• aberrate_junior_beatnik (he/him)@midwest.socialEnglish
    896·
    3 months ago

    Of course being pro genocide lost Harris votes. The DNC is fine with Republicans (including Trump) winning so long as they can preclude the left, which is the actual purpose of the Democratic party. Most of the base will happily be useful idiots and spend their energy punching left rather than allow any criticism of the party, all the while calling the left naive and blaming them for losing elections.

      • Salamence@mander.xyzOPEnglish
        329·
        3 months ago

        the brave pro genocide democrat lol, you people deserve a century of humiliation

      • fodor@lemmy.zipEnglish
        204·
        3 months ago

        Oh my friend, you read like an undercover right-wing plant. It’s fairly obvious to anyone with a conscience that genocide is the simplest and most important issue that a candidate could fuck up. And Harris did that.

        Let’s compare issues. I would say that on various issues (immigration, defense spending, health care) her stances were certainly not left-wing. Center, center-right, pro-corporate, that’s what I would say. And these are important issues. But I think it’s also true that she could have maintained many of those stances and still win. After all, previous Democrat presidents did.

        If you’re afraid to say that genocide is wrong, and don’t actively work to stop it, you deserve to lose.

        • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
          92·
          3 months ago

          It’s not even just genocide, it’s trust. Exactly how much trust should we put in a candidate who participated in supporting and covering for a genocide? Sure, she aligns with my issues slightly more than Trump. What good is that if she’s a liar too? It’s no damn wonder people didn’t show up to vote.

            • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
              7·
              3 months ago

              That’s not how elections work. It’s way more complicated than identifying the lesser of two evils, especially when turnout is a factor.

              It’s also not all about voting, it’s also about organizing and outreach. Sure, I voted for Harris. Did I make calls for her, put up signs, or canvas the neighborhood? Fuck no. The last thing I want to do is try to convince people to vote for a candidate I hate. Enthusiasm matters, especially for Democrats. Harris had a shit ground game, and that’s why.

              • Claidheamh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                42·
                3 months ago

                I’m enthusiastic about voting against fascism, and I’ve done so in every election in my adult life. It’s really not that complicated. The only reason to make it complicated is increasing profit factor for media conglomerates, which I guess somewhat explains what’s happening to your country.

                • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
                  4·
                  3 months ago

                  Republicans are liberal fascists and establishment Democrats are fascist liberals. There was no realistic “against fascism” option on the ballot. I took the harm reduction path and voted for the fascist liberal, but that’s irrelevant.

                  Yes, media consolidation was a huge factor. Russian influence operations were likely another. Both are dwarfed though by the impact of constant lies and betrayals from establishment Democrats.

                  I strongly agree that allowing Trump to win was a really dumb move. However, I do understand how people got there. It makes total sense that the Democrats lost, given their history and the campaign Harris ran. I don’t think that’s an “American” thing. We’re hardly the first to elect a demagogue when neoliberalism fails.

                  Of all eligible voters, around 2/3 didn’t vote for Harris. (1/3 stayed home or cast protest votes). Of that group, I have the least problem with those who were (de)motivated by a candidate who actively participated in the commission of a genocide.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            121·
            3 months ago

            Fun fact: everyone who doesn’t support the exact amount of genocide Harris did is actually a Russian. Especially if they’re spewing bullshit like “that crosses a line” or “Jesus Christ it’s literally genocide”.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    747·
    3 months ago

    DNC: Um, aktuly, the Dems are running a candidate who has repeatedly endorsed a 10-12% reduction in genocide over 30 years. What have you lefty shits ever done?

    Leftist: NYC Mayor Mamdani’s revocation of the anti-BDS Executive Order issued last month by the previous mayor, who’s accused of serious corruption and was funded by Israel lobby groups. Executive Order 60 was modelled after similar, Israel-induced anti-BDS legislation in other US states and prevented any mayoral agencies or appointees from doing business with vendors and organizations complying with international law by holding genocidal Israel accountable. Mamdani also revoked an Executive Order which had adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, an anti-Palestinian racist tool pushed by apartheid Israel and its lobby groups to conflate condemnation of Israel and BDS campaigning to dismantle its illegal regime of settler-colonialism and apartheid on the one hand with anti-Jewish racism on the other.

    DNC: OH SO YOU HATE JEWS, DO YOU?! WELL I’M GOING TO VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP!

  • switcheroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    43·
    3 months ago

    And the dnc trash is also pushing moderates.

    We don’t want fucking moderates! We don’t want more status quo losers afraid to rock the boat and gasp actually improve the citizens’ lives.

        • Smeagol666@crazypeople.onlineEnglish
          9·
          3 months ago

          “Willful corporate whores”- FTFY. (no shade to actual prostitutes, who’s business transactions are way more honest than democrats)

      • nickiwest@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        It’s not even centrist. Democrats are center-right and Republicans are far-right, so the “centrists” in the US are three-quarters right.

        The Overton window in the US has shifted significantly in my lifetime. As someone else pointed out, unions were pretty standard in the '70s and have nearly been eliminated now.

      • fodor@lemmy.zipEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        You mean the primary voters who chose Bernie over Hillary, but were undercut by secret DNC insiders? I remember that quite well.

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.netEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      Conceding to fascism is the only way to defeat fascists!

      And other quotes from people who don’t realise they’re fascist tools.

  • meep_launcher@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    292·
    3 months ago

    Former liberal here. I always felt I had a more wonkish bent, that pragmatism needs to be more front and center in politics.

    But if I’m now in the leftist camp, it’s not like Dems are going to go anywhere but the way of the whigs if they don’t take some actual stances. They’ve lost all imagination. You can’t win on damage control.

    • astropenguin5@lemmy.worldEnglish
      222·
      3 months ago

      At this point the wonkish pragmatism is that they need to be more progressive and actually take stances on shit. It’s clearly what works.

      It’s just that at this point the DNC doesn’t care about winning anymore

    • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      You can’t win on damage control

      No you can’t, but you can lose the fuck out of refusing to do damage control. That’s where we are right now.

      Stand up a real left candidate. Get greater than 50% of the vote’s worth of people engaged enough to go vote and write in.

      Refusing the DNC without putting in something that works is no different than voting RNC.

      SO PUT SOMETHING IN THAT WORKS.

      • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        21·
        3 months ago

        A percentage of Democrat voters didn’t even know Biden dropped out so had no idea who Harris was. I think asking that kind of person to be engaged with politics more readily leading a horse to water.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish
    284·
    3 months ago

    DNCs are most certainly not on the left, they never were, i dare say it they are REPUBLICAN rejects. aside from a few of them. center right is the parties main stance on most things. They are the defense while the gop is the spear. its too keep minority groups(women, pocs, lgbtq) from gaining significant support and power and overtaking the party from the status quo.

    • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
      133·
      3 months ago

      It’s not all Democrats though. Unfortunately the Democrats in charge are the absolute worst of the bunch.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.worldEnglish
    202·
    3 months ago

    If you erased Trump and the Republican party tomorrow, Democrats would change their platform to accommodate their corporate masters immediately.

    They used to be our “labor party”, how did that pan out? Unions are now down to 10%, and most of those are ironically cops and government employees. Unions were over 40% of workforce in the 1970s. Are Ds really that incompetent at opposition to Republicans? I don’t think it’s incompetence.

    Minimum wage is seven dollars and change an hour; where in the USA is that a “living wage”, able to to feed and house a family of four (what the minimum wage is for)?. Maybe in Mississippi you can get by on that with roommates and no kids or even a freaking dog.

    Good job

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Unions were over 40% of workforce in the 1970s.

      Industrial workers and in general employees of big companies subject to constant scrutiny can unionize more easily. So much of that is not due to politics other than moving industries abroad.

      • Mulligrubs@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        No, it’s really politics.

        Did you forget what happened in the 80s to air traffic controllers? And what has happened repeatedly since then?

        It’s 100% politics, as looking at any other country with unions CLEARLY demonstrates.

        Who told you this tripe? Don’t listen to them. See for yourself

    • All Ice In Chains@lemmy.mlEnglish
      305·
      3 months ago

      No, you’d rather pre-complain about a choice that you can actively influence and hasn’t happened yet.

      Literally complaining about actively influencing said choice using memery

    • thlibos@thelemmy.clubEnglish
      294·
      3 months ago

      I have enough time to do both, thanks. I am not content to just sit around and do nothing but punch down until election day and happily vote for GOP-lite every fucking time.

    • deathbird@mander.xyzEnglish
      61·
      3 months ago

      I haven’t seen one yet that I really like, but it’s still 3 years out. This is the best time to talk about what you do or don’t like about a candidate or policy, and the worst time to settle.

    • Mniot@programming.devEnglish
      44·
      3 months ago

      Not “someone”. It has to be the DNC. And it need to show me the text where it broke up with Israel. And it needs to apologize to Bernie. Also I will still not like its candidate.

      If I tried to promote a candidate on my own or talked to any other org, than DNC would think I wasn’t serious about how much I’m not going to vote for its candidate.

      • 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        7·
        3 months ago

        Dumb fucks are people who have no other arguments than “vote blue no matter who” and “we told you so” or “you’re a russian troll if you don’t support our version of genocide”

        See, how braindead that sounds?

        You fuckwits would vote for Trump if he ran from DNC, because you tell yourself you’re so good at spotting “propaganda”, but eat up all the propaganda from your side.

        You dimwits wouldn’t see you’re repeating propaganda by the DNC, if they hit you with a truck.

        Fediverse isn’t the reddit echo chamber you circlejerk on one side anymore.

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubEnglish
    55·
    3 months ago

    My impression is that what should be simple (always “genocide no”) gets much more mealy-mouthed (e.g. “I’m totally pro Israel…but maybe let’s rein in the genocide…oh no I don’t mean Israel shouldn’t have the right to defend itself!") precisely when anyone who wishes to do good by getting elected is confronted with the reality that there’s a rampaging nationalist organization sandbagging and bullying candidates, promoting others for policy favors and effectively holding big chunks of the electorate hostage in elections.

    In practice, that means when I see otherwise good candidates use their talking points or be evasive and spineless on the topic of Israel, I’m quicker to think that they might simply have chosen a different battle, than to think they actually believe that there’s nothing wrong.

    More simply, if standing up to the nationalist bully will almost certainly end their career/role/office before they even had a chance to begin, how many do you think will divert from the issues they entered politics for just to be the one to take out the bully? I’m guessing it’s a small number.

    So while I do see it as cowardly on a personal level, and personally I’d prefer to quit politics than to get pushed around and just hold my tongue or say their lines, I also assume that it’s a decision made under duress without further evidence to the contrary.

    In short, calling candidates “pro genocide” and expecting individual candidates to take the bully head-on in any particular race feels unfair to me, or at least misguided since, if we actually want to change this situation, my generation really needs to have some frank chats with their parents about their AIPAC donations.

    What am I missing?

    Edit: typos swype errors missing words

    • Remy Rose@piefed.socialEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think you’re wrong, what I think is that this is exactly the problem. On every actually important topic, what are any candidate’s options here? Be vocal and get destroyed by the establishment immediately? Keep quiet and wait for an opportunity to fix things later, that will never ever come? Keep quiet for so long that you get your brain scrambled by “working within the system” and lose every ideal you ever held?  From precedent those sure seem like the only things that ever happen. If there are no options that actually work at all, then I’ll at least prefer the candidate who will say “genocide bad”.

      Electoralism is a bandaid solution at best in the first place, but the bandaid isn’t even effective if you just play ball. Assume every last politician is suspect, demand the moon, brook no compromise, terrorize whoever happens to be in office into submission. FDR didn’t do the New Deal because he believed in it, he did it as a milquetoast compromise to an organized, insistent, threatening populace.

      At least that’s what I think, anyway… This sort of thing.

  • Tja@programming.devEnglish
    917·
    3 months ago

    Microwave pizza? You have two hours to get me a gourmet truffle caviar pizza, or I’ll eat a bowl of shit!

    • pjwestin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      3 months ago

      So, you realize that what you’re saying here is, “The Democrats are so incompetent that getting them to adopt a position that a wide majority of their own constituents hold over the course of two years is an impossible and ludicrous.” You get that, right?

      • Tja@programming.devEnglish
        35·
        3 months ago

        No. I’m saying that democrats already have the position that a wide majority of their constituents hold (as shown by the primary victories of corporate democrats time and again on a national level). The lemmy echo chamber doesn’t represent “wide majorities” whatsoever. Hillary and Kamala both lost by less than 5%.

        Iif a few more idealists would have held their nose and voted blue despite the terrible candidates you would have problems right now of the type “the solar energy incentives are going to big corporations instead of homeowners” or “Kamala-Care offers too many loopholes and doesn’t provide a single payer system” instead of the current “the pedophile criminal is executing citizens in broad daylight while transferring 10 billion dollars to his slush fund and threatening war with Venezuela, Iran and Denmark”.

        But at least you didn’t vote for an impure candidate, so you have that going for you… I’ll be enjoying my universal Healthcare, 14 months of paid maternity leave and 30 days of PTO over here. Peace!

        • pjwestin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          3 months ago

          I’m saying that democrats already have the position that a wide majority of their constituents hold (as shown by the primary victories of corporate democrats time and again on a national level).

          OK, well, what you’re saying is demonstrably wrong. Recent polling shows that 65% of Democrats are sympathetic towards Palestinians, while 17% of Democrats’ sympathies lie with the Israelis. By the way, those numbers are at 41% to 30% with independents, so that means Democrats’ current position on Gaza is still 11 points underwater with those, “swing voters,” they’re always chasing.

          However, if you’re using elections as your barometer, well, the Democrats own internal report (which the DNC tried to bury), shows that, “Kamala Harris lost significant support because of the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza.” Also, if you think that, “primary victories of corporate democrats,” prove that being pro-Israel is a net positive for Democrats, “on a national level,” I’d like to point out that Biden didn’t face a real primary in 2024, and Harris didn’t face a primary at all, so Democratic voters haven’t weighed in nationally on Israel/Gaza since 2020. But if the local victories of folks like Mamdani and Majia are any indicator, then I’d say being pro-Israel is a pretty bad position to take.

          Anyway, I’ll admit that I was so overwhelmed by how spectacularly wrong you were in that first sentence that I didn’t even read the rest of your comment, but skimming it now, I can see it the same, “lesser evil,” arguments I’ve been hearing since 2016, to which I’ll say, “no one gives a shit.” Would we be better off with Harris than Trump? Of course. That’s why I voted for her. But it doesn’t fucking matter. The, “lesser evil,” argument may be correct, but time and again it has failed with voters. You can bitch all you want about people not voting how you think they should, but at the end of the day, it won’t make a difference. Give them something they want to vote for in 2028 or lose.

            • pjwestin@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              3 months ago

              What about them? That question is so vague asking it without further context is meaningless.

                • pjwestin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  3 months ago

                  No one knows what fhe fuck you’re trying to say, dude. I made, like, six different points about the Democrats and the 2024 election and you replied with, “what about the entirety of American history?” What about it? WTF is your point?

    • LemmeAtEm@lemmy.mlEnglish
      71·
      3 months ago

      Last microwave pizza I ate wasn’t impressive, it’s true. But the pizza wasn’t committing genocide or actively suppressing any of the things I am fighting for my life for (like healthcare that doesn’t make me homeless and the right not to be shot by fascist street gangs with state backing), all while telling me I had to eat it or else another pizza that was even more freezer burned would do all those same things but worse.

      Yeah your analogy kinda sucks ass.

      • Tja@programming.devEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        So the other pizza was a pie of shit, not a bowl? I don’t see that as a major problem with the analogy…

        Anyhoo, enjoy the 3 years of shit ahead…, maybe even 7 (Trump 2028!)