It’s incredible that peoples’ minds are so colonized that their first instinct is to blame voters instead of party leadership that shut down all discussion of Biden’s declining health, undemocratically anointed a wildly unpopular successor and then failed to listen to voters who were saying that supporting an ongoing genocide was a bridge too far.
Trying to explain to Americans that the fact they don’t Primary Challenge incumbent democrats is a massive part of the problem; is tiresome.
I really think the left were the canary in the coal mine with this entire Israel issue. I personally know people who didn’t give a fuck about Gaza during the election, who are now really wondering why shit is the way it is, who are slowly realizing (in their own ways) how it’s all connected.
Not necessarily the left, but I’ve always called trans and disabled people a canary in the coalmine for fascism. We’re always among the first groups they come for
My default assumption is that whenever there’s a widespread youth protest movement focused on improving rights or human safety, most of the time those kids are on the right side of history.
Blaming anyone that voted third party is one of the most tiresome, braindead, selfish opinions. Seriously, get over yourself. The entire reason we’re in this mess is because of the two party system putting people against eachother instead of the greedy villains surviving the life out of the country. Stop being weak and giving in to the lesser evil. Compromising with harm only brings about more harm.
In conclusion, fuck you.
They will blame third parties, meanwhile 6 million of THEM couldn’t even be bothered to vote.
it’s never their fault, all the way down
Blaming anyone that voted third party is one of the most tiresome, braindead, selfish opinions.
It’s also mathematically ignorant. If Harris received every single third party vote excluding RFK Jr’s, even if you include Libertarians who are more right-leaning, she still would’ve lost.
Here’s the thing, in the reality that existed in November 2024, there were only 4 choices. 1) Vote for Trump, 2) vote for Harris, 3) vote 3rd party, or 4) don’t vote at all.
Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.
Argue all you want about the two party system being terrible, the distribution of Electoral College votes per capita over states being wrong, the impact of freezing the House seat numbers, or anything else related HAS NO IMPACT on the general election.
For the record, I hate all of the items I mentioned above, but NONE of that mattered come November.
Anyone disputing this is either a disinformation psyop/bot, a champion of a US downfall, or a complete moron.
Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.
Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris.
Did I also vote Marianne Williamson, Cenk Uygur, and Cornell West by voting for Jill Stein? Or just Trump and Harris? I’m trying to figure out the limits to this new infinite-voting glitch we discovered together.
Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris
Yes, from the perspective of those who saw Harris as the worst outcome (cue clip of the “apparently I’m an idiot” lady).
For the others, not really no. Sure a coin flip could technically land on the edge, but in real-world conditions it’s even less likely to be called that way.
don’t expect them to accept logic.
Oh I dont lol
You’re an act utilitarian. Rule utilitarians disagree with you. Yours is not the only ethical system, and it’s the height of hubris and arrogance to pretend that only your moral system is valid.
What moral system throws millions of vulnerable people under the bus so you can brag about how tall your horse is?
Try not to ask such loaded questions. You’re better than that. I know you can do better.
Again, act utilitarianism vs rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is what our laws use. You’re using act utilitarianism, which has a much poorer track record. A rule utilitarian would say, “we need a hard and fast rule that genocide is wrong. Anyone who supports genocide is a criminal that deserves zero support and respect. This rule creates the greatest good for the greatest number over time.” An act utilitarian says, “this genocide may be OK, if it’s the lesser evil. If I can convince myself it’s on net positive, then it’s the moral thing to do.”
Our laws use rule utilitarianism. You’re not allowed to argue in court that murdering a guy was a net positive to the world. We instead say, “banning all murders will result in the greatest good for the greatest number, so we’ll outlaw all murders.”
You can have two systems that each try to optimize for the greatest good to the greatest number. Rule utilitarians create bright rules that on net, over time, result in the greatest good for the greatest number and avoid the temptation to justify horrible acts by arguing for the greater good. Act utilitarians try to judge each act individually, ignoring a lot of the context and pretending that this act exists in complete isolation from all acts before and after.
Act utilitarianism is literally the moral philosophy of the Holocaust.
It doesn’t matter who you voted for, neither group is putting the effort needed to protest and shut what the government is doing down. All parties are culpable to what is going on.
Im no different, I’m also guilty of this, but I recognize I need to do more and I’m trying.
Feeling righteous and indignant on the internet moves progress backwards and allows the bots to win.
First past the post creating a two party system is a result of math. You might as well complain about Pi would be easier to remember if Pi=3.0 . Math doesn’t care about your feelings.
thats a good point. pi being 3.14159 is bullshit and I’ve had enough of it.
The US electoral system is not a universal constant. It is not pi or the speed of light. It is a system by which rich people maintain control over a declining imperial power, based on a document written by slave owners 250 years ago as part of a tax dodging scheme.
but but but Russia!!! China!!!
Would you like a hankie?
They are correct, and your response here just proves how absolutely braindead you are. Maybe it’s time for some introspection?
Maybe it’s time for a hankie?
you’re hopeless.
Took you this long to figure that out?
It’s not about your stupid little election anymore, Americans. There is nothing more unimportant than your two parties. You’re being kicked out of the middle east and the basis for your global empire is crumbling. Soon you’ll be kicked out of the rest of the world too, and the contest between the “do nothing” party and the “make life worse” party will matter to Americans and Americans alone.
That’s a nice fantasy, but, it’s not real. This will be painful for the US and it will have less of an ability to leverage its ability to project power for diplomatic gains, it will be far more painful for the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world. The only winners in this are Russia and Iran (pending sanctions relief and the ability to rebuild their infrastructure), but the US and China (and their closest economic partners) lose the least, and between nations that’s as near as makes no difference to winning.
For as long as the US remains a cohesive entity, it will remain a world power, if maybe not the global hegemon that it has been, but it’s a long road from here to there and despite the best attempts of Trump et al, we’re not there yet and there are many things that could yet happen to derail that process.
Trump being President proves the USA is going down, and the world economy will suffer for it. But, inevitable.
You may not enjoy what follows
It had to happen, I choose to enjoy it
deleted by creator
Every day with this juvenile “I personally blame you” shit, OP. It didnt make sense the first time you whined about it, and its stupid now as well. No one cares who you blame, and no one cares about your silly attempts to mock people. Also, progressives will just do it again. You have changed no ones mind, just make them despise you more than they already did. Why not look for more inclusion? This has always been the centrists problem.
Never ceases to amaze me that she cared more about killing innocent people than she did about winning that election.
Resentment politics, blue version.
There’s a really, really big gap between “support Palestinians” and “support the genocide of the palestinians”. And Harris sat aaaalll the way on the wrong side of that gap. And no, I don’t think that can be forgiven.
And fuck you for belittling the magnitude of the genocide. You’re in here with this “what was she supposed to do, not support the genocide?” attitude, and it’s absolutely sickening. Because yes, that is exactly what you should expect from a human fucking being. To not support the mass murder of children. But apparently, to you, this is some unreasonable purity test. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
What did she say about the genocide of the palestinians then?
Little known fact about Kamala Harris: she was actually part of the administration that sent close to 20 billion dollars in aid to help Israel commit the genocide. Pretty high up on the totem pole too.
I don’t have a specific Harris quote, but her running mate Walz said “The expansion of Israel… is an absolute fundamental necessity for the US”.
Maybe this makes you go “AHA! Gotcha, no quote!” But if, during the holocaust, I saw someone shipping heaps of zyklon B to Germany, have a running mate that said “well actually, it seems pretty great that Germany invaded Poland”, and who refuses to use the word genocide to describe the holocaust that they helped commit, that would be enough for me to conclude they’re a nazi. You’d have to be pretty fucking stupid not to. Or just not care, in which case, fuck you.
Modern day liberals would have shrugged their shoulders at Hitler. Not even hyperbole. We have become so individualistic as a country that we don’t give a damn about our tax dollars killing civilians overseas.
all y’all are shrugging your shoulders at trump and expecting someone else to do something, so hey. that’s EXACTLY what you would have done about hitler
As opposed to you who is doing…?
It’s funny to say this in defense of the people who literally shrugged their shoulders when it came down to a vote to prevent Hitler from taking office.
If we were on reddit, I’d cross post this to selfawarewolves.
Its a bit different – Hitler was appointed chancellor by Von hindenburg. He never won an election. He was appointed by a man who was way too old – bedridden and dementia afflicted. He didnt even recognize Hitler when presented to him for the appointment, and thought he was talking to the old Kaiser. (kind of reminds you of Biden doesnt it…)
Honest question: what responsibility, if any, do you place on the Democratic establishment in all this? First we held our noses and voted for Joe Biden, who was clearly old as fuck, then we didn’t get a primary because Biden dropped out of the race at the last possible minute.
Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians are shifting to the right, with their pro-billionaire pro-Israeli “bipartisan” politics.
We draw a line at literal genocide. (Hence my earlier comment about Hitler.) Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians. Fuck outta here.
I think the main problem is that voters think that the only thing they need to do is vote. If you really care about what is happening, you need to be involved in much more of the political process which means volunteer work. And most people believe that they do not have any time to devote to that so they are ‘stuck’ voting for what others put in place. Of course those ‘others’ are going to put in place what works best for themselves. Even if you didn’t think Harris was a good choice, you could have voted differently on the rest of the ballot. In a democracy you get both what you vote for and what you don’t vote against.
Personally, I think Democrats would have reined in Netanyahu and not given him the full freedom that Trump does because unlike Trump they don’t worship the guy, the Christian Nationalists wouldn’t be trying to get them to start Armageddon through Israel’s actions, and Putin wouldn’t be pulling their strings rooting for this to happen to hasten the downfall of the US. It may not have been good for Palestinians but I don’t think it would have been as atrocious. I could be wrong but we will never know. Another note: Americans have never been against genocide, so long as it is their side that is committing it. As they see most laws/morals/ethics, it is only wrong when the other guy is doing it. Which is one of the reasons that Americans exempted themselves from the world court - so they could do with impunity what other countries would be tried for.Seems like everyone forgets their civics class but voting for a president is not the place to make your voices heard for issues.
You’ll typically have the top three choices: A democrat A republican A throwaway third choice
For most it will be voting for the lesser evil. Because the alternatives can mean rapid stagflation, war in the middle east, supporting paedophiles, and a myriad of other problems, while the other is essentially maintaining the status quo.
For proper change you have to organize locally, vote for local elections and keep pushing your representatives to represent you throughout the year. By the time primaries come around, typically candidates are already known figures and the party points are gathered from data throughout the year.
Honestly, after a certain point I feel like all the posts about people saying they would rather not vote at all despite the two distinct choices are some sort of psyops campaign to bring chaos to the world.
I can’t wrap my head around people seriously being more okay with this criminal in office than an imperfect candidate.
Except when the Democrat party orchestrates the primaries anyway.
A lot of people view it differently.
We draw a line at literal genocide
To many people, you don’t. You require a candidate to be sufficiently anti-genocide in their addresses before you’ll vote for them, but you don’t view stopping an openly pro genocide politician as reason to vote for someone.
Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates.
Yes. Those shit candidates are at least less antithetical to our wishes. You don’t get “none of the above”. You get milquetoast or you get Hitler.
Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians.
That’s the argument used against people who say people need to go to the movies to support the studios. The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it’s one of two.
So pick: the mildest of diplomatic pressure against genocide while changing little of the structural support, or vocal encouragement with increased facilitation and also we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.
What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying “they’re both the same to me”, and later indignantly saying how they’re against something they did literally nothing to stop and being angry at the people who didn’t sell it hard enough.
No one is owed your vote, and the Democratic party is really missing opportunities to appeal to a disgruntled leftward segment of the population, but it’s confounding to hear more vitriol at the party that didn’t do enough to sell not letting Hitler take office, than at the one that actually put him there, and usually coming from those that wouldn’t say no to Hitler without being sufficiently courted first.
… we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.
See, democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder. The math doesn’t work that way: either we give a shit about people’s right to live or we don’t. You don’t get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler. This is what’s called having a semblance of moral principles. It’s not virtue signaling to demand our government stop BOMBING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, what the fuck is wrong with you people. Maybe if you went further left instead of being so ready to “compromise” we could, I don’t know, pressure our politicians into doing something.
The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it’s one of two…What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying “they’re both the same to me”
This is the coveted Lesser of Two Evilstm argument. You people parrot this line as though it were a truism. Here’s an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference? (On second thought, don’t answer that.) Arguing for the “lesser evil” only pacifies our anger in an attempt to redirect the people to continue supporting corporate Democrats no matter how bad our material conditions deteriorate. People who believe this argument preserve the status quo.
America has been in decline since Ronald fucking Reagan. Presidential powers have been growing for decades. Congress has been corrupt for decades. We have broken (and supported breaking) international laws for decades. We leverage our control of the global economy, and the global reserve currency, in favor of US billionaires. The rich have gotten obscenely wealthy while the average American is one missed paycheck away from financial ruin. The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.
The Democratic party is either powerless to stop these trends or they are complicit. At what point are we going to demand more?
Here’s an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?
If doing nothing means I’m going to be force fed the lemonade with 50% urine, then I would prefer the latter option. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but it’s the better outcome.
You don’t get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler.
Says who? Did your way result in less genocide, or more?
democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder
Who said anything about ignoring? It’s harm reduction. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But you know what? It’s less evil. If I have to pick between two dead Palestinians and a dead trans kid, or two dead Palestinians, I’ll pick the option with less dead kids 100% of the time.
Saying that we can’t do something to help people because it’s accepting something bad is the same argument conservatives use to argue against needle exchange programs or sex ed. No one should be using heroin, so we shouldn’t try to keep them from getting HIV.This is what’s called having a semblance of moral principles.
I’m sure the children who were bombed are deeply appreciative of your intact principles.
Here’s an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?
Are you going to choose to drink the first because the situation is bullshit?
The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.
And leaning into it or doing nothing is just suicidal.
I wouldn’t be happy, but if drinking the 10% one ensured I were less likely to have to drink the 50% one and was forced to drink one either way, I’m sure as hell drinking the 10%
Honest question: what responsibility, if any, do you place on the Democratic establishment in all this?
Probably similar, if not the same responsibility that you do.
The expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank, and the treatment of Palestinians as second class citizens in on their own land enjoys bipartisan support in the US government.
Democrats are too willing to make concessions to try to flip middle of the road voters, and too fearful of enacting beneficial changes to engage the more leftist groups.
The Democratic leadership (both within the party and Congress) is selected by compliance and seniority, rather than capability, and momentum.
Democrats are too happy to preserve the status quo instead trusting their voters to turn out and take risks on disrupting broken systems.
I find the main differences between myself and the anti-kamala non-voters is that I understand that democracy is inherently a compromise. No candidate is going to reflect all your values. Every who makes it to the national stage is going to have positions that are unpalatable to some of their voters. I can live with continuing the status quo, especially when the alternative is a full on genocide, another endless war, more territorial expansion, the erosion of personal liberties, the undermining of elections, rigging of courts…etc.
At the end of the day, the people who held their vote or voted 3rd party in 2024 made a gamble. They gambled that trump wouldn’t win, and Democrats would get the message that they need to move further left to get more votes. That was the best outcome. What they risked for it, was literally everything. Food, water, shelter, rights, subsequent elections, the rule of law, and any possibility of limiting Israel’s genocide. That’s a fucking dumb gamble. Low chance of success, low chances of change, risked against an extremely high chance of losing everything. That’s a dumb fuckin’ bet. I have no idea how anyone with 2 braincells can look at the situation after abstaining their vote and going “yeah, I totally made the right decision, and none of this is my fault. I’m gonna go on the internet and brag about it.”
Kamala may not have gone to war with Iran (good)
Kamala wouldn’t have torpedoed the american empire (bad)Kamala may not have gone to war with Iran (good)
She did promise “the most lethal military in the history of the world” or whatever, and that really only means one thing: killing a whole lot of people.
Pissrael is her master all the same.
Hear hear! Fuck 'em! Marg bar amrika!
Funny how linking this comment to your previous one in this thread proves that you don’t give a shit about the “lazy argument” about voting 3rd party. You know it was detrimental to the US and directly supported Trump, which you (rightfully) concluded is negatively impactful to the “American empire” as you call it.
Stop being a disingenuous troll.
I am not an American and I can’t vote in your elections, which are meaningless by the way. However, nothing disgusts me more than American liberals whining about how much better things would be if people had just held their noses and voted for the Democrats in spite of the ongoing genocide supported by the Democrats.
You had your chance and you blew it. It’s out of your hands now. You’re being kicked out of the middle east and eventually you will be kicked out of the rest of the world as well. The fate of the world will not be determined by your elections. They will be your problem and your problem alone.
Some people would rather let the train run over 5 people instead of 1, just so their own hands stay “technically clean”…
Strange to brag about being cool with being an active murderer.
Why do act utilitarians pretend that there’s is the only valid ethical system? Why are they ignorant that the very laws of your country aren’t written according to the ethical system you claim is the only valid one?
Why not just vote on the lesser evil and try to change the system for the better even outside of election season?
Why choose very hard mode over hard mode?
That’s an odd way to spell “I have no morals to stand on”.
edit: The person above also clearly doesn’t understand the purpose of the Trolly Problem. It’s a thought-experiment to show whether you agree with consequentialist or deontologist ethics. Even thought the former is in vouge, the Trolly problem isn’t itself an argument against deontology.
Those pearls you’re clutching must feel so good right now
Found the illiterate.
Get this liberal shit away from me
It’s crazy that harris prefered this over giving some paly group a little speaking spot at the convention.
This is a great point. There are some people who just will never vote for a candidate if they feel that the person supports genocide, even if it means their livelihood will be impacted! I guess we should factor those voters in when we select candidates. Would hate to lose again!
lololol no, you’re right, voters should absolutely represent our politicians and not the other way around. Please reply with the same meme again if you agree.
Thank you for coming over from Threads and teaching us a valuable lesson.
Truly incredible how you can get dunked on like this on your home turf. You must seriously suck at posting.
Oh nooooo, my precious internet points! Anything but being DUNKED ON on my HOME TURF (wtf is my “home turf”?)
