have closed and everyone has been laid off. What will come next? No one knows, except that both Trump and Harris favor tariffs to revive their industry—a strategy unlikely to bring them to a competitive market position with China, which is why both are anti-China. A Democratic leader went so far as to admit, “There’s no market solution to compete with China.” In other words, both support war.
I’ve just outlined how both candidates agree on key issues that we strongly oppose. I read that Harris is “the lesser evil” compared to Trump. I reject that notion. The lesser evil is still evil. As Hannah Arendt said, “Those who choose the lesser evil forget that they chose evil.” I’d add that Harris, by being complicit in genocide and pro-capitalist policies, has alienated working-class voters in swing states.
There is, however, a crucial difference between them on an individual liberty: Trump opposes the right to abortion, while Harris supports it. This is a fundamental difference—not a minor detail—since it affects the personal freedom of half of humanity: all women. If I were in the U.S., this would weigh heavily in my voting decision. They are similar but not identical. One might wish for a Harris victory, though it would not bring substantial change. However, a Trump loss would stir greater turmoil in the U.S., as he would not accept defeat. For us, that might be positive. A divided U.S. might reduce its global interference, including support for regimes like Netanyahu’s and others, especially in the Asia-Pacific.
If I were a voter in a swing state, I would vote Democrat. But in a Democratic state where their majority is assured, adding more votes wouldn’t increase the Democratic electoral college count. In such a case, breaking the stranglehold might be worthwhile, and I would consider my options. If in a solidly Democratic state, I’d vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because their platform closely aligns with our goals here.
Let’s briefly review the American Greens’ proposals, which neither Harris nor Trump supports. They advocate for free public education throughout life. They propose abolishing student debt and medical debt, and strengthening a social security system that doesn’t exist there. They support heavy taxes on large fortunes and corporations—something we just voted for in our National Assembly. They call for a minimum wage indexed to inflation and productivity growth, which we push for at each parliamentary session, and a guaranteed income above the poverty line. They would make housing a human right, place the pharmaceutical industry under public ownership and democratic control, and replace the two-party exclusionary system with a multiparty democracy. This includes proportional representation in all legislative elections and the abolition of the death penalty. They also champion gender liberties and reducing migration pressures by ending crises that force people to migrate—a statement nearly word-for-word from our party.
[…] In any case, the United States is a far more fractured and disjointed country than it may appear from a distance. And if this country is fractured and disjointed, it’s not because of the crudeness of the campaign rhetoric. That crudeness is actually a result of the fact that, since the candidates say essentially the same things on major issues, they can only confront each other through personal attacks. They both say the same things because both defend the same global order, the same widespread presence of NATO, the same dominance over the world, and the same aggression toward anything that resists them. Why with such force and violence? Because they are defending a system that has torn apart American society. The American people are better than the political figures who represent them. Sooner or later, the collective spirit of grassroots America, as it manifests when mobilized for major causes, will reemerge.
But today, the American public is being deeply influenced by the far right, much like public opinion in Europe, especially in places where there is no way to express an alternative viewpoint outside the two-party system that dominates and blocks any broader perspective.
You should make a Twitter account and follow some channels posting the war crimes committed by Israel. Be sure to watch some gore. A beheaded baby every day with their guts flowing out.
You will understand very quickly if you leave the echo chamber and see what the word genocide really means. Only a monster can justify it.
I think this was just one issue of many that led to her loss, but to answer your question, it’s somewhat simple:
There are 2 viable options. Voting for one shows support for their platform. But if the 2 options stand together on an important issue and the voter is on the other side of it, the voter cannot support their stance by voting for either option. Voting for either would only serve to erase their opinion which is counter-productive.
If a voter’s opinions cannot be expressed by voting for either option, then it leaves one final recourse to be heard: To not vote for either of them.
This shows up as a drop in turnout. A substantially poor turnout means that there are voters that can be picked up next cycle if either party cares to cater to them. If any parties do this, then the non-voters have successfully exerted influence.
Maybe you disagree that this is a logical strategy but consider this:
Some citizens tried this and lo and behold, their voices were heard. The whole internet is up in arms! All that remains now is to see whether the politicians listen.
They probably won’t, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if people turned out to vote against their beliefs on the matter. Which means that, on this issue, the strategy of withholding votes has already been more successful than any outcome that could be arrived at through voting (because, again, those outcomes would only serve to silence these potential voters).
I can’t speak for others, but I can tell you why I didn’t vote for Harris.
I am a lifelong independent voter. In 2016 I wrote in Kanye West, in 2020 I wrote in Nobody, this year I didn’t even vote. (I also voted Bush in '04, Ron Paul in '08, and Obama in '12) I go to the polls even if I am planning to writing in a presidential pick because there are usually ballot issues or other races I care about.
I decided not to vote when the DNC opted to not hold a primary even though absolutely no one wanted a Biden second term and the deal was elect Biden in 2020 and they’d find someone good for '24. After Biden’s disastrous debate and he dropped out, I was angry because everyone said no to Kamala already in 2020, but they still ran her.
On the issues, Kamala is too centrist for me and Gaza is a deal breaker. Most Palestinian casualties have been civilians and waaaaay too many children. Using my tax dollars to kill foreign children is not acceptable. I don’t care that Israel is our ally or they they provide us an important strategic resource in the region. I honestly don’t care if Israel wants to do a genocide or if Palestine wants to do a bunch or terrorism, that’s on them. But we don’t have to support it and I won’t vote for anyone who will.
The Democrats at least call for a ceasefire in Gaza, even though they send weapons to Israel. Trump openly admits that he would like Bibi to flatten the place with no regard for human life.
But I guess both parties are the same.
To the dead Palestinian children they are.
Are you a dead Palestinian Child? No.
Not voting is basically the same as giving Netanjahu Carte Blanche to kill more innocent palestinians.
While I understand not being happy with the Status Quo there’s also always a worse option. You now elected that “Worse Option™”.
Removed by mod
As I am not eligible to vote in the US I certainly didn’t.
Removed by mod
All I am is disappointed, I ain’t pretending to be anything else.
I accept my responsibility in how things have turned out. I would feel absolutely horrible and would be wrought with guilt for my entire life if it had come down to a single vote, but I would not have voted for either Kamala or Trump even if I had gone to the polls.
I understand that makes me responsible in a very small way for Trump winning and I don’t like it, but I accept that. It was a risk I was willing to take in February when I decided not to vote.
Gaza wasn’t why I decided not to vote at all, the disconnect between voter and politician and the way queer issues were completely abandoned this election were why I didn’t vote. If Kamala had said she would end our alliance with Israel if they didn’t stop killing civilians she still wouldn’t have gotten my vote because I wasn’t casting one to begin with.
If Gaza is such a hot topic for you, how do you justify letting someone that absolutely despises muslims and would love to see them eradicated, enter the white house and likely lift all restrictions on Israel and delivery anything they ask for? There’s little doubt that Haris would have changed the situation much at all, but a Trump win basically solidifies the Palestinian’s fate to die as Israel’s war equipment guinea pigs. Do you feel like your inaction is fine because either way, the genocide doesn’t end?
Removed by mod
Do you feel like your inaction is fine because either way, the genocide doesn’t end?
Pretty much. Less genocide is not a compelling argument. The children who died with Kamala in the White House would be just as dead with Trump.
What about the kids who wouldn’t die under kamala but now will? You say less genocide is the same, but even if it’s 10% less, I bet those 10% of kids would want kamala.
I strongly disagree with aspects of your perspective but I appreciate your honest engagement
Kanye West?
well at least you’re consistent…
Btw, your chosen course of actions indirectly supported the option of spending even more tax dollars on killing people in gaza, so you might want to consider breaking your consistent streak of picking the wrong choice and try woting in a way that aligns with your stated goals
I strongly think what you did is incorrect but I appreciate you sharing your view, and disapprove those who downvoted you. Upvoted.
Agreeing with you on Palestine, but I think Trump will be way worse, in that case and many others.
- Due to the failings of the electoral college system, my state was almost guarenteed to vote the same way as it has for the last 30 years
- I did not strongly agree with either party/candidate
- I dispise the current two party system that both major parties are incentivized to maintain
- Voting for a third party who is incentivised to push for change via ranked voting and other methods does aid them even if they don’t win
If my state was likely to be contested, I may have voted differently. Voting for a third party in my case however had a greater impact than fighting or joining the tide of my state
Voting third party is fine. Protest voting is acceptable, though this result still fucking sucks. Strategic voting doesn’t have to be the default choice.
Anybody that did NOT vote, thinking it would be any sort of protest, is completely idiotic. Self imposed disenfranchisement only forfeits your own ability to say anything about the results.
Morals and ethics are subjective and based on emotions. That’s why science doesn’t say what’s good or bad. I don’t think you can prove or disprove this argument. People who are strongly focused on Gaza and simply reject views that challenge their own.
Personally I don’t see morals as entirely subjective.
I’d say that ‘worst possible misery for everyone’ is objectively bad and any attempt to move away from that is better.
its arguable but not without merit. its very much the same as you don’t negotiate with terrorists. honestly its disgusting that we are questioning morals of not endorsing genocide instead of demanding aipac and dnc to be investigated for war crimes and defrauding its members for the 3rd election in a row.
questioning morals of not endorsing genocide
That’s a somewhat skewed lens to view it through, as not everyone agrees that what we’re seeing is a genocide. I definitely don’t think it is. I’m open to hearing arguments to the contrary, but so far, everyone I’ve tried discussing it with either gets emotionally captured or doesn’t argue honestly and in good faith, so the discussion goes nowhere.
i don’t know if i can help someone who is ignoring the obvious here which is being echoed by un and every major humanitarian org. if your just objecting from legal pov rather than moral then maybe go through the case prepared by south africa.
copy pasting some links from earlier discussions below on the moral and intent side of things which is based on the what they are themselves acknowledging or rather bragging.
here is one from their own newspaper: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/reservist-eulogized-for-desire-to-take-revenge-against-gazans-setting-home-on-fire-to-boost-morale/
this pos had already killed someone in westbank in front of his kids and wife before oct 7. anyone really believes idf full of slime like this aren’t murdering civilians even kids the moment they see them ?
here they are openly bragging about murdering pregnant women and kids : https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/israel-condemns-soldiers-t-shirts-depict-shooting-arabs/
another one sourced from their own posts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucfxj-faTWI
this has been ongoing since 1948: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjTxDYtNhno
If you can’t make an argument for your view using your own words, then I’m not interested in going any further with this.
👍🏻
Morality is not subjective. It is not (or at least should not) be based on emotions.
Morality is most definitely subjective. Talk to different groups around the globe and you’ll find different moral boundaries. The morals posed by Islam differ from christianity, which differ from buddhism, which all differ from nihilistic views, and still further diverge from tribal morals of small secluded tribes of people. While they shouldn’t be based on emotion, they do tend to be reactionary and emotional at their outset. And breaking them within any particular group tends to get you strong emotional responses.
Russian bots mostly, but also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won’t affect them
also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won’t affect them
I’m a privileged person who probably won’t be directly affected by another Trump presidency. Probably. Hopefully.
But anybody who genuinely holds that opinion, and doesn’t care what happens to everybody else, may as well just be a full-on trumper.
Sure, Russian bots. But Hasbara likely played a significant role too.
Don’t underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren’t so bad while the Reps said they’d change things.
The changes will of course be worse, but if things are clearly shit, and someone keeps telling you that it’s not that bad, you start to despise those people even if they’re the better choice.
Do you have any examples of Dems telling people things werent bad? The closest things I can think of is dems saying we know things are bad but we are working on them and they are getting better. It feels like a republican talking point that dems think things are good.
“Bidenomics” and “Economy is doing great” and anything and everything involving the word “GDP”
Bidenomics is a right wing attack phrase and I’ve never heard Biden say the economy is doing great. So not sure what your point here was.
You’re right. I guess there’s the problem. I don’t doubt that if I also checked some other memories of Biden’s mistakes I’d find that I remember them how the right wants me to remember them.
Don’t underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren’t so bad while the Reps said they’d change things.
Okay, but those aren’t the single-issue Gaza voters OP was asking about.
Frankly, they should’ve been what OP was asking about though, because they were a way bigger factor (and always are, in every election, despite the Democrats abject refusal to acknowledge it).
The big group of voters that the Democrats didn’t see coming were the ton of racists and misogynistic assholes (mostly white but latino men also)
It doesn’t have to make sense for people to convince themselves to do it. It will certainly lead to worse outcomes for gaza
If yoor morals disregard the probable outcomes and is more focused on normative rules you could make some arguments but that kind of purity won’t save a single starving child in gaza
Maybe people believe that it will save a starving child in the future. Like, some future where politicians finally listen to them?
