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
Can’t hear them over the sound of the bombs they send
Oh, did Trump stop sending bombs? I was under the impression he was escalating things.
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.
☐ 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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
Hey, look, it’s [90% of the people I argued with on Lemmy before election day]!
And it’s now 90% quieter. Hmmm.
While her statement is over reaching, she does have a valid point. It will be easier to raise a resistance against trump than harris. This of course benefits her the most if that resistance can vote for her and her party. But it is still a valid point among the spin.
It will not be easier. I voted Harris. I was a Bernie supporter. My motivation to fight has never been lower. It is in the core of the earth.
My hatred of people responsible for Trump’s victory is extremely intense. The idea of unifying with any of them, including the leftist abstainers, is absurd.
Sure, I hate the Trump voters far more, but the abstainers are also my enemy.
Exactly this. People don’t understand that if you’re at the point where your only option is protesting in the street then you’ve already lost. I’m sure the Palestinians really do appreciate us standing around with a sign for a couple of hours.
Maybe glue your hands to the pavement and stop traffic, that’ll really help them.
Not sure how when the media, social media, including the new tech (ai), is all in the pocket of trump (or vise versa it doesn’t really matter).
We might have decades of authoritarian rule on our hands. I don’t think sacrificing our neighbors was particularly worth the hope that somehow fascists are easier to fight than liberals. Maybe if you’re a certain demographic. For the rest of us? Fucked.
Alex, can I have “What total fucking moron might say”, for $500?
Congratulations, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater and now there is a guy that wants to take over Gaza and kick ALL the Palestinians out. But hey, at least it’s not a woman in the oval office.
Fucking equivocating bullshit, I hope people her didn’t vote for Kamala because of the BULLSHIT argument about genocide, as if that was going to be ANY fucking different under Trump, get what they fucking deserve. It hasn’t even been 30 days yet and it looks like they will. Way to go, fucking morons.
I don’t think Jason Call goes by “she”. Or are you referring to some statement by Jill Stein?
Yeah libs are suddenly waking up to all kinds of problems. They just found out that a genocide started on inauguration day.
Russian stooge says what?
If a protest could work under trump why wouldn’t it work under Harris?
Very true, this guy is a dumb ass.
Assuming he is sincere, then I’d assume that he would say that it’s not “their” protests at that point but the participation of others.
Under Harris, they stay isolated without energized allies as most people are relieved with the status quo. They hope that Trump pushes things so far to perhaps even cancel elections and trigger a violent uprising that opens the door for them to ultimately win and that is their opportunity to finally replace the status quo. A very dangerous game where a more likely outcome is a far right authoritarian state with lots of suffering and lives at stake, but that’s a risk they are glad for everyone to take.
You see this in their rhetoric, that it’s not their fault for failing to support a viable alternative to Trump, it’s everyone else’s fault for failing to agree with them, and maybe now everyone will learn their lesson and agree with them.
I’ve had conversations with them and they hold that democracy is the wrong way. Essentially they think the citizenry are too stupid and/or lazy to decide how things should be governed. This is pretty much the horseshoe effect, both the far right and far left want to replace the democratic system with something else. If someone doesn’t 100% agree with them, they must be wrong and their perspective must be ignored, and democracy means actually trying to work with such people. So they prefer to take their chances with prodding a violent conflict since they’ve figured they can never win peacefully. If they can’t have the presidency, then who cares. No patience for capturing local and legislative offices.
The far right was more effective strategically, playing the game until they could unleash. They played the game with the republican party according to the rules, and then won.
Exactly this, they’re playing the very silly, very illogical, very human game of, “it has to get worse, so it can get better”.
It’s kinda like a smoker who decides to get over smoking by chain-smoking more cigarettes than ever before, to make himself so sick of smoking he can quit. It’s a race between getting sick of smoking, and lung cancer.
Most likely things won’t get better. Things will get worse, and then worse, and then we die. We gave ourselves lung cancer while chain-smoking to avoid lung cancer.
Essentially they think the citizenry are too stupid and/or lazy to decide how things should be governed.
Well… Yes. This is more or less true. But that’s an argument to increase education and engagement, not to discard the whole system.
I think the education is tricky, as you have competing interests and you have people countering education by calling it indoctrination. A huge part of the foundation for the situation today started with the conservative radio shows and fox news stepping up to start undermining education, to eventual great effect.
The engagement I kind of have the opposite view. If you can’t be bothered to understand the candidates and the issues, then you shouldn’t feel pressure to vote.A lot of engagement efforts say “you should be ashamed if you don’t vote, it doesn’t matter how you vote but just vote”. If you are there to just “mark your team” or fill in the ballot according to whatever person hands you a pre-filled “ballot guide” on the way in the door, maybe don’t sweat voting. Voting for an outcome without any effort to understand the consequences of that vote is worse than abstaining from a vote.
I can understand there are a lot of races, and my response is that there would be no shame in voting only for the races you can educate yourself about. A partial ballot is fine.
Because trump won’t take over Gaza and turn it into a casino strip…hang on a minute…
you’d think that would be the obvious mindset people who “care about human dignity” would have, right?
i think their argument would be that conditions will materially worsen for a significant propirtion of the population, escalating the chances of the working class to become conscious of their chains.
idk tho
Which is stupid. The Republicans crashed the world economy in 2008, destroying 40% of working people’s wealth, and were only out of power for 2 years.
Accelerationists gotta accelerate
