I think the most reasonable assumption would be that the Democrats reckon that coming out against Israel will lose them more zionist votes then sticking with Israel will lose them anti-genocide votes. And given the amount of money AIPAC has been throwing around against anti-zionist candidates in primaries, that might not be an incorrect reckoning.
And in doing so, you are hanging out to dry LGBTQ+, women, racial minorities, anyone working for minimum wage, anyone with health insurance, thousands of federal employees, the people of Ukraine, and when it really comes down to it, the people of Gaza.
There is no anti-genocide option on the table. Not in any meaningful way. It’s not a real choice at all, to be honest, but the direction is clear.
That’s correct. The solution isn’t to let Republicans win. It’s to protest until we get what we want. That got gay marriage instituted. It got the Civil Rights Acts signed. It’s getting states to sign the Electoral College Popular Vote Compact. It’s getting marijuana legalization passed. It’s even getting ranked choice voting signed.
Letting Republicans win is just accelerationism, and it doesn’t work.
No guys, you don’t understand. Mr scruffy has it all figured out and we’re all dummies who want genocide.
Thankfully Mr scruffy is working hard to get trump elected so all the lovely Muslims, whom Trump frequently compliments, are going to get sweet kisses every night and he’ll make sure those mean old Israelis don’t bother them.
There is an anti-genocide option on the table, but neither democrats nor republicans are willing to use it. You should stop defending people who support genocide by pretending genocide is the only option.
Imagine if all those people stood together against genocide instead of dividing over it. Women alone are like half the population… Why are they siding with genocide? They could elect anyone they want. Anyone with health insurance? That’s almost everyone. Bam, anyone they want. If a gay person votes for genocide how much should I really give a shit about them? There’s no “meaningful choice” because the libs get out early saying so… But if it’s not this election then certainly by the next one, millennials and zoomers are gonna be done with the old boomer parties… And good riddance
I can imagine. Let’s say all these groups unanimously decided not to vote for democrats. Then they ask who they do vote for.
Feminists vote for the best feminist candidate they can find. BLM votes for the best civil rights candidate they can find. LGBTQ people vote for the queerist person they can find. None of them support genocide, but none of them are voting for the same person.
Now Trump wins with the vote split 40/20/20/20. Great job, we overwhelmingly voted against genocide and it only got worse.
There is no anti-genocide option on the table. It is not a real choice.
They’ve probably also figured out how many people saying that will actually fold with a little arm twisting. Would be super interesting to see those numbers.
interesting question. Maybe I am unknowingly spouting propoganda. Looked it up. Its true over 80% of the time, but I thought that number would be higher. Theres a chart midway down the page if you want a TLDR
I can see money having greater influence at lower levels of government. I’m thinking more about advertising and the presidential race.
ads probably matter least in the races where campaigns spend the most on them
This was my feeling. I bet the returns on traditional advertising are diminishing. Also Trump seems to generate a huge amount of publicity (good and bad) without spending much money.
Money mostly wins, but not always. Democrats desperately want it to be true always, but they’ve spent a ton of money on losing elections. Trump’s victory was the big one. It’s hard to have a popular campaign message and solid ground game campaigning and make tons of appearances, spending absurd amounts of money makes it easier.
They only need to do that math in the swing states as well… But I wish someone would just show the math. Like, let’s see the projections for Zionist gains vs anti genocide losses in Pennsylvania… Even just one study and I’d be like, okay, there’s a legit reason for the gaslighting and bullshit. Gotta win to do anything.
I think the most reasonable assumption would be that the Democrats reckon that coming out against Israel will lose them more zionist votes then sticking with Israel will lose them anti-genocide votes. And given the amount of money AIPAC has been throwing around against anti-zionist candidates in primaries, that might not be an incorrect reckoning.
Which means they’ve made the calculation that they don’t need or want the anti-genocide vote.
So don’t blame this anti-genocide voter for not voting for a candidate that doesn’t want me.
And in doing so, you are hanging out to dry LGBTQ+, women, racial minorities, anyone working for minimum wage, anyone with health insurance, thousands of federal employees, the people of Ukraine, and when it really comes down to it, the people of Gaza.
There is no anti-genocide option on the table. Not in any meaningful way. It’s not a real choice at all, to be honest, but the direction is clear.
Removed by mod
That’s correct. The solution isn’t to let Republicans win. It’s to protest until we get what we want. That got gay marriage instituted. It got the Civil Rights Acts signed. It’s getting states to sign the Electoral College Popular Vote Compact. It’s getting marijuana legalization passed. It’s even getting ranked choice voting signed.
Letting Republicans win is just accelerationism, and it doesn’t work.
No guys, you don’t understand. Mr scruffy has it all figured out and we’re all dummies who want genocide.
Thankfully Mr scruffy is working hard to get trump elected so all the lovely Muslims, whom Trump frequently compliments, are going to get sweet kisses every night and he’ll make sure those mean old Israelis don’t bother them.
If you find yourself writing this, then stop what you’re doing and re-evaluate your entire ideology.
There is no anti-genocide option on the table. That’s not ideology, it’s reality.
If you hate imperialism hard enough, a viable third party candidate will emerge. You just have to try harder. /s
There is an anti-genocide option on the table, but neither democrats nor republicans are willing to use it. You should stop defending people who support genocide by pretending genocide is the only option.
It’s not anything I can vote for, and not voting doesn’t get us there, either. There is no real choice.
Imagine if all those people stood together against genocide instead of dividing over it. Women alone are like half the population… Why are they siding with genocide? They could elect anyone they want. Anyone with health insurance? That’s almost everyone. Bam, anyone they want. If a gay person votes for genocide how much should I really give a shit about them? There’s no “meaningful choice” because the libs get out early saying so… But if it’s not this election then certainly by the next one, millennials and zoomers are gonna be done with the old boomer parties… And good riddance
I can imagine. Let’s say all these groups unanimously decided not to vote for democrats. Then they ask who they do vote for.
Feminists vote for the best feminist candidate they can find. BLM votes for the best civil rights candidate they can find. LGBTQ people vote for the queerist person they can find. None of them support genocide, but none of them are voting for the same person.
Now Trump wins with the vote split 40/20/20/20. Great job, we overwhelmingly voted against genocide and it only got worse.
There is no anti-genocide option on the table. It is not a real choice.
Ugh… We need ranked choice so bad
They’ve probably also figured out how many people saying that will actually fold with a little arm twisting. Would be super interesting to see those numbers.
its about money not votes. Usually whoever gets the most money wins.
Given the decline in traditional media, is this still true?
interesting question. Maybe I am unknowingly spouting propoganda. Looked it up. Its true over 80% of the time, but I thought that number would be higher. Theres a chart midway down the page if you want a TLDR
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/
I can see money having greater influence at lower levels of government. I’m thinking more about advertising and the presidential race.
This was my feeling. I bet the returns on traditional advertising are diminishing. Also Trump seems to generate a huge amount of publicity (good and bad) without spending much money.
Money mostly wins, but not always. Democrats desperately want it to be true always, but they’ve spent a ton of money on losing elections. Trump’s victory was the big one. It’s hard to have a popular campaign message and solid ground game campaigning and make tons of appearances, spending absurd amounts of money makes it easier.
They only need to do that math in the swing states as well… But I wish someone would just show the math. Like, let’s see the projections for Zionist gains vs anti genocide losses in Pennsylvania… Even just one study and I’d be like, okay, there’s a legit reason for the gaslighting and bullshit. Gotta win to do anything.