I can’t excuse either genocide or cancer jokes.
I think gloating about cancer is gross.
I also think using cancer as an excuse for hagiography of a man who knowingly sold weapons for an ongoing genocide is gross.
Watch out, you’re going to upset the folks at lemmy.world
And the german feddit
Feddit already permabanned me for calling the German government Nazis a few weeks ago so their precious eyes are protected from seeing this meme.
The ‘good german’ feddit.
I won’t excuse genocide. And apparently I’m the devil because of it.
If someone can excuse genocide that’s a personal failing they should see to.
What if I don’t give a flying fuck about Biden? And I find both the people dancing about his nearing demise and the people clutching their pearls about that fucking stupid? There are almost certainly more important things of substance to place your energy into.
I’m so fucking tired.
Civility towards the powerful. Callous indifference to the downtrodden. The liberal way.
Libs stop thinking in electoralist terms challenge [back-breakingly toilsome]
Democrat politicians abandoned you decades ago and don’t have your interest in mind, please please PLEASE stop defending them/putting your hopes on them (and the electoral Kabuki theater in general) and do something about your situation yourselves. Organize, build community, help people in need, use your privilege where it matters.
It’s too late for elections, even more if that’s the one and only thing you’re willing to do politically. You might “win” a presidential term for a democrat president next time but the damage is already done and everything is rotting around you.
All this dumb bickering about “voting for the lesser evil” is incredibly frustrating for people from countries who endured dictatorships. So if anything, listen to them and act before it’s too late.
I got plenty of downvotes for not having sympathy for biden the other day
How Chase Oliver would handle Israel | Centre Stage shorts
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZUKEznaw8aU
Oh, and the USSR—under Stalin—was the first country to recognize the Zionist state of Israel.
Yeah Biden absolutely could’ve withheld aid and ended the genocide with 1 phone call but he loves genocide too much
I think it’s indifference rather than love, but yeah, he could have done so much with so little to stop it, with little risk of the Democrats losing the White House in 2024. Ditto Harris. (Ditto Trump—health concerns aside, he still has 45 months to at least try to redeem himself a bit.)
The Leahy law required that he withhold arms sales.
He broke the law for netanyahu.
Then I suppose he can be prosecuted.
The USSR and Stalin were bad, whats your point? Can you say the same of biden and condemn him?
I sometimes think of this when leftists, particularly tankies, attack (presumably all) non-far-right non-leftists for dithering, or allegedly dithering, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
but yeah, Joe Biden was/is bad for supporting Israel. Ditto Harris, Bill Maher, and Fetterman.
Yeah apparently there was something going on where USSR and Jews had an amicable relationship because of the history of Jewish people always existing in Russia, and them saving them from nazi Germany
Pretty sure Russia was Pogrom king and they wanted to get rid of the Jews too.
Didn’t German Jews support Germany in WWI as they saw it as less antisemitic than Russia?
So my history on Eastern Europe is quite lacking and this might be completely wrong but from what I recall Russia conquered a few countries like Poland and Ukraine and suddenly they had Jews living in Russian territory. Then Russia started doing Pogroms (The word Pogrom was invented in Russia). Knowing that, I would assume that German Jews at that time would not be very warm to Russian conquest but I really don’t have enough historical knowledge on the subject.
but I really don’t have enough historical knowledge on the subject.
Me neither. 😁
But yeah, that’s kind of my take on it too. Thanks for your reply. 🙂
Yes, would you be interested in starting a separate thread for further discussion? I’d also like to clear up my fuzziness. As a US-ian educated before education was quite as bad as it is now, I wouldn’t have known about Herzl’s attitudes that influenced his work, nor the Balfour agreement, had it not come up for an online discussion that came up with regard to Israel and Palestine in the late nineties or early aughts.
I feel like if we started a thread discussing this it would be like two AI’s hallucinating against eachother. I’m also not very interested in Herzls backstory, for the simple reason that he saw the Palestinians the same way (or even worse) as the Europeans treated the Jews.
Herzl himself also was a very rich dude from a rich family and he certainly didn’t face any of the suffering or antisemtism which other Jews faced at the time.
I should be doing any number of things else, but this topic is bothering me. From what I’ve found on a quick search, pograms seemed stubbornly persistent, despite the revolutionary stance against, and discouragement of racist sentiment. I’ll post links, and if there are refutations, look at them in due course.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire
https://jacobin.com/2017/06/russian-revolution-antisemitism-pogroms-reactionary-workers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_during_the_Russian_Civil_War
And from a Zionist perspective,
I’ve merely quickly skimmed these myself, but post here to return to read later, and for your perusal, at your leisure.
I feel like if we started a thread discussing this it would be like two AI’s hallucinating against eachother.
I certainly can understand that, while also wanting to get to the bottom of this! I’ll probably start a new thread about it, but not right now.
Regarding his back story, I find it immensely interesting in that he was racist all around.
Herzl himself also was a very rich dude from a rich family and he certainly didn’t face any of the suffering or antisemtism which other Jews faced at the time.
Oh wow! You writing that struck like lightning! Maybe his racism against Jews and Palestinians boils down to classism.
Afaict, it’s because Herzl was an antisemetic Jew. He considered himself one of the good ones and Balfour made relocation more expedient. This isn’t blaming the Jews suffering under the Reich for flight rather than flight. They found themselves in an impossible situation, otherwise, afaict.
Apparently Herzl died 10 years before WWI.
FWIW:
wp:History of the Jews in Germany#World War I
A higher percentage of German Jews fought in World War I than of any other ethnic, religious or political minority in Germany; around 12,000 died in the fighting.[41][42]
Many German Jews supported the war out of patriotism; like many Germans, they viewed Germany’s actions as defensive in nature and even left-liberal Jews believed Germany was responding to the actions of other countries, particularly Russia. For many Jews it was never a question as to whether or not they would stand behind Germany, it was simply a given that they would. The fact that the enemy was Russia also gave an additional reason for German Jews to support the war; Tsarist Russia was regarded as the oppressor in the eyes of German Jews for its pogroms and for many German Jews, the war against Russia would become a sort of holy war. While there was partially a desire for vengeance, for many Jews ensuring Russia’s Jewish population was saved from a life of servitude was equally important – one German-Jewish publication stated “We are fighting to protect our holy fatherland, to rescue European culture and to liberate our brothers in the east.”[43][44] War fervour was as common amongst Jewish communities as it was amongst ethnic Germans ones. The main Jewish organisation in Germany, the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, declared unconditional support for the war and when 5 August was declared by the Kaiser to be a day of patriotic prayer, synagogues across Germany surged with visitors and filled with patriotic prayers and nationalistic speeches.[45]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl
Theodor Herzl[a] (2 May 1860 – 3 July 1904)[3] was an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and lawyer who was the father of modern political Zionism. Herzl formed the Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to form a Jewish state. Due to his Zionist work, he is known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (חוֹזֵה הַמְדִינָה), lit. ‘Visionary of the State’.[4][5] He is specifically mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and is officially referred to as “the spiritual father of the Jewish State”.[6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzl’s_Mauschel_and_Zionist_antisemitism
Yep.
his Wikiquote page:
Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word — which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly — it would be this: At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.
Herzl Diary entry (3 September 1897), a few days after the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, as quoted in 'Nonstate Nations in International Politics: Comparative System Analyses (1977) by Judy S. Bertelsen, p. 37; 50 years after writing this in his diary, the state of Israel was established.
I feel it would be helpful to me to have a conversation regarding this, at some point, at least clear up some of my own confusion, but probably not itt.
Did you get that in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
If we bully him enough, the genocide will stop.
He needed to be bullied more while he had power
is that relevant
Yes, the bullying could work on someone who has power, but its a few months too late to sway biden on anything
Not to people who didn’t want our involvement with netanyahu’s genocide to cease.
Liberals: but what if we compromised, how about only some genocide? What if Israel only tortured half as many babies? What if Israel only illegally annexed half of the West Bank instead of their current plan to annex the entire thing? What if people were able to afford 50% of rent and 50% of all bills? What if we only cut Medicare and Medicaid by 50%?
What if Netanyahu put pronouns in bio?
Don’t be silly, liberals aren’t offering to spare half the Palestinians, there offering “killing all of them, but with a troubled expression on our face.”
Or kill just half of them and then, as a compromise, only kill half of the ones who are left (repeat until total remaining Palestinians is less than 1)
The recursive two state solution
Removed by mod
I voted third party for Claudia de la Cruz. There were options on the ballots that were against genocide.
Democrats sued to keep her off the ballots in
systemstates it would have mattered. They knew the stakes and guessed voters would crawl back after the current administration.I personally voted Kamala (yes I know and it was a deeply painful decision). Looking back im not quite sure why, she never really had a chance and she certainly wasnt a good candidate. I suppose its because I genuinely don’t care about electoral politics. Workers liberation can only come from revolution.
My comment was removed by the mods… probably because I let my rage show. Though the mod log shows rule 2 instead of rule 1 :P
Here’s a longer and nicer version:
I’m a (US) liberal, and I don’t approve of any of the views described by kittenzrulz123. Lumping half the country into a single bucket is not going to give you a good overview of the myriad ideals we might have individually.
You have a choice. You can look at the political landscape at the moment of the election and choose one of four options:
- vote for the guy who will absolutely fuck over everyone he can for his own profit. We knew what he was back in 2016 and he isn’t going to change.
- vote for the lady who has a chance to win, is probably still crappy for some demographics, but is miles better than #1 and not likely to declare war on a random country because she’s hungry.
- vote for someone who has a 0% chance of winning, effectively throwing the vote to the rest of the population.
- abstain, also throwing the vote to the rest of the population.
At this time, our election system really only works for two parties. Any third-party vote is useless, if not counterproductive. If you can’t understand how that math works, let me know and I’ll break it down for you. I’d love to change that, but the process is by using our ability during primaries to put forward more liberal candidates that support election reforms, not by putting our heads in the sand and voting 3rd party hoping that we will make people notice… hint: they will not.
If you don’t like your choices when you go to the voting booth in November, the solution is to get involved in late November and make things better next time. Join a local democratic organization and become part of the solution. Complaining online about how your choices suck is something we can fix if we all jump in. If you’re not doing that, then you are abdicating your responsibility and allowing others to make the choice of who represents us instead. If you choose not to be part of the selection process, the very least you can do is vote for the ‘lesser evil’ and not make things worse.
Side note: the Primary election is the end of that selection process, not the start. Putting your values on the primary ballot is where you should spend your energy if you’re mad at the status quo.
I will admit that I’m angry that we didn’t get a Democratic primary and that Harris was ordained as Biden’s successor without any popular input. The DNC is to blame for that fuck-up. It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine, the US economy, US healthcare, foreign relations, and dozens of other topics than trump is.
Would Claudia de la Cruz have been better? Sure. Her platform looks awesome. Did she have even a chance of winning? no.
It’s tragically hilarious how many people think Gaza would be worse-off if Harris won. Like, goddamn, are they not watching the news? Trump’s basically at a quarter-chub thinking about putting another one of his shitty towers there once everything is said and done. Just goes to show how many of these virtue-signalers never gave a damn in the first place. They just wanted to look good for their internet points.
On the other hand, we now have one party that’s at least pretending to not like genocide, as opposed to zero major parties like last year.
It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine
Source? Did she ever say anything that leads you to this conclusion? Because I never heard it and I was following the campaign pretty close
Of course a completely rational and realistic comment written like this shows a negative vote ratio on ML - these stupes are as far from reality as trumptards. It’s Horseshoe theory of delusional echo chambers basically.
It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine
Nope, this is just your wishful thinking, and also why the ‘lesser evil’ pitch isn’t compelling, because the people making it are unwilling to be honest about the evil that they’re supporting.
In this post: making a case against electoralism without realizing they’re making a case against electoralism…
Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.
It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Claims with decreasing credibility that they want to make life better for anyone. Never actually fucking tries to do it. Keeps finding just enough no votes to make sure it never happens. Blocks anyone from running in their party who actually wants to make anything better.
Heres how I define Liberal:
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Anarcho-Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the term. ‘Electorialism’ seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a ‘half-way step’ between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, ‘fuck it, we win.’ In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
Incrementalism has always been a lie. Democrats run on tiny improvements then work with republicans to block what they ran on.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US.
Just wanna drill into this; the United States has been an authoritarian state for as long as I’ve been alive. Deporting people without due process is not new. Supporting genocides is not new. The police state we live in is not new. The rule of law has been a joke for so long zoomers have internalized it. There is a reason why most of the governments we have overthrown have been democracies, and there is a reason the US has mostly replaced those democracies with dictatorships. We are the evil empire, and we have been for decades at this point.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you’ve given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
I understand your frustration as the entire thread is strawmanning liberal positions.
Essentially, capitalism coopts movements. Liberalism is an ideology which exists and has values, but since this is the primary vehicle for left leaning politics on a national level, companies spend a lot of lobbying effort stuffing liberalism with stuff that helps them.
Conservative have has gone through similar changes, stuffing a fiscal conservative viewpoint with bullshit culture war stuff as the primary vehicle for right wing politics.
When people critique electoralism, they see liberals as unable to organize because the movement has been cooped by big money and liberals refuse to admit they aren’t in control of their own party.
When you campaign for liberal values, critics see you as providing ethical cover for the promises to lobbyists that had already been made behind your back which secured their campaign donations enabling them to run in the first place.
Things like funding Israel.
You can discuss being anti Israel, you can rally behind someone like John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema who promises to be a progressive, but the thing about electoralism is you can just lie and turn heel.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
This is where I agree with you.
There are steps inside electoralism and steps outside.
If you’re saying “just vote Democrat and wait 4 years for things to get better” I agree that’s naive and there’s action we can take outside of electoralism.
If they’re “stay home and don’t vote” I agree with you that’s nauve and we can take action inside of electoralism too. It’s just gonna be inherently pretty ineffectual.
Currently, when candidates we elect take big money and vote against our interests we can’t do anything for 4 years about it. But because we have our “I voted” sticker it acts as a balm to the consciousness and deluded is into believing our fellow countrymen actually agree with the direction it takes.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Again, this is where I fully agree with you.
Protesting Kamala from my university campus seems like a better alternative to protesting Trump from El Salvador, even if the genocide is happening in both cases.
I haven’t heard a compelling argument staying home and not voting is better.
I’m now mobile, so my formatting will suffer.
Capitalism = bad. I’m fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can’t flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I’m a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into ‘both sides are genocide’ and avoid the’how do we move forward’ question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
But do you actually see a path forward that does involve incremental progress?
I’ve watched politics incrementally change from Clinton’s Third Way to Bush’s War on Terror to McCain/Palin and the Tea Party to Trump.
I’ve watched Fox news incrementally change, I’ve watched print media incrementally be bought up.
I’m hearing about abortion getting banned, hate crimes going up, school shootings, people being abducted and sent to death camps in El Salvador.
When does this incremental change move us forward instead of backwards?
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I’m not the assorted folks responding. What I personally want is a reform. I like the idea of democracy. I do not think we have it.
I think the system we currently have is rigged and not capable of producing the incremental change you ask of it.
Where I agree with everyone else, is that if we have to resort to revolution just to get the slightest pedestrian changes to the electoral system to let incremental change takeover (repeal citizens united, disband both parties, disallow “parties” to subvert primaries, remove big money, etc)… why set it back up more or less the same?
When those other leftists accept revolution as inevitable they can dream bigger beyond the current system.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
This leaves actual liberals like you and me disenfranchised and without a party. A further leftist might describe that as defeatist.
I’m confused, when you talk about voting “Democrat,” do you mean, for the Democratic-Republicans? I was thinking of voting Federalist, personally.
Since our system makes it impossible to change from the two currently existing parties, it follows that the two parties we have now must be the ones we started with.
But regardless, this is typical shortsighted liberal (i.e. capitalist) analysis that only looks at the immediate outcome and only at electoral politics. If a significant portion of the electorate can make a credible threat to sit out if their demands are not met, then they can leverage that threat to get what they want. The right is much more willing to do this because they put their values above reason, and it works - many Republican candidates understand that if they look soft on things like abortion or guns, a sizable portion of their base will defect, even if it means voting for a crank and throwing the election. Democratic voters are much more committed to being “reasonable” and so refuse to set any red lines anywhere, and the results are clear: the right successfully shifts the Republicans to be more extreme, the Democrats follow, and the left falls in line and accepts it. We are desperately overdue to start learning from their successful tactics and from our own failures, setting down red lines, and thinking beyond the current cycle. And we can debate where exactly red lines should be set, but if genocide doesn’t deserve one, nothing does.
Moreover, the facts of physical reality, the material conditions, and the myriad of crises we’re facing demand radical changes beyond what we are told are possible in the existing system. But those things are physical, natural, immutable facts, while our political system is, on a fundamental level, manmade. We do not have to abide by its rules and what it tells us is and isn’t possible - but we do have to do that regarding the laws of nature, which tell us about things like climate change. Monarchy had no mechanism built into the system to transform into liberal democracy, and yet, here we are. That’s because there are fundamental mechanisms for change that exist within every political system, whether the system wants them to or not, and I don’t just mean revolutions, but demonstrations, strikes, etc. And so, the party I voted for, PSL, participates in electoral politics for the express purpose of building organization beyond electoral politics. Helping a candidate who I see as fundamentally unacceptable win an election is less important that helping to promote that sort of organizing.
I’m no longer at my computer where typing is easy. I thank all of you for responding in good faith, and I’ll be reading the various links. Thanks for engaging with me.
If this were posted on reddit, I feel like you would’ve got more upvotes. I always wondered what type of people were here before the reddit protests. They do say Russia sows discord on both the left and the right, but I don’t think this is their doing. There is no listening going on and people are unempathically hyperfocused on just their topic of choosing. I’m checking out some subreddits…
Nooooo guys!!! Biden genocide was better than Trump genocide! 😡😡 You don’t understand, he said he was trying not bomb children!!! 😢
I know I’ll get downvoted for this, and to be clear, all of our governments supporting this genocide are absolute bullshit and capitalism is bullshit.
However, at least you had one choice that wasn’t actively also trying to destroy your own country and take away the rights of people in your own country to such an extent that they now can’t even worry about what’s happening elsewhere because they’re too worried trying to find healthcare and not get deported, killed, or permanently detained.
If you were going to not vote in order to take down the system, then show up and take down the god damn fucking system.
Let me give you this dilemma, given the imperial nature of the US and that you need an overhaul of the system, isn’t trump the perfect candidate to vote to do just that?
However, at least you had one choice that wasn’t actively also trying to destroy your own country
When a normal, moral person discover that a country is hellbent on genocide, they would think that destroying that country is a good thing.
take away the rights of people in your own country
The genocide in the colonies must continue for the benefit of the people in the capital.
they now can’t even worry about what’s happening elsewhere
So you were worrying before? Certainly didn’t accomplish anything.
Thank you, no need for me to add anything
“I’ll get downvoted for this but…” Says the most valid take everNevermind
The valid take of “yes the people I support are committing the worst acts imaginable to mankind, but I stand to personally benefit, so it’s actually good to support them.”
You made me think I supported someone who was against Palestine, he literally does not say that, you only infer that just because he isn’t fully anti-democrat and is using the ‘lesser evil’ arguementOh the thinks Palestine/Hamas will destroy Israel nevermind
Where the fuck did I say Palestine would destroy Israel?
I am 100% pro-Palestine, I just genuinely do not understand how voting someone in who has exponentially sped up the genocide and sped up the suffering of brown, queer people and women, in his own country is somehow the more moral choice in all of this. It doesn’t make any fucking sense to me.
I mean it is though, at least from a numbers perspective.
Neither should happen but since i don’t get that choice, I choose the option that saves millions of lives.
Not to mention the US is now party to the Ukraine genocide too.
not to mention the real threat to foreign born citizens and LGBTQ people in the United States itself.
So yes Biden is better even if we are dealing with shades of black
I mean it is though, at least from a numbers perspective.
And which numbers are those? Oh, you meant vibes.
This is also false. Biden drastically upped the military aid to Israel after Trump left office.
The US democrats are a vicious, genocidal party.
We need a party that is actually anti-oppression and doesn’t just pay it lip service.
he isn’t even lip service, never once has he acknowldged there being a genocide in Gaza
Its also one we have a better chance to influence. What serious organization for progressives is there?
Its also one we have a better chance to influence.
What fucking garbage. democrats only listen to republicans and netanyahu.
It’s okay, we got it. You supported genocide and now you are trying to justify it so you can sleep at night.
The only true unserious people here are those who defend a genocidal monster even when the monster literally confessed to be one.
Have a shower.
You had a zero percent chance of influencing the Democrats, as evidenced by over a year of complete failure to do so. So no, you didn’t have a better chance to influence them
What serious organization for progressives is there?
If you don’t have an answer for this you are just trolling and not serious about any matter.
Democrats are retaliating against David Hogg as a direct result of his serious organization to primary shitlibs.
You can’t answer it either, lol, that’s why you’ve been reduced to pretending you can influence the Dems when you’ve conclusively demonstrated that you can’t.
But that makes sense, given that you admitted to being a troll.
You can’t answer it either, lol, that’s why you’ve been reduced to pretending you can influence the Dems when you’ve conclusively demonstrated that you can’t.
I did answer it and you are making fun of my answer right there. Fair enough, but I have asked you what your ideas are, and all you can say is to twiddle your thumbs.
Voting dem and making it more progressive is an actionable item. What is your alternative that is so much better?
Except now Trump is starting to play hardball with Netanyahu, and is distinctly unhappy with the the U.S. taking so much flak while being treated as a money fountain.
There is a much more real world where Trump gets sick of Bibi and pulls his support than Harris pulling support from Israel. A fully isolationist U.S. is better for Palestine.
Imagine portraying trump as anything but dementiaed. You know he posts a about razing all of gaza to the ground to build a resort, right?
this is just right wing trolling at this point
You did not have to preface it with pretending to save anyone. You simply care only about yourself and you do not care about anyone else.
What the actual fuck ? Unhinged
Removed by mod
Stop pretending to allow a genocide because you are trying to save other people. When this doesn’t cross your red line you have no empathy.
❌ Please try again
Okay, but then if we point our finger at your face and call you a genocide supporter, you shut up and take it right?! Right?
no i wouldn’t because i don’t support it and your inability to see shades of gray will paint darker and darker paths
When people start talking about “shades of gray” with regards to genocide, they 100% support genocide
and your abstinence vote 200% supports genocide, you not only gave your vote away to trump, but you actively sabotaged the dems chances
You have no idea how I voted, or if I live in a swing state, or if I’m even eligible to vote, so shut your presumptuous mouth. More to the point, only a BlueMaga lunatic could try to claim that not voting for genocide supports genocide twice as much as voting for genocide. Like, you don’t actually believe in anything, not even the meaning of words; you’ll just say whatever you can to confuse and antagonize.
You have no idea how I voted, or if I live in a swing state, or if I’m even eligible to vote, so shut your presumptuous mouth.
centrists don’t care how you vote. If you’re to their left on the only issue any of them care about, everything is your fault.
I refuse to believe these people are real and in good faith. One of the two thing must be wrong. You can not be this stupid.
‘I don’t support it but I directly cast my vote for the people responsible’.
Ahahah sure brother sure. Keep saying this to yourself.
You leftist rabble-rousers with your lofty ideals of “not doing a genocide” don’t know anything about getting elected and getting things done
*loses 2 elections to the most disliked president in history*
DAMN YOU PUTIN!
You gotta understand, we only had three months to distance ourselves from Biden but also didn’t want to. It was the only way to make sure the donors were happy. You understand right? Stop blaming us for taking no positions and blame yourself for demanding us to take a position to secure your vote. It was a completely unreasonable ask and you knew it!
What next, you’ll demand to be able to afford rent AND food on the average wage? Pick one and be grateful
One? Look at Rockefeller over here.
No one said it was fine that Harris supported Israel.
What we all said was there are only two candidates who could win the election, and they both support the genocide. We condemned the one-sided criticism, not the facts.
If you never said that harris shouldn’t be supporting genocide, you never encountered it.
I saw a ton of people that tried to say Kamala would be better without any actual evidence of that.
Do you think she would’ve upgraded the 5-ton bombs to 10-ton bombs, and provided bulldozers to turn the West Bank into a billionaire resort too?
According to recent reports stating that Biden never applied any pressure to israel, and considering she never made herself different than him on israel, I have no doubt if they asked she would have.
Actually a huge number of people said it was fine that Harris supported Israel, as well as a huge number who engaged in heavy denialism about Harris’ support of genocide.
Since we are in a post election situation, by constantly scape goating voters, you are doing one sided criticism.
Trump helps genocide and he is a bad guy, Biden and Harris help genocide but the voters should have accepted it essentially.
If we refuse to hold the dems accountable for their actions which directly led to Trump winning, they will plot the same course for the next election.
If we refuse to hold the dems accountable for their actions which directly led to Trump winning, they will plot the same course for the next election.
Yes, that’s the idea. No centrist wants to stop the genocide. It’s not like it’s something centrists do want to stop, like raising the minimum wage or universal healthcare or cannabis legalization or anything they run on.
Am I? More people voted against Trump than for him. If the third-party voters accepted that they can’t change the rigged system by voting third-party, Harris would’ve won.
The were too small a demographic to listen to, but they were so influential that they’re responsible for trump.
Sounds like they’re kingmakers and maybe they should have been treated accordingly. But that will require belatedly abandoning support for genocide, so centrists never will.
If the dems had catered to voters instead of kneeling in front of a foreign apartheid state and its genocide, Harris would have won.
Politicians can choose what they represent and the platform they put forward. I don’t want to have to vote for genocide so democracy can live again, I want the dems to drop their pro-genocide stance. Blaming voters is the opposite of asking for change.
Be glad those third parties exist. Those people would have spite voted for Trump instead, not for Harris.
At least they’d be forced to own their complicity instead of hiding behind a pointless action.
At the moment of voting there was only one choice which had been complicit in genocide up to that point.
Are you for real?
Trump repealed restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu was so grateful, he named a settlement after him in occupied Golan Heights. He also said Israel needs to “finish the job” and stop recording their atrocities because they’re “losing the PR war.”
What we all said was there are only two candidates who could win the election
Yeah, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, I remember.
A Democrat or a Republican. Welcome to the United States. Select one of the two or one will be selected for you.
*Select one and one will be selected for you anyway
It’s that type of flawless, disengaging thought that brought you the Trump administration. Twice. Maybe try something different to get the 90M eligible voters to show up?
Democrats moved too far to the right.
The right didn’t buy it but the left did. Progressives and leftists tried to warn you but the party did what it wanted anyway, secure in the knowledge that they had plenty of people who will blame the voters if that’s what it takes to never listen to them.
EDIT: typo
Shocking idea but I do not give a shit about the Democrats, maybe they should be trying to appeal to voters rather than the other way around? Oh wait, they cant because as the saying goes your vote doesn’t matter unless you buy it in advance.
Nor do I. I did give a shit about preventing the election of a fascist dictator. Apparently that was not as important to you.
“It’s the voters vault we ran a terrible right wing candidate.”
Which one though? Is it Xi Jinping? Putin? Charles Taylor? Bush? Blair? Netanyahu? Ratko Mladic? Jean Kambanda? Samphan? Assad (not that old I suppose)?
There are so many of them
ETA: I see the downvotes. I truly have no fucking clue who you are talking about. Duterte? Lukashenko?
I think it’s Biden
Don’t forget Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, and India. They also provided munitions to Israel after October 7th.
And prior.
Thanks. Fair enough.
Most of those names wouldn’t make sense for this meme
At this point it’s more of an ethnic cleansing.
It’s a genocide.
Israel's Genocide on Occupied Palestine
- De-Gaza: A Year of Israel’s Genocide and the Collapse of World Order - Euro-Med Monitor Report see Chapter 2 and 3
Our first-hand observations of the medical and humanitarian catastrophe inflicted on Gaza are consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organizations concluding that genocide is taking place in Gaza.
- Doctors Without Borders: Life in the death trap that is Gaza
It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Amnesty: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Revealed Through Evidence and Analysis Video and Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Report
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention. As an emergency measure, it ordered Israel ensure that its army refrained from genocidal acts against Palestinians.
The ICJ reported, as part of its decisions in March and May, that the situation in Gaza had deteriorated and that Israel had failed to abide by its order in January.
So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.
More than 800 scholars of international law and genocide have signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the total siege and relentless airstrikes continue to inflict devastation on the occupied territory.
An independent United Nations expert warned Monday that “Israel’s genocidal violence risks leaking out of Gaza and into the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole” as Western governments, corporations, and other institutions keep up their support for the Israeli military, which stands accused of grave war crimes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.
I, Lee Mordechai, a historian by profession and an Israeli citizen, bear witness in this document to the situation in Gaza as events are unfolding. The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. I explain why I chose to use the term below. Israel’s campaign is ostensibly its reaction to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, in which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed within the context of the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that can be dated back to 1917 or 1948 (or other dates). In all cases, historical grievances and atrocities do not justify additional atrocities in the present. Therefore, I consider Israel’s response to Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 utterly disproportionate and criminal.
It’s an overt genocide
