this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
705 points (84.5% liked)
Political Humor
806 readers
79 users here now
Political Shitposting
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They aren't. But if one of them is, then that one person helped caused this. If ten thousand of them are, then those ten thousand people helped cause this.
This is not about finding the one person or group who bears sole responsibility and pointing the finger at them to excuse everyone else. This is about what each person has within their control, and whether they did the right thing.
So instead of blaming Pro-Palestinian people, why aren't they looking into why voter turnout is so low?
Because we already know. Voter turnout is low because Americans don't mind having a fascist dictator. Some of them just didn't care, and some of them thought becoming the Fourth Reich and blowing up Palestine was a decent way to teach Kamala a lesson.
Again, you are focusing on Pro-Palestinians for some reason when you don't know their impact.
No. Drag didn't mention anyone who was pro-palestine at all in drag's comment. If you're pro-palestine and you felt targeted when drag blamed the election on people who want to blow up Palestine to teach Kamala a lesson, it might be time for some introspection.
some of them thought becoming the Fourth Reich and blowing up Palestine was a decent way to teach Kamala a lessonlmao @ "might be time for some introspection," I don't need advice regarding introspection from someone with a gimmick, I voted Kamala btw
If you voted for Kamala, why are you personally offended when drag criticses the non-voters? This isn't about you, so your defensiveness isn't needed. You can join drag in criticising the people who chose not to choose. They don't need you defending them.
This is your problem, you're making dumb assumptions because you're stupid. Dumb assumptions like "Pro-Palestinian purity non-voters cost us the election."
Voter turnout wasn't low.
So the Democrats were doing the right thing by continuing to unapologetically support a fascist foreign leader in his continued Genocide?
Regardless of who anyone voted for, they voted to support a genocide, and it's 100% on the Democrats to even put people in that position to begin with. "You can't vote Trump, he's a fascist! He'll support a genocide!"
Voters: Like... You are?
Dems: ...well that's different!!!
There is no "right" thing because every single person will define it differently. To me, the right thing is supporting the working class and not supporting a fascist genocide. To you, "right" is "stop fascism, no matter what." To another commenter, "right" might be choosing to abstain from voting because none of the candidates represent the direction or policies you feel are most important.
To Republicans, the "right" thing is to establish a christofascist autocracy. Or it's to stop the dirty Dems. Or it's to stop abortion.
So "right" is irrelevant, the "right" thing to do was for the Democrats to actually listen to the American people and the policies that are popular to them, and then rally that energy into a larger voter turnout. That was the only right thing to do, especially when a loss will result in fascism.
You don't get to lecture the voters about not understanding the "right" thing to do when the leaders of the political party that's supposed to be the last bastion against fascism honestly seemed to phone the whole fucking thing in. And this stems from the entitlement that I've been ranting about the DNC having for years. You aren't entitled to anyone's vote, regardless of "right v wrong" as far as candidates are concerned.
The Dems needed to earn their votes, and they decided a centrist campaign based on the promise that nothing will be substantially different from the last Dem who Americans feel (whether they're right or not is irrelevant) hasn't improved their lives substantially. Americans want change, and the Dems could do nothing during "tHe MoSt ImPoRtAnT eLeCtIoN oF oUr LiFeTiMeS" than promise the American people 4 more years of the status quo.
Dem Leaders: Wow, we had record voter turnout in 2020 running Biden on policies that Bernie had initially run on, progressive policies that seemed popular among the base! So what should our strategy be to stop fascism in 2024?
Dem Consultants: Eh, just rerun the 2016 playbook and send out 30 texts a day begging for money. We only raised over a billion dollars, we don't need to spend that on studies and polls to find out what policies would get us voters, nah. It's Trump, he's a fascist moron that got trounced in 2020, we got this in the bag.
How come it's everyone's responsibility not to vote for genocide, but you're allowed to abstain for genocide as much as you want if you can point the finger at a politician? Like, it's 100% Kamala's fault you let Trump win and you therefore have zero culpability, but the voters who tried to prevent that are personally to blame for Joe Biden's failures.
Because it's genocide... Do you think the victims care if the person sending Netanyahu his bombs has a D or R next to their name?
Yeah, that's how the right to vote works. Can you point to the voters who are holding a gun to Biden's head and forcing him to support a fascist leader and his genocide?
Can you point to the voters who held a gun to Kamala's head and forced her to adopt the same policy on Israel that Biden's administration has adhered to? Despite it being incredibly unpopular among his party's voting base?
I voted for Harris, and my state went to Harris, so no, I did not "let Trump win."
But yeah dude, it's 100% Harris' fault. You don't get to support a genocide and then try to play morally superior to your fascist opponent who supports the same genocide...
And you don't get to complain that it's the voter's fault that they wouldn't support a candidate who wouldn't denounce genocide, or even commit to just not supporting it like the admin she's part of is.
Would y'all be defending the genocide and Harris/Biden's unconditional support of it if it resulted in a draft for Americans, but not necessarily yourself? Or better yet, if you were a Palestinian in Palestine, would you be begging America to vote for Harris because of LGBTQ+ rights, or the economy's soft landing? Or would you be asking them why they won't elect someone who won't support a genocide?
I'm not blaming voters, period. They were given the choice between Diet Fascism or Fascism, and I don't blame anyone for sitting that out. I fully acknowledged that regardless of my choice, I was supporting a genocide, and those lives are now at my feet.
But to act like voters have any fault in this is laughable. The DNC laid down with dogs and were shocked when they got up covered in fleas. They gave Republicans numerous spots to speak at their convention, but none to the Palestinian Democrats that the Uncommitted Movement requested be allowed to speak.
What do you call a table of 10 people sitting down with a Nazi?
11 Nazis.
You should probably write 11 more paragraphs on how everyone who voted against genocide is a nazi, just in case somebody didn't read your first two screenfuls of text
So just not going to try to address any of what I had to say with your own thoughts, opinions, or evidence? Just going to snidely make a comment about how I write as if your brevity somehow makes you right?
There's that elitist, liberal entitlement the average American loves to see from the DNC. 👍 Keep winning over voters, drag, you're doing God's work.
I haven't seen you explain to me how supporting Israel's genocide unconditionally doesn't make Harris and Biden fascist, unless I missed it scrolling by my two "screenfuls" of text. 🙄
Harris and Biden are fascist. Your 11 paragraphs are attacking beliefs drag does not hold. Drag did not defend those beliefs, because drag agrees with your criticisms of them. It would be nice if your criticisms lead to a belief in protecting Palestine, but alas. You instead decide to spend all this time attacking Harris voters for not being as sour about their decision as you are. You think they, and you, have something to be guilty for. There is no guilt in choosing the least harm. There is guilt in choosing not to choose. There is guilt in neglecting one's responsibilities in favour of the comfort of inaction.
No, I understand your point, and you're completely missing mine.
You're saying people are obligated to choose diet fascism or fascism, and those who chose are absolved of guilt while those who abstained aren't. I'm saying they're not, and to blame them for anything is ridiculous, the blame is on the Democrats.
And what would their action have sparked even had they voted? The US just walked back their threats regarding further aid to Israel. According to third party organizations like the UN, Israel hasn't improved aid access in Gaza, but the US just announced they'll be sending more weapons to Israel anyway.
So where's the least harm, Netanyahu got what he wanted regardless of the clearly toothless threat (and literal virtue signaling to their base to win votes) from the Democrats? The genocide continues, but you're going to tell yourself your hands are clean because you chose the least harm?
We support a genocide, drag, we have no moral superiority over those who didn't support it. Blame Harris and the Dems, where the blame lies, and be angry you were put in this position to begin with. The Democrats are supposed to be better than this, and have no excuse not to have been. And they lost because of it, hold them accountable, not non-voters who need to be won over, not condescended to and scolded.
Fascism or liberalism, but you've got the spirit. We are thrust into this world with conscience and reason, and thus we are burdened with choice. You cannot crawl back into Eden and pretend you do not know of good and evil. You are imbued innately with choice and freedom, and thus responsibility. There is not an option in which you are not responsible for the consequences of your actions.
Do you understand this much of drag's argument? The assertion that choice is inevitable? Because while your comment started out good, it immediately changed the subject into agreeing with drag about the complacency of the Democrats and the evil of Netanyahu's regime. If you want to agree with drag all day and get nowhere on the issues we actually have reason to discuss, then continue talking about simple material things we both understand.
But if you want to show that you understand the reason drag holds drag's opinions, then comment on the actual substance of our disagreement, the nature of choice. Can we crawl back to Eden and forsake our ability to choose? Are we responsible as passive bystanders?
Yeah, we're done.
Harris/Biden: show unconditional support to fascist leader of Israel during his genocide of Palestinians.
You: That's not fascism, that's liberalism.
Sure.
Voters aren't obligated to vote, candidates are supposed to earn votes by showing their ideas and policies are worth supporting.
So where's the benefit in supporting a genocide?
Keep letting them march us right and condescending to a base of voters who are telling you what they want/expect because you have some imagined notion of moral superiority you think you have for supporting the lesser evil. Keep ignoring everything I'm telling you and how this looks to voters like myself, and acting like no, no, you know best.
Oh, so we're not actually having a discussion, we're ignoring our opponent and throwing easy-to-understand rhetoric because it's safe and comfortable and familiar?
I didn't want to write another 11 paragraphs that you'd just complain about.
You can't see fascism for what it is, when it's standing in front of you, and still act like you are morally superior to anyone.
Got it, drag. You do you, still waiting for you to say anything of note beyond "choosing not to choose is the worstest choice." You got anything else?
Anything about how supporting a genocide unconditionally despite public outcry isn't fascism? Or is that a branch of liberalism I'm unfamiliar with? Hence diet-fascism and fascism, from before, in one of the many pages of comments I wrote.
Complaining that Biden isn't a liberal because he's bad is silly. Liberalism is bad. Drag wrote three paragraphs about things that actually matter, and half a sentence on a nitpick. You decided this conversation was actually going to be about drag's nitpick. Whatever, you're right about the nitpick, drag doesn't care. Do you want to prove that you understand why drag made drag's point, or do you want to take the option drag explained earlier in which you change the subject to simple material issues we both fully understand because you don't know what drag means by "choice is inevitable"?
I'm doing my best to be civil, especially considering the last time you and I spoke, you called me a fascist nazi Trump supporter who wanted drag and drag's friends all dead, despite me also being LGBTQ, a veteran, and having voted for Harris.
So no, I'm not debating your supposed enlightened imagined moral superiority because you only see the binary of "choice: liberalism (diet fascism) or fascism." I get it "choice is inevitable," "by choosing not to choose, you've made a choice," "I am so very enlightened because I passed an introductory college course on philosophy."
We get it, drag, you're arguing that the choice of not choosing is the worst choice because you've not supported the least worst choice, and therefore de facto supported the worst choice. That's your argument, right, with some lengthy and convulated nonsense about the morality around the choices that are thrust into our lap and the unfairness of life and the responsibility on the individual (the individual voters, of course, not the individuals unconditionally supporting s genocide) to make the least-bad choice no matter what.
Did I get it? That's your argument in a nutshell, right, which is why the Democrats and their party leadership are absolved of all wrongdoing and all of the blame and guilt belongs at the feet of those who didn't vote? Or does this apply to third parties too? We'll just assume it does.
Life isn't like that, and drag can keep doubling down on those who didn't vote being the most guilty, or drag can understand that that is just further disenfranchising a large demographic of non-voters that the Democrats clearly need to turn out for them. And drag doesn't get to cherry pick which policies they support of their candidate, you support them and all of their ideals.
So they stayed home, that's their choice, and there's no guilt in that. But keep blaming them, like I said before, I'm sure that's winning people over to your morally just and superior cause.
You have correctly understood drag's reason for believing what drag believes. Now, drag has a hypothesis as to what rebuttal you just offered, but it's quite bewildering, so please be patient as drag asks: Is your rebuttal of the idea of the necessity of choice, that if we believed people to be responsible for the choices they don't make, then we would have to believe the Democrats are absolved of guilt?
Because what?
Wait.... wait wait wait.... okay, drag is starting to understand your point of view, drag hopes. You're saying we can't believe voters have any blame for the results of the election, because that would mean the Democrats can't have any blame. Because blame is a finite resource and must be carefully rationed?
No. Blame is an infinite resource. Two people can both be 100% to blame for the same thing. The Democrats and the voters can both be bad. Drag thinks drag understands why you keep insisting drag thinks the Dems are good now. It's because drag is blaming two different groups, and you think that's impossible, so you assume drag is lying and actually only blaming the voters. Isn't it?
I have repeatedly been talking about non-voters: those who stayed home.
Blame the repub voters, sure, I guess, and there's no reason to blame dem voters.
But don't blame non-voters for failing to be won over by a centrist platform that shows an unconditional backing of a fascist authoritarian and his genocide. Blame it on the DNC, Harris, and Biden. They made the choice to not actively support a genocide, or chose not to support a slow march to fascism versus a fast one, or whatever other nonsense reason you think justifies your world view.
Now understand mine: the liberals have told the left/progressive side since 2016 that it's both their fault, and that if they get their support in 2020, they'll be willing to start supporting progressive policies.
The voting base took a vocal stand on genocide, to reiterate, genocide, demanding their party move left on the issue. With Democracy on the line, and years of bad political capital with their progressive/left voting base, the DNC opted to continue unconditional support for genocide. Being perpetuated by a fascist leader, who worked with their fascist opponent during the campaign.
They didn't ask for $40/hr minimum wage, they didn't demand free puppies for everyone or some unrealistic ideal. They wanted compromise on genocide, and the DNC said no. The DNC waved off a good chunk of their voting base and were surprised when they actually took a stand.
Non voters didn't have a choice, like you keep saying. They had opposite sides of the same coin, and as I pointed out above when talking about how their pundits are screaming about wokism and trans people and the left side of the party, are blaming anyone but themselves.
If they acknowledged their own faults, sure, I'd entertain your argument. Or if it was something like M4A being a significant wedge issue for voters or something, sure, because it's not genocide. But they, and you, keep doubling down on unquestioned support of the least evil being the only correct choice.
I'm saying that's wrong, those who abstained from voting for either are at least cleansed of actively supporting a genocide, regardless of whatever their actual individual reason was. And acting like choosing the least evil makes you right is exactly the liberal condescension non voters are tired of.
It assumes that your moral definition of the world is the only correct one, arguing for the greater good (which I would argue should have come from the DNC not supporting a genocide unconditionally first) while dismissing an individual's own definition. To assume your position is to assume that your world view, and er go, your interpretation of the world, is the only correct one.
Like I said, Democracy was on the line, so why couldn't the DNC compromise one policy for their voting base? They compromised on fracking, didn't show support for M4A, showed support for continuing border security as is, etc. So why not genocide? Why was that a line in the sand for them despite vocal opposition from their voting base?
Drag got it yet? You're not morally superior for supporting a genocide, and that's only one of many reasons someone may have chosen not to support either candidate. And they're all valid, but the blame doesn't go to them. It goes to the DNC who thought it better to turn right and try to win moderates as the Republican-lite candidate instead of tapping into 60% of the voting base that doesn't vote. It goes to the DNC who couldn't ensure that "did Biden drop out" wasn't going to be one of the most searched things on election day with better messaging during the campaign.
But no, let's keep blaming them, and insulting and condescending and acting superior to them, the non voter, because they didn't understand Democracy was on the line and wouldn't compromise for the greater good. I understand you want to assign them blame, but that needs to be directed back at the DNC. So two-fold blame on the DNC for drag.