this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
558 points (94.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2473 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Yeah, both sides amiright?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Let's be discerning: there was the potential for a better path out of this, but people decided on the definitely-worst-case-for-everything option on this binary choice, to ensure everyone suffers as much as possible in every situation, most assuredly during the belligerent invasion by Israel.

It was explained over and over; you need more time?

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Let's be discerning: there was the potential for a better path out of this

Harris, of the Biden-Harris regime that has been the necessary backer of this genocide for 13 months, did nothing different from Biden rhetorically and was an empty suit candidate that holds the party line. A party whose reoresentatives almost unanimously provide the material support needed for this genocide despite 70-80% of their constituents opposing it.

The "better path" you are referring to is literally unconditional support for genocide. I slmost said you were describing the better path, but you didn't actually describe what it looks like. Presumably, you cannot.

but people decided on the definitely-worst-case-for-everything option on this binary choice, to ensure everyone suffers as much as possible in every situation, most assuredly during the belligerent invasion by Israel.

Who provided you with these choices? Have you considered looking at politics as more than just which monster to press a button for?

It was explained over and over; you need more time?

There was a peeiod, maybe two months, when I could barely get Harris supporters to even say the word genocide. What do you think you are explaining?

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Harris just needed to stop the shipments to win the election and she wouldnt do it. She had a billion dollars of pollster and consultant data to tell her this. But its everyone elses fault she lost?

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Lol, no. Gaza didn't lose Harris the election. Sadly, America cares less for Gaza than they do for women's health, that Trump is a traitor and a convicted felon, or actually understanding the economy. Eggs are expensive so Dems bad.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee -3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

She wouldn't have won the elections even if she did that. The pro-Zionist Democratic Party vote far exceeds the vote for evenhandedness or pro-Palestinian policies.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Around 70-80% of Democratic voters are against the US sending weapons to Israel. The people most committed to this are younger, they are the people that Dems rely on to have any kind of ground game. Accordingly, Dems had no ground game.

All Harris had to do was cynically oppose the genocide by threatening literally any kind of restrictions and to cynically claim to do something about high prices at the grocery store. In both cases she waffled.