you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 1 year ago (25 children)

I voted for Harris, am I allowed to be mad that the Democrats are still gung ho about Israeli genocide yet? Or do I need to shout blue no matter who for another few decades?

Not voting and voting for trump were both stupid choices. But attacking people who didn't vote for trump instead of those who did is fucking bananas and I don't get the point of this. Are we expecting a resounding vote in 2028 for Harris again is going to fix everything? Come the fuck on.

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I voted for Harris, am I allowed to be mad that the Democrats are still gung ho about Israeli genocide yet?

    Sure are.

    Because you did the right thing to help your country, despite being upset about a single issue.

    You are not part of the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -18 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Being pissed about Israeli genocide and thinking that it's okay to welcome in Nazis who promise to intensify the genocide if you feel really strongly that reducing genocide isn't good enough are two entirely different concepts.

    Asspatting the latter is a request for them to play purity politics if we ever get a chance to vote again. And if we dig ourselves out of this fucking hole, the last thing I want to see is for us to jump right back into it because "The Dems aren't opposing genocide enough! We NEED to let the pro-genocide candidate win and murder a few million extra people to teach the DNC a lesson!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    People were saying up to a year before the election that they wouldnt vote democrat unless they stopped supporting genocide. Maybe if reductionists like you hadn't been shouting over them calling them russian trolls and pledging your undying support to the democratic candidate no matter who they are, then they would have seen how it was affecting their polls and pivoted. Instead you continue to prove to them that they can get away with anything. I dont uderstand the obtuse refusal to see that laying down an ultimatum and drawing a line in the sand is the only bargaining power you have, even if you dont intend to follow through with it, it wouldve been worth withholding support from biden and harris as long as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] [S] -10 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    You make an ultimatum, you better be ready for the consequences. You bet that removing support from Israel would get the Dems more votes than it would lose them, net. The Dem campaign disagreed - rightly or wrongly, it's uncertain, but probably wrongly.

    Now, because of that game of chicken you played, Donald Trump is discussing how bigly he's going to help Israel genocide Gaza and the West Bank, millions are projected to die from the aid cuts already executed, immigrants are being rounded up in concentration camps, and the death penalty is being discussed for LGBT folk.

    Welcome to the consequences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Why is the blame placed on individuals that would be lucky if they made up more than 1% of the population that makes up the "online leftist"?

    Seriously. How is the only opposition party not the one that decided they would "play chicken"? You blame people for playing "chicken" but ignore the actual political party with money and organization that clearly decided to play chicken themselves. Hell, they're the ones that literally decided to play that game.

    Somehow the criticism and blame is placed on unorganized "online leftist".

    It wasn't the online left. It was the vast majority of normies that thought about their vote for all of 30 seconds and said : "Yeah, I don't like all the dead babies I keep hearing about. I'll stay home or vote Trump i guess"

    Stop pretending it's some cringe online leftist. You're delusional.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] [S] -13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Seriously. How is the only opposition party not the one that decided they would “play chicken”?

    Holy fucking shit, for the millionth time, more than one actor can be guilty at once

    Am I discussing quantum physics to you people or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's because actions speak louder than words, you dolt.

    Your actions are "only ever criticize the actual left" and so you are regarded as insincere because WERE ON THE SAME SIDE. But instead you NEED to be morally superior and make sure everyone knows it. It's the same as the people who didn't vote for Harris and their constant whinging about how the Dems never listen and theirs was the only MORAL vote. I think that shit was dumb, too, but at least they have principles.

    If you just look at your actions, it appears you want to delegitimize the left in favor of the "centrist" dems as though moving right is a viable strategy that has worked for the Dems in the past. Basically, we see a clown.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    We probably have our political differences but I'm glad you see the failures of "centrist opposition". Well said.

    Centrism in the political landscape of America is nothing more than a support of a right-wing policy shift.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    If you were explaining quantum mechanics you'd probably start with the fundamentals of understanding momentum and position.

    It's funny you make an analogy like that. Because you're completely ignoring both the position that the Democratic party is in AND the momentum they have in driving discourse.

    Do I have to explain it to you?! Do you think the comparison between "online leftist" and the Democratic party is in the same "quantum level"? (Yes I'm stretching the satire here it's a joke don't take it too seriously.)

    But seriously, it's not about "guilty parties" it's about the degree in which they are able to influence the political landscape.

    You are critizing the smallest sliver of the nearly non existing left in order to avoid criticism of the only party that had any chance of preventing the rise of fascism we are experiencing now.

    And that party did absolutely fuck all to prevent it. So, please. Explain to me you're "enlightened centrist" take on why the failure of the Democratic party and it's outright genocide were the fault of the "online left".

    I'd really love that physics lecture.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So what about your own guilt in being a pushover that never needs considering?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -5 points 1 year ago

    That might be more compelling if the people I fucking vote for in the primary decided to disregard my opinions when they got to the general.

    Instead, I have to deal with the fact that I'm an electoral minority whose options in the primary never get to the general because my fellow progressives would sooner sit at home and jerk off during primary season instead of voting, which is why Bernie only garnered 25% of the fucking vote in 2020 to Biden's 50%, despite Biden being a centrist ghoul. Which means I have to deal with the majority choice of both parties entering into the general, which is "Centrist ghoul vs. Literal Nazi" since 2016.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    You act like Biden wasn't also complicit or selling bombs to Israel. In fact, this started under him and his failure to act is why this was even a dilemma to begin with. So now im supposed to pretend that if we elected a dem he wouldnt have done the same thing biden was already doing. Lol

    If I don't want to genocide people or be a party to war crimes with my tax dollars, is there any substantial difference between parties?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] [S] -14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    You do realize that support of Israel is a scale and not a boolean, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    If your answer to "do you support genocide?" is anything other than "no", it's a deal breaker for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] [S] -11 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Cool, so you would have supported not a single candidate in the history of the US. I'm sure all the Black folk campaigning for civil rights would have been thrilled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] [S] -9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The black community I am part of knows that civil rights was not won at the ballot box but on the streets. Just read Malcolm Xs Message To the Grassroots. He outright tells it like it was and rightly calls out MLK as being nothing more than a figurehead, worried more about fundraising than anything else.

    Jesus fucking Christ.

    Heres an interesting example if you just want to go one at a time. Did you know the NRA and the democrats actually agreed on gun control in California? But it was only after members of the Black Panthers started open carrying. Interesting huh?

    Do you not remember who was governor of Cali at the time.

    I guess facts are inconvenient when you have narratives to peddle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The Mulford Act which i referenced was passed by 34 democrats and 28 republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Championed and pushed by a Republican governor. But you keep peddling your incredibly bizarre and repulsive "MLK Jr. was just a figurehead interested in fundraising and did nothing for civil rights" pov. Malcolm X said let us try the ballot, but it seems you would prefer to support Nazis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago*

    Now now. You are twisting my words and Malcolms. Please read the letter to the grassroots which I referenced above. Here is specifically what Malcolm X said,

    I would like to just mention just one other thing else quickly, and that is the method that the white man uses, how the white man uses the "big guns," or Negro leaders, against the Negro revolution. They are not a part of the Negro revolution. They are used against the Negro revolution.

    When Martin Luther King failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia, the civil-rights struggle in America reached its low point. King became bankrupt almost, as a leader. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in financial trouble; and it was in trouble, period, with the people when they failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia. Other Negro civil-rights leaders of so-called national stature became fallen idols. As they became fallen idols, began to lose their prestige and influence, local Negro leaders began to stir up the masses. In Cambridge, Maryland, Gloria Richardson; in Danville, Virginia, and other parts of the country, local leaders began to stir up our people at the grass-roots level. This was never done by these Negroes of national stature. They control you, but they have never incited you or excited you. They control you, they contain you, they have kept you on the plantation.

    As soon as King failed in Birmingham, Negroes took to the streets. King went out to California to a big rally and raised I don’t know how many thousands of dollars. He came to Detroit and had a march and raised some more thousands of dollars. And recall, right after that Roy Wilkins attacked King. He accused King and CORE [Congress Of Racial Equality] of starting trouble everywhere and then making the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] get them out of jail and spend a lot of money; they accused King and CORE of raising all the money and not paying it back. This happened; I’ve got it in documented evidence in the newspaper. Roy started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of them. And as these Negroes of national stature began to attack each other, they began to lose their control of the Negro masses.

    The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington. Right at that time Birmingham had exploded, and the Negroes in Birmingham--remember, they also exploded. They began to stab the crackers in the back and bust them up ’side their head--yes, they did. That’s when Kennedy sent in the troops, down in Birmingham. After that, Kennedy got on the television and said "this is a moral issue." That’s when he said he was going to put out a civil-rights bill. And when he mentioned civil-rights bill and the Southern crackers started talking about how they were going to boycott or filibuster it, then the Negroes started talking--about what? That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I’m telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.

    It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D. C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in Wilkins, they called in Randolph, they called in these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off." Kennedy said,

  • source
  • parent