367
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
367 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29314 readers
2030 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Kamala was offered a choice between funding a genocide and preventing [whatever scary thing is in the headline]. She chose genocide, and she lost.
Leftists cost her the election and you'll damn right we'll do it again - unless you answer to our simple demands of ensuring the dem candidate is not an unabashed genocider.
None of the data suggests that leftists had any significant impact on her loss.
Nor is there any evidence that her laugh caused her defeat.
The point is that the liberal has to choose: did the "moral high ground" leftists cost her the election, and thus have the power to sway elections - or did the leftists NOT have the power to sway the election, and thus liberals should be quite about the "moral high ground" leftists?
Edit: and your point is also dubious. It's known that Kamala's refusal to break from Biden's policies was a huge part of what cost her the election - bad enough that the DNC was recently in the news for hiding the Kamala campaign autopsy.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-gaza-2024
Thank you for this!
I've said it before, and I'm happy to repeat it now, I really wish I lived in the country you're talking about, where people cared more about other people than themselves, but we really don't. We can probably cherry pick stats all day (lies, damn lies, statistics), but 54% of Biden->Someone not Harris voters said her Gaza policy made no difference. 10% said it'd make them less likely. That's 64% of that uncaptured demographic that chose someone other than her for a completely unrelated reason. Other top 3 issues: 24% - The economy 12% - Medicare and Social Security 11% - Immigration and border security
Seems like those are people who want less of dem policies, not more of them. Also, the above is just voters who voted for not Kamala. There were plenty of people who stayed home because they simply didn't like her (black/woman/maybe Israel policy) and didn't care enough to vote for someone else.
To be clear, anyone blaming leftists is just whining. Kamala failed to do the thing she was supposed to (win) and they see that as other people's fault and not hers. At the end of the day she either got the votes or she didn't. If they think there's nothing she could've said/done to get the leftist vote, then they don't have to blame her. In reality, she could've EARNED those votes and she didn't. Maybe it would've cost her other votes. I don't know for sure, but either way it was her decision and she chose not to.
Source of poll from your article: https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling
Also, pretty sure the laugh thing is a meme. They used the sarcasm indicator, so I'm pretty sure they're being glib.
🙄
You're not the only problem. But you are sure as shit one of them.
As am I. My desire to vote third party is unshakable.
Hell yeah, brother. I stand next to you. Proudly. I was hated on Lemmy for proclaiming this back during the '24 election, but I didn't change my mind. Glad to see more and more people willing to stand up and say it.
Right on.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step
And what if I have a problem, and willfully and intentionally do the wrong thing by voting third party anyway?
Are you voting in the primaries?
Absolutely. I use the Democratic ballot.
And if the candidate(s?) you vote for won the primaries, you'd be willing to support them in the general election as well?
Yep. Pretty much. It would be one of those rare times I vote for one of the Big Two.
That's fair enough, then. I may not share your opinion, but it seems reasonable enough and I respect it.
What's even the point of asking that?
Answers will be in the 2 camps of "vote anyways" or "you shouldn't be able to". Seeing as one of these is a blatant bad answer, anyone you ask with a brain will just say some variant of "you do you".
So again I ask, why even ask your question?
It's never a waste to see what the Blue No Matter Who people say to try and get me to vote for their guy.
It's your prerogative to vote against all rationality and your own interests. Just know that you're doing absolutely nothing of value.
I find it valuable, therefore it is. QED
If you don't find it of value to contribute to preventing Trump, fascism, war, mass deportation, destruction of science and healthcare and justice, further wealth concentration, etc. well, your choices are rational from your perspective, I guess. Wrong, and misguided, but rational.
Excellent. Thanks.
Trump promised genocide. Kamala said she'd do everything to stop genocide but wouldn't stop selling weapons.
Americans chose the bigger genocide. The lesson from the last election is the politician that promotes the most death wins the election.
Are you phrasing this as an indictment of american politics and culture, or as a lesson dems should learn from going forward?
The lesson that the Democratic party should have learned is that "only a little bit of death and destruction" is not an effective counter-message to maximum death and destruction. Harm reduction is a good practice, but if that's the only moral argument you can make in favor of your candidacy you're going to lose and have only yourself to blame.
But it fucking should be. I would also agree that no death and destruction is all that is acceptable. It's really disheartening that that was not a realistic choice. But if you're on the trolley heading towards total death and destruction and pulling the lever takes you to a little bit of death and destruction, you pull that fucking lever. You don't take the "moral high ground" and tear down the Trump tracks while criticizing the other option for not being a good enough choice and take your passengers with you. It mystifies me that anyone on the left disagrees with that.
Perfect is the enemy of good. And good is the enemy of better. If you have no good choice, you pick the better choice. Period.
Too many people on Lemmy either aren't on the trolley (Non-Americans) or they don't realize they're on that damn trolley with us. They're the purity-testers who see their own left-purity as more important than the actual lives that could be not-dead while we try to pull a liberal to the left. Instead we get to collectively flail while fascists bomb Iran.
Yep, this.
I remember being in my early teens, where one is liable to apply purity tests everywhere one goes. Heck, we all do. But most of us tend to grow up.
Doing all this wishcasting about perfect leftist candidates that check all the buttons along with a perfect leftist electorate makes for great fantasy, I guess.
But then sitting back and declaring you are morally superior than everyone else when it doesn't happen and you choose to sit out or vote for a ridiculous party like the Green Party is really not the flex these people think it is.
Kamala Harris tried to please everyone. She tried to please those who supported Israel by saying Israel has the right to defend itself. She tried to please those who wanted Israel to stop bombing in Gaza by saying Israel should be more careful with its bombing. Trump clearly stated he supported Israel and got the support of those who favored Israel. Those who didn't support Israel chose not to support Harris because she didn't commit to opposing Israel's actions in Gaza. Harris disregarded one of Aesop's Fables. See https://discover.hubpages.com/literature/The-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey-Aesops-fables-retold
Exactly. Try to please everyone, you're not gonna please anyone.
Also, a woman of color unfortunately just means starting a step back.
The Democrats haven’t learned anything. And Republicans will only present more unhinged candidates. The system needs to be overhauled ground up.
Hard agree. Taking a step back and having the revelation that your electoralism means definitive genocide no matter who's in power should not be a reason to dig in and defend your electoralism. It should be reason to tear everything down.
Otherwise, youre taking the stance that Palestinians have a duty to allow themselves genocided to buy yourself time for more political waffling.