Kamala Harris appears to blame ‘people not voting’ for 2024 loss to Trump as book tour gets off to rocky start
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/harris-trump-book-election-voting-b2844063.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmings.world141
Comments241
She's talking up Hillary's mantle, and that woman couldn't put a sock in it for 40 years, while also thinking she was clever for getting Don on the ballot, nevermind worshipping at the altar of Kissenger.
Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong.
I hate to say it, but she's right. Trump was very clear about his plans. Anyone paying attention knew what was going to happen. Any sane person with a pulse would have won the election if the public wasn't so apathetic, ignorant, and/or misinformed.
I don't think all of the apathy is inherent. Some of that's on her and the democratic party demoralizing their constituents. Yes, following game theory it is in their best interest to vote for the lesser evil and against the greater evil. I am politically active and I get that, so I voted.
Regardless, it still bothers me that a not insignificant portion of the Democratic party also knows this and takes advantage of this by coasting and doing the bare minimum. They seem more willing to spend their resources countering internal threats from progressives. It's not easy to stay motivated to support a party openly hostile to your own values.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would rather have a fascist opponent. Then voting comes down to, basically, vote for me because the alternative is fascism. How dare you question my policies (or lack thereof) or my soft stance our ally's obvious genocide? I'm your only hope. Vote for me or else.
It only works for so long, then apathy takes over.
But doesn't that just prove the point? These shitty Dems are allowed to exist because people don't vote.
Yes, in part, and also because the party is actively trying to prevent those voters from getting the progressive candidates they want. It's more blatant these days (Bush, Bowman, Mamdani) than it has been in the past, but it was still happening. They don't want pressure from the left. They broke their promise to not support primary opponents (over incumbents) specifically when progressives started gaining ground. Many are openly hesitant to endorse Mamdani now if they aren't openly skeptical or critical. Vote blue no matter who, eh?
More specially, people don't vote in primaries or local elections.
Not that we really got a presidential primary in 2024, but yes.
Yeah... more thinking back to 2020 on the general. Not that we had that many options by the time they made it to my state.
The average American reads at a 7th grade reading level. You can bitch about it being the electorate's fault when you lose an election, but there have always been uneducated voters and there always will be. If you're a politician, you need to be able to reach all kinds of people; not just those with graduate degrees.
Democrats think doing politics is beneath them. They just need to be marginally better than Republicans and if they don't get elected then it's the voter's fault.
Literacy is less of a problem than the ability to determine a reliable source. There have always been undereducated people and dishonest journalists, but the spreading of misinformation has expanded to an unprecedented degree. A large portion of the population lives in a fictional reality built by propagandists. We can't even agree on objective facts anymore.
"I only lost the election because people didn't vote for me" is so something anyone who lost an election can say and technically be "right".
The only candidate that mattered was Trump. Literally any Democrat would be a better option.
It mattered that Democrats didn't run a campaign that could actually win
What I am saying is the Democrats were irrelevant. It didn't matter who they ran. It didn't matter what their policy was. Not being Trump should have been enough to win by a landslide if people weren't too misinformed or apathetic.
If you care about beating Trump, then whether the Democrats ran a campaign that could win is extremely relevant.
Ok, but it's not.
Agreed. That's the interesting question to me. Why wasn't it simply the decision between democracy and fascism?
Did people not see it in that perspective? Or did they see it that way but still choose fascism? Does that mean people don't believe in democracy anymore? Or are they so convinced by propaganda that fascism is the only way to save us from an imaginary threat?
The reason matters because that determines what is needed to solve the problem.
Incoherent
No, it's perfectly coherent; you're just being a baby because I called your actually incoherent comment incoherent.
It's neither of those three. People thought they had the moral high ground by not voting for either evil. These people weren't apathetic, ignorant, or misinformed. They were evil, selfish, and shortsighted.
Literally the opposite on all three but go off ig
I'm so fucking tired of that spin.
It's like a restaurant owner who offered a crappy menu of poorly cooked food that nobody wanted in the first place blaming the restaurant's failure on the people who refused to eat there.
... Except the alternative was someone shitting on all of the food in the county.
Which is exactly why the Democrat establishment should've done a better job of appealing to voters.
The option being "not a fascist" should have been enough for people. But looks like people don't have any sense of self preservation.
Then the democrats should have offered a "not a fascist" option
Except the only options were corporate fascism or national fascism. Yeah, she was the better choice, but the democrats are a right wing fascist party by corporations. They make people not want to vote for them because they aren't doing anything to improve our lives. At least Republicans lied to their voters that they would change things for them.
Let's say I agree with you - it should've been enough.
So ? How does that make a fucking bit of difference? Everybody with a working brain knew already, after 2016 and 2020, that there was some notable chance that, like it or not, it wasn't going to be enough.
And the solution was easy - the whole thing could've been avoided just by offering up a candidate who wasn't a pro-zionist, pro-corporate, pro-billionaire slimeball. Yes - maybe the case can be made that people should vote for a pro-zionist pro-corporate pro-billionaire slimeball when the alternative is a deranged fascist, but the simple fact is that there's some number of people who, in that situation, are just going to say "fuck it" and stay home instead.
And anybody with a working brain who even briefly considered the matter had to know that that was the case.
Which means that anyone who thought that was a good strategy anyway is a fucking moron at best, and they and nobody else deserve the blame for following such a dumbass strategy.
Crazy they did even worse than that
But dems find a way
Except the ones that they cook at home, so they just stayed in.
Your analogy would be better in Australia where voting is compulsory.
The ones that stayed home still get shit in their food
You may not pay attention to politics but politics sure will pay attention to you.
It is specifically a Dim Sum restaurant, and the DNC rolled out the same shitty cold unwanted dim sum on the carts with a side of Liz Cheney to try and make it appetizing to Maga chuds.
Maga chuds don't go to dim sum restaurants and your actual patrons don't want cold shit and Liz Cheney. No wonder your restaurant gets voted last place in a two person race.
This is the worst analogy I've ever seen
Yeah if people clearly understood if they dont eat this shit food then theyll be eating litteral shit. But time after time its clear most people are stupider then anyone could imagine.
You wish.
Now add the ONLY alternative to that restaurant is a puppy smashing pudding shop. You have to pick one(or let your relatives pick for you). I guess we got puppy goo pudding.
And I'm so fucking tired of this "both sides" nonsense.
When the choice is between a politician you don't like and a fucking fascist, the choice is clear. Well it should be. But there are people upset that there are "no good choices" so they just let the worst happen. No sense of self preservation, just complain that the choice that wasn't fascism wasn't good enough. It should be enough that it prevents fascism, but here we are, with people like you.
No, this is like there being two items in the menu, one that you don't love and one that will poison you, and people have a hard time deciding for some reason.
It doesn't, though, and that's the problem
Exactly. Copmala and the Democrats love rolling over for fascists.
lol
What is that - the Democrat apologist all-purpose strawman? You just call every point of view you desperately want to dismiss out of hand a "both sides" position?
I didn't "both sides" anything.
My point is very simple - if the Democrats want people to vote for their candidate, they have to offer a candidate people want to vote for.
It's really just that simple.
And if they can't be bothered to even do that, then that's their fault and nobody else's.
And yes - if course you believe that people who didn't vote for the somewhat less objectionsble pro-genocide, pro-corporate, pro-billionaire slimeball are awful, stupid fuck-ups - that's the official Democratic spologist line that gets trotted out just like clockwork every time the subject comes up, and the exact spin I was talking about.
But here's a bit of news for you and the DNC and the rest of their apologists - it doesn't fucking matter what you think. The simple fact is that, for whatever reason and entirely regardless of your views on the matter, some significant number of people who would otherwise have voted for the Democrat candidate if they'd been an actual leftist are going to say "fuck it" and stay home if you try to push a sleazy neo-lib hack on them instead. It doesn't matter what you think about it - that's what they're going to do.
They might well be just as ignorant and short-sighted and awful as you self-affirmingly want to believe them to be, and it still doesn't matter in the slightest, because that's how they are and that's what they're going to do and that's just the way it is.
And if you go ahead and try to pish a sleazy neo-lib hack on them anyway, then you're a fucking moron ar best.
Your argument is they didn't win because they didn't win. Clearly that's true, but it was also clearly a choice by the electorate and a stupid one. Could the democrats have done better - we can't know. If they had moved progressive, they may have lost centrist votes. Should they have had a white male populist candidate? It likely would have helped, but is that really a good way to go? If we accept that the dems were a better option for the majority but lost, then it comes down to education, or more specifically: media control. The repubs win because of their control of mass media. It doesn't really matter if the dems have the best candidate by far; the right wing media system will villainize them; and people like you will be programmed to say they are bad and not worth a vote.
The issue is in your analogy you're upset at the people who just decide it's not worth going to the restaurant at all. We need to give them an option they actually wouldn't mind eating. Until then they're just gonna keep deciding not to eat. That or we make voting compulsory.
Holocaust Harris was also a fascist
Man, you people are just fascists now, you realize? You support genocide and accuse anyone who doesn't of being an agent of the Judeo-Bolshevick plot.
Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats will someday realize that political parties are supposed to stand for something other than “what are you gonna do, vote Republican?”
If people didn’t vote for you, it’s because you didn’t appeal to them. Don’t blame the voters for not liking the shitty options presented. Actually represent the people, not the donors and consultants, and you might get some traction.
Good to see this take without 100 down votes.
Dems offered zero leadership, just an anti-Trump.
Dems need an actual leader.
This is lemmy and you better blame the voters that were empathetic to Palestinians undergoing genocide or else. >:(
You can't honestly think Palestine would have been worse off under Harris. Trump has put zero pressure on Israel and has plans to turn the Gaza strip into a resort for the ultra rich
the beatings will continue until morale for the neoliberals improves.
Everything I said was true.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/business/trump-gaza-resort-proposal-5139fd
Is this what you non-voted for? Marching the rest of the Palestinians into the desert and building a golden theme park on what remains of their graves?
Infrastructure, student loan forgiveness, improving economy, sane leadership that doesn’t result in almost daily headlines about the next worst thing happening, environmental stewardship through green energy initiatives, opposition to the Palestinian genocide…
None of that was enough? Had to go full MAGA, huh?
Ah yes, I definitely went full MAGA.
No, I voted for her, just like I always vote for the Dems. But I also understand why she lost, and the Democratic party’s tendency to blame the voters rather than self-reflect is exactly why we’re in the situation we are.
If that was her platform she would have won the election
Not everyone who doesn't like Kamala is Maga.
After this being the status quo for the last 50 years, I'm starting to think the Democrats are an opposition party.
who did you vote for?
Kamala, begrudgingly. Just like how I voted for Biden and Clinton. I live in a swing state, so I felt like voting tactically mattered.
Exactly. No one I know wanted to vote for an ex cop, but it better than a current felon, pedophile, rapist, demented septuagenarian
Who did you vote for?
The democrats snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
It was their apathy that allowed Trump to go unpunished. It was their decision to run Biden again, breaking a promise and preventing democratic primaries to find the best candidate. It was their decision to muzzle Walz. It was Kamela's decision to nuzzle up to conservatives in hope of getting their votes. It was their call whether or not to investigate Trump and Elon for fixing the polls.
Trump is a horrible person and politician. However, his sheer aggressiveness comes off as more genuine than the fairweather triangulation that the Democratic leadership loves so much.
We need dedicated progressives, not halfhearted centrists. People who give a damn.
If I've noticed anything about Dems/mainstream liberals... it's that they are smug as hell and seem to think their ideas are so perfect and pure that they sell themselves. They absolutely refuse to sell their ideas or campaign on them... which it makes it seem to teh average person they are either condescending pricks, or have none.
BTW, Obama was not like this, nor was Clinton. Hence their sweeping victories. But the dem leadership and most dem voters seem to think 'being on the right side of history' means they don't have to appeal to voters... because if the voters don't vote for them they are 'bad people'.
It's not even about centrism or not. It's about actually doing politics instead of sitting on your ass and blaming voters for not voting for you. Trump did the politics. His team and him targeted disgrunted americans of all flavors... and got their votes by appealing to them and telling them what they wanted to hear.
Meanwhile Kamala was lecturing the American public how great the economy was... while prices were exploding and the middle/lower classes fall further and further behind.
Important clarification: Bill Clinton was not. Hillary absolutely came off that way
The person who never won a primary is complaining about low voter turnout in a general election. Now THAT’S fucking rich!
I'm convinced she was picked because DNC leadership is on Trump's payroll.
Never even came close to winning a primary but overnight she's "our gal," yeah fucking right.
It was so shameless too, the reddit botting must have been like half of her campaign funds. She had those idiots so gaslit they thought it was going to be a landslide in her favor.
We're cooked because Democrat leadership is just controlled opposition.
I don't know about being on Trump's payroll, but they're definitely on the same team. The scam is to send in the republicans to sack the country, then the democrats to build it back up for another sacking.
Now THIS is a valid criticism. Don't forget her campaign started a hundred days before the election
"People didn't want to vote for me" isn't the defence you think it is
Harris supporters will do anything but admit she was a bad candidate, and the reason she was a bad candidate was she ran a horrible campaign that was tone deaf and it's talking points were alien to the average working-class voter.
Democrats did this same idoitic crap in 2004, and in 2016. And act like Obama was some sort of political genius... he wasn't. He just gave speeches and ran a campaign that gave people something to give a shit about. Unlike Kerry, Clinton, and Harris. Biden lacked charisma, but nostalgia factor and his appeal to lifelong appeal working-class americans, which obama capitalized on.
Democrats need to stop being so stupid and arrogant. But it seems most of the party are entrenched out of touch idiots.
I both think she was a bad candidate AND blame apathic voters. Regardless of how bad a candidate she was we could all see the writing on the wall of where we would end up if Donnie got in and they still decided to stay home. Protesting by not voting is like proving guns kill people by playing Russian roulette.
voters are apathetic by default. you have to give them something to care about. Donnie gave them something to care about, so they voted for him.
The problem is people would rather complain when the bad things that were obviously going to happen come to pass rather than swallow their pride and go against their morals. The number of people I know that chose to stay home on the Gaza issue alone is mind boggling. Dems had plenty to care about after seeing the first Trump term and decided they had enough wiggle room to do some moral grandstanding. They chose poorly.
I can't relate directly to Gaza non-voters. But I remember the first woman's march during 2017, and I asked several people who went if they voted. about 3/5 said no. Apparently protesting/marching but not voting is how you win elections in these people's minds.
Sadly it seems APPEARING to care is more important than actually protecting our country. I guess they have a lot in common with the majority of elected democratic politicians. Maybe people will have a wake up call after this but I'm not hopeful. I will however keep hoping AND striving for a better future.
yep. 100%. they legit don't give a fuck, but everything they do is about appearing to care. it's deeply cynical approach to politics. actual polciy and law making don't matter, lip service to the cause du jour is everything
i don't think it was this bad 10-20 years ago. social media hypercharged that reality is nothing more than appearances and truth and substance have zero value. and the populace laps it up like candy.
Centrists look at both sides of the mirror and find the middle ground between reality and a black void.
I think all she had to do was denounce the Israeli genocide and let voters know she was going to stand up to Israel.
just dont mention it, wouldve been enough. plus she had cards stacked against her from the start that was out of her control.
She was being criticized for not mentioning it until people started demanding an answer and threatening to withhold their vote over her silence.
Yeah she would have been way better off not even aknowledging it.
She either lost the Zionist donations or the support of the youth depending on if she acknowledged the genocide. She could have avoided the whole choice if she avoided it.
I don't buy this. Yes, I blame a lot of Trump's victory on Biden, but I think Harris absolutely could have done something about it. She could have stopped Biden's campaign cold by saying she didn't believe he should run for a second term
Instead she went along with it, repeatedly stating she thought he was fit to run again. Either she is a poor judge of character or blatantly lied. Either way she supported a doomed campaign until it was too late for an actual primary
first of all the voting machines was rigged to hell, the DNC dint do anything about it thats the most important part, almost no news agency is picking up the story at all.. deck stacked against her, she was thrust into the campaign in late july. she definitely has her fault, but her loss being entirely her fault, is part of the propaganda that pushed on the "protest voters"
fucking book tour. of course.
she's not wrong.
around 30% of Americans refused or failed to vote in the 2024 election. had they voted, we would probably be seeing Trump and his gaggle of shitbirds thrown in jail.
"oh Israel!" stfu. nobody actually believes that bullshit anymore. it's clearly been worse under Trump, fuckbrains.
Roughly speaking, the quality of a politician is ranked on their ability to govern, and on their ability to get votes. One or the other isn't good enough, it has to be both. In Kamala's case she was marginally better than Trump in one, and marginally worse in the other. Democrats must do much better in both.
As for Israel, there is no reason whatsoever to think it would be any better under Harris. Biden was an ideological Zionist who was never going to put real pressure on Israel. Every indication was that Harris would be more of the same. Trump, through no ideology other than serving his own ego, might have actually done better than either of them ever would have.
95% of Congress is supports israeli. and the 5% that doesn't is too out there to ever be a popular candidate for the presidency.
but moral purists want to bang on about gaza as if it's some critical issue
A majority of American voters want the US to stop sending any support, military or otherwise, to Israel. Among Democratic voters that rises to 75%. I'm sorry that opposing genocide is too puritanical for your tastes, but you are completely out of touch with what is or isn't "popular".
cool, the stat i just looked up from a week ago says only 1/3 of americans disagree with military aid to israeli. and that's from pew research. 1/3 don't know, and the other 1/3 think we should support them more.
but keep making up your own facts I guess?
Mine come from a Quinnipiac poll. No matter what polling you use though, there is a pretty remarkable shift against Israel every time they do another poll. Nobody would have predicted that 1/3 a couple years ago.
100% I highly doubt the motives of these people, makes me think they have some other agenda going on. Makes no sense they'd prefer this shit over Harris.
Bots, troll farm employees and the truly gullible appreciate you respecting them enough to call them people.
"people who care about genocide aren't even human"
It's not always a strictly logical choice for people. I can totally see how someone with family there would be unable to vote for either candidate. Yes, I was personally able to see my vote as anti trump, but if things were similar under a harris presidency I'd spend my whole life having to reconcile the fact that I did indeed vote for genocide (even if it was justified in my mind at the time). Not everyone wants to do that. And if I can see that problem I don't understand how professional politicians can't. People weren't saying 'dont vote for her cause genocide' they were saying 'some people won't vote for her cause genocide, maybe enough to swing the thing' - and they were right. I don't know why we're attacking them again and again when they were clearly right.
I get your point, but I'm strictly talking about people on this website whom I probably wrongly assume are more literate about politics and can see right through Trump based on the trends of thought on Lemmy. You can't tell me that a platform devoted to USA politics that vehemently criticizes his hypocrisy and lies doesn't realize he's talking out of both sides of his mouth while doing exactly what Biden would've done, but worse.
It seems awfully convenient to US enemies that people on online forums would prefer genocide with their destructive fascism rather than plain old genocide, while actively playing down both under this administration. This shit makes no sense.
BlueMAGA loyalists do not care about mass genocide, so they can't imagine anyone who does could actually be sincere. Pure projection.
Ah, because there's no genocide happening right now. Right. Also, I'm not American so miss me with your pointless partisan rhetoric. Keep defending pedophiles and the destruction of the US, though. You saved Palestine!
Completely incoherent
Just making shit up, huh. I'm not the one getting downvoted, broski. No wonder I got you at -9 already, probably from saying nonsense like this often.
Jesus Christ, go back to Reddit
Why, because I'm saying the points matter? Can you really not think of a sensible reason why I'm saying that? Hint: It signals community agreement over your bullshit. Simple fucking as.
Not surprised, coming from someone with this level of reactionary-ass takes who thinks Trump would've handled Gaza any differently. Yet here we still are, but worse. Congrats, you saved Gaza!
Defense Minister Israel Katz, October 12, 2025
Oh, whoops, more bombing planned supervised by the USA. Look how safe it is now.
No, you were just a genocide denier when it was the democrats doing it
How can she be this tone deaf? No one wants to hear from you, Kamala. Not the time. We're dealing with the fallout of your horrid campaign.
I regret my Kamala vote (moreso my faith in her leading up to the election) more every day, and I am in despair over this administration.
lol
I love this take. "I regret voting for the person who wasn't a fascist, I wish I had actually voted for the fascist. Real Lemmy Leftists™ like me don't vote for democratic candidates and neither should you, zealous support for Trump is the only real way to bring down those evil Centrists!!!"
oooh~ so smart. No, I wasn't going to vote for Trump. Nothing I said supported Trump. I specifically said I dislike this administration; yet Clearly backing Center-Right Biden and Kamala didn't work, because it plunged us Back into fascism. Now, if you'd like to contribute something to how we could have avoided a Trump presidency, you can join me on what I've been spiraling on for the last year. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.
B…but muh GenocideJoe.
If you can't inspire people to vote for you the problem is you. I don't know why she thinks that's a good defense.
because democrats/leftists love to blame the public for being 'ignorant'.
as if anyone/everyone should go to college and that will make them a democrat/liberal. it doesn't, and it won't.
instead of, maybe listening to the public and giving a message they can get behind? hmm I wonder which candidate did that and won handily...
Kamala should have primaried. She was not who democrats wanted. We are sick to fucking death of democrats constantly sliding to the right to offer concessions. Start shutting shit down, throw tantrums, filibuster the fuck outta things. Its all MAGA understands.
The success of Mamdani in New York shows people appreciate someone who strongly opposes conservative policies instead of cozying op to them. Sure, New York isn't the entire US but I really think someone like him has better chances then the "let's just keep the status quo" politicians like Harris and Biden.
Yes, and what happened there? The democrats went crazy ... because they are all mostly repackaged republicans.
Losers blame everything but themselves.
Only thing that came across from Kamala's campaign was that she being not Donald Trump is the only reason to vote for her.
We should run Mamdani in 2028. Those who know a little bit about presidential eligibility will cry that this can't be done. Those that know more about presidential eligibility will recognize that it's entirely possible for Mamdani to run for and serve as president.
I mean, this seems pretty cut and dry:
It's been argued, though notably not in the courts, that this is superceded by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Everyone knows what the current supreme court would make if it.
Considering the 14th is also where the insurrection clause resides, I suspect, the majority of voters don't exactly adhere too closely to that particular amendment.
Even with a favorable court this would be difficult because of how US elections work. There is nothing saying a naturalized citizen can't run for president, just that they can't hold the office.
A party would have to risk nominating an ineligible candidate, and that's not something primary voters are going to want to do. Until that happens, there is no real mechanism to get a ruling from the courts since there is nobody with standing for a lawsuit.
Yeah let's report on Harris' book tour and not the pedopsycho oligarchs dismantling our nation.
It is possible to do both.
So the article--which I'm sure EVERYONE READ--only discusses a knee jerk retort to a heckler which I guess blames non voters but it doesn't read like that.
I don't like Kamala as a candidate, I don't like the DNC (still fuck You DWS for torpedoing Bernie), but multiple things can be true at the same time. D should have candidates that are better, and a left candidate (who wouldn't even really fit in the party) would be nice. This is still a hardcore Murc's law situation: Trump is and was a known quantity and more people than just D had responsibility to avoid term 2 / get any accountability for term 1. By all means teach the DNC a lesson, but the cure is definitely worse than the disease for the presidency. (Maybe people should have left their couches and Lemmy earlier to BE the good candidates instead of complaining no one good enough was served to them?)
Having trump IS a result of no one else getting enough votes, that IS a result of people not voting. Sure we can argue for deontological voting and the duty of each vote and the value of not supporting genocide / the liberal establishment. However, teleologically speaking, all roads not leading to Harris led to trump. No way that would have been worse than this no matter what lipstick you put on it.
I am gonna be bitter forever that we got 47 because of people who knew what was coming and let it happen anyway, then sniff their own farts about it on the internet. Have the day you voted for in 2025 is a clever meme to post. Have the day you voted for or didn't vote at all for is even more apt. This is the cost you decided we should all pay to stick it to the DNC if you intentionally didn't vote, remember that. I hope it's worth it in 2028.
Apparently beating Trump is so important that progressives should abandon everything they been believe in and even tolerate genocide, but not so important that liberals need to actually try to court progressives, rather than endlessly tearing into them with even more venom than they have for Trump. It's been a year since the election and liberals are still obsessively foaming at the mouth with hatred for progressive; it wasn't a strategy that worked for them in 2024, but apparently they're going to keep doing it all the way to 2028.
DNC fought 100 times more fiercely against Bernie than Trump. They have forever lost my vote.
As a fellow Bernie supporter, let me assure you that the Republicans support your decision and Bernie doesn't.
After what Schumer pulled yesterday, I don't care...
I will never vote for democrats again. They are just a controlled opposition.
You might as well be angry at a stapler as the corporate structure of a political party.
Do you like having trump dismantle the government and plunge the country into a grifting fascist kakistocracy? Would you have preferred literally anyone else?
This is the shit YOU CHOSE. No other time no other person no other Republican presidency has been so damaging and it's not like it's surprising, we all saw part one. It didnt stop genocide any faster (I don't believe for a minute the current ceasefire will last). You picked this for us all of us. You asked for it. No thanks for whatever you're pretending to offer, the rest of us can't count on you when reality knocks. Maybe you chose the high road, maybe you just picked whatever let you do nothing and feel self important on the internet. In either case it's shitty and dumb and if it bites you it's just the cost of change, right?
Have the day you decided not to vote against.
Like I said, apparently Trump isn't so bad that you actually try to court progressives, rather than endlessly tearing into them with even more venom than you have for Trump. Like you said: I choose this, I pick for you, I'm the one with all the power, apparently, to stop Trump, and yet you still can't bring yourself to not behave like a frothing tantruming child at me for over a year now. You genuinely intend to keep doing this all the way to 2028, don't you? So if this is how unimportant it is to you, why should I care?
Whoever cares the least has all the power. You can't do anything without us either, the difference is I will probably show up because I understand this fact and you won't.
Well have fun continuing to eat shit then? It's hard to take your pontification about how important it is for Dems to win seriously, when you also make it extremely clear that you will not even slightly change tact even when it will mean you eating shit and losing again.
Yeah, like giving into fascism and licking boots to destroy the country while still getting the genocide. Brilliant fucking move, genius. Gaza is saved.
PSA brain is just a rage baiting troll
Incoherent
Hope you don't get kirked buddy. It's cool to believe so strongly in not voting for a candidate you don't really like you're willing to allow a president who designated your way of thinking as terrorist activity, but that was the choice.
My conscience is clear because I am interested in voting whatever is best for everybody at election time and make my moral stand the rest of the time. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear you explain to your grandkids how you are so moral and so progressive and so against genocide that you decided to step aside and... allow genocide anyway with a side of 1930s Germany where Hispanics can also be disappeared from the street in broad daylight, heath and disease science get uprooted, and generally allow the government to collapse.
Very smart. Very cool. Very progressive of you.
Again, it’s hard to take your overwritten screeds seriously when you also make it extremely clear that you will not even slightly change tact even when it will mean you eating shit and losing again.
I get you but this just wasn't the hill to die on. Let the democrats lose to some run of the mill asshole not the guy using naziesque scapegoats
That line becomes less and less effective when you keep using it every single election, especially when the Democrats keep making it pretty obvious that they're not actually that bothered about stopping MAGA.
First election I've ever said that but nice try
That's odd, because I've been hearing it from a million democrat faithful who sound exactly the same as you for over a decade
Turns out, there's a lot of people in the world
Apparently you only just discovered this
Who really gives a fuck who the dem nominee was. Vote in that person then work for the change you want. Trump winning makes working for the thing you want much harder while adding a generation of damage on top of it. Probably more than a generation.
She's RIGHT! If ONLY people Had SOMEONE to Vote for Trump would have LOST!
Why doesn't she fight along people against Trump ruining the country?
People didn't vote for her, nothing she can do now. They'll just wait for the next election, sorry.
Yes she can protests with other like bernie and aoc does
She could be vocal. Leadership matters even if they aren't in office. Instead, she's milking her book deal. That's what has me turned off to her.
So I want to point out something interesting in the comments to this post:
There are two different segments of the comments, with wildly differing consensus views revealed in one segment versus the other (if you look at the votes). There's the top three comments (at least as it shows up to me), who think Kamala Harris is a big meanie liberal who deserved what she got and why isn't she helping us with Trump now. Then there's the whole rest, where there's actually a strong consensus along the lines of this:
... where the top comment is mildly downvoted, and the reply is heavily upvoted.
It is weird to me that there are two strata to it. I have a theory for why that is, but I am sometimes out of my mind, so I will simply point it out and that it's weird.
What?
Just me? Maybe so. That's what it looked like to me, though.
It really isn't clear what you're saying at all. Just spit it out.
Kamala is a lot of things, but she is not a liberal. I can have honest disagreements with a principled liberal, but the Democratic establishment abandoned liberal principals long ago.
She's like the poster child for liberals I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Liberals believe in democracy. How did she become the nominee again?
Liberals believe in democracy for them and thier elite few. They've never believed in democracy for everybody. There's not one liberal Revolution in the history of this world that ended with universal suffrage. Not one. When it came, if ever, it came after decades and even centuries of blood.
Has there been a socialist revolution in the history of the world that ended with universal worker control of the means of production? For that matter, has there ever been a fascist revolution where individual liberty was entirely overridden by capital and state interests? Don't be ridiculous. There is always a gap between the ideal vision and what society is ready to accept. What makes someone liberal is consistency in pushing society in a liberal direction, and that's not what we see from the Democratic establishment.
So liberals believe in democracy, they believe in equality, and freedom, they just never actually push for it on their own is what you're saying? That's interesting. It's almost like they don't actually believe in those things it's just the nonsense they tell people so they won't pay attention to things they actually believe in. Liberals believe in two things, well one thing really but I'll say two, they believe in private property and free market capitalism. Except not really free market. That's it that's all they've ever believed in.
Everything else, every single thing else will be sacrificed for those two things. We know this, we have 300 plus years of human history that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's the only directions liberals have ever-pushed anything in. The only time they ever allow anything else is if it helps them achieve that goal.
All edge, no point.
Hey @[email protected] -- remember when I said that "liberal" was basically a poisoned word at this point because it means so many different things to so many people that it often just causes confusion to even introduce it?
This is a pretty good example. I tried telling you that most modern Democrats are center-right conservatives as opposed to "liberals," and long story short you didn't like that. So just now I tried out applying the term using the modern "US politics" definition, where Democrats are "liberals," and now I'm all of a sudden in a what-words-mean-what-things conversation with this person. The original substance that we were talking about is forgotten.
@[email protected] for what it's worth I actually agree with you here. I don't even know enough about Kamala's policies to be able to weigh in on where she stands, but if I had to guess I would say she is probably a center-right conservative and not a liberal. But as soon as someone says that, there's a whole new crop of people for whom "liberal" means "enemy," and they will crop up to yell at you that of course she's a liberal and how dare you try to defend her against that accusation, and so on, and so the conversation just becomes a big pointless argument filled with tribalism and accusations.
Of course, if that's your goal, then using the word "liberal" is a pretty good approach.
I think it's a mistake to apply any kind of principled philosophy to establishment Democrats. They aren't left, they aren't liberals, they aren't conservative, they are careerest. If they believe in anything it's competence, but with little discernment about what their competence should achieve. What they are is an elitist social club, and they see broader democracy as an inconvenience to overcome on the path to earning favor in that club.
Yeah, pretty much.
Lemmy is astroturfed by Russian and Chinese agents whose mission is to sow discord and harm America. Trump harms America.
When you view Lemmy comments on political posts through this lens, the reality of the situation becomes clear.
You know we're cooked when even the liberals have embraced fascist conspiracy theories about all of America's problems being the fault of perfidious foreigners corrupting our otherwise pure nation.
Yes, you are correct, that is definitely exactly what that person said.
It is, yes.
Yeah, pretty much. I've observed them getting confused before and letting it slip that they're not American. Usually the evidence is pretty circumstantial (even when it is less wildly speculative than I was talking about in this comments section) but sometimes it is honestly pretty unambiguous.
Sore loser. Trump is the president righ now that's the reality so you have two options you fight against Trump with people and you just shut the F up
Politicians aren't athletes. She didn't lose. The American people chose Trump. The American people lost.
That's some serious cope
Politicians are worst than athlete when it comes to being sore losers. She lost the election and instead of just accepting the result and participate in the fight to prevent Trump for continuing the destroy the democracy in the US she keep blaming other people for losing the election
Again you think she's an athlete because that's how the press frames it. An election is a contest of the people.
"Other people" are actually the ones that lost the election.
If you don't like the term lose, fine. You just trying to create a fake problem. The reality is trump became the president and she didn't. Instead of keep tqlking about the election that ended she keep complaning about it instead of fighting along people to protect democracy that Trump try to destroy. The reality is that she is just here to sell a book
Fight? Americans told her to go away. It's Americans' fault we have Trump. There's nothing wrong with her telling you an inconvenient truth. You aren't forced to buy the book.
Do you realize that she still an American living in the USA . Everybody should fight for their countries. Don't cry if one day Trump goes full authoritarian and start jailing any opposition.
Also what the 48% of americans who voted for her should be punished too? They are not worth fighting for?
If she don't want to join the fight she should just fall into obscurity as a ragular american
???
She put in 8 years for America. What have you done?
Why would she fight against trump? You guys keep demanding democrats stand up to trump and the moment one does you guys shit on them and break them down. You guys demanded old white Biden be removed and replaced with a younger candidate, so they replace him with an educated black woman and you guys are like “eeew not that”
If I were a democrat I would let you guys burn until you’re begging for me
I'm pretty sure I predicted that as soon as Biden was replaced, all the anguished whining about Biden would be replaced with anguished whining about his replacement (which was precisely what happened). Invariably that prediction was met with "HOW DARE YOU SAY WE SHOULD NOT REPLACE BIDEN" which is a whole new sentence.
The thing of taking Biden's most massive and unforgivable sin (Gaza) and blaming it instantly on Harris also because why not she was in the building also, and how flawlessly that worked, is a big giveaway that it was never about addressing actual flaws in the actual Democratic candidate in the first place.
I mean, if you were a Democrat you would be still collecting campaign contributions and trying to figure out how to weather this current storm without it really upsetting your retirement account. I do think that a big part of the problem is that with a few rare exceptions, establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans are both largely shitty and craven, and so they are equally unmotivated to try to stop Trump in a real sense now that shit's getting increasingly and increasingly real. Just listen to Pritzger talk something about his frustration trying to get any kind of support now that he's stuck his neck way out in an absolutely vital fight which we have to win.
What we needed was major criminal trials on day 1, oriented around Jaunary 6th. What we needed was AOC leading the oversight committee. At an absolute bare minimum, stuff like that. There's a lot of hate that goes towards the Democrats that is undeserved (and often specifically engineered to benefit Republicans and then bought into by suckers), but I do think it mostly only works because there's a pretty solid grain of truth "Well you fucking guys are clearly not the answer, so why do you expect my support." for it to all get artfully wrapped around to give additional strength.
How can you two contradictory statement back to back?
All what the article talk about is Harris crying about her defeat. I don't know where do you that she is fighting back.
She may be great as prosecutor and attorney but politically only Trump beat her in stupidty
"I can be your champion. All I ask is your sword."
But you smell
"Yes but the other guy literally said he would rape your wife, and also he burned down the village last time, and also he smells."
He will be our champion
"Okay then, fuck you"
Okay number one, rude, number two, what are you doing to protect us against this guy? He raped my wife and I think that's really fucked up. You didn't even try to stop him or anything. And he has that big sword that we gave him.