Donald Trump has no idea what has hit him, and it’s a joy to watch
Donald Trump has no idea what has hit him, and it’s a joy to watch
He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.
He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.
You're viewing a single thread.
I have to admit when I'm wrong.
I was all for Joe staying in the race, because I didn't think the Dems would coalesce around one candidate without a shit-show convention.
Now I'm glad I was wrong. Just putting it out there.
100% the same
Dude I've never been so happy to be wrong as fuck
You know what the cool thing is? Those of us who were wrong for one reason or another will actually about it. We don't pretend we were right the whole time. We don't pretend it just didn't happen.
Hindsight being what it is, I'm almost wondering if the timing was planned in advance. Biden already told us he'd be a one term president. If in 10 years they came out and said "Yeah, that was the plan from day one but we couldn't tell anyone" I would absolutely believe it.
I threw an idea out in response to a comment here right after Biden backed out and the more I think about, the more it seems likely to be right.
My theory is that the DNC likely timed Biden stepping aside so it would be late enough they couldn’t hold primaries for the nominee. It came out in 2016 that the DNC was basically rigged for Clinton to win, regardless of what voters wanted. The 2016 primaries caused dissension with voters leading to lower turnout, and I think that was also somewhat true in 2020. By waiting as long as he did to back out, Biden took voter choice out of it and helped rally everyone behind Harris.
I could absolutely be wrong, but every time I run it through my head it feels more likely to be true. And if I’m right, it is a bit sleazy. However, I have to admit I’m surprised and impressed by how it’s turned out. I didn’t expect people to rally so strongly behind Kamala, and I’m excited to be a part of it!
It wasn't "rigged" for Clinton (and I thought she was not a good candidate).
Bernie lost because less people voted for him.
If it wasn't for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier. For example, he won the Washington caucus but got crushed in the primary (which had massively higher turn out).
The fact of the matter is that the broader electorate wasn't as left-wing as Lemmy or /r/politics is.
Do you not remember all the leaks showing extreme bias towards Clinton, derision of Sanders, and even deals between Clinton and the DNC?
The emails and documents showed that the Democratic Party's national committee favored Clinton over … Bernie. … The leaks resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership's publicly stated neutrality, as several DNC operatives openly derided Sanders's campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton's nomination. Later reveals included controversial DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions. source
Or that DNC leaders argued in court that they didn’t need to hold impartial primaries and could select whatever candidate they wanted?
… DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. source
For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle. source
At the end of the day, yes, Bernie got fewer votes. But that is a small part of the iceberg, ignoring all the things that led up to it and all the biases at play in the organization putting the vote on in what I would (and did) call a “rigged” primary.
The primary was rigged before it even began. Typically when there's no incumbent you'll see several politicians make a run for the nomination. But 2016 was different. Hilary and the DNC went around to all of the presidential hopefuls in 2015 and basically told them to sit this one out because it's her turn. Hilary was supposed to waltz her way to the nomination uncontested because they didn't want a repeat of 2008. The only reason we got the Hilary vs. Sanders contest at all is because Sanders was an outsider so he didn't get the memo (or perhaps they didn't consider him a serious threat).
my own little conspiracy theory i like to think about is that biden threw that debate on purpose lol.
I think you’re underestimating the effect power has on the psyche.
Sure, Biden said he would be a one term president. Sure, the DNC will do anything including breaking its own rules to avoid allowing anyone left of center to be the nominee.
But when you’re in the most powerful position in the world (Biden’s donors), you want to keep going.
I think Biden really is just too old and his brain is not working properly and he has health issues, which I believe is the only reason he stepped down, and if those in power beside him did not threaten to force him out of power in an embarrassing way, he would have been happy to have the chance to lose the election and end democracy.
Even right up to the debate, people were repeating ad naseum the absurd lie from the DNC and cable news, that Biden is the only candidate who can beat Trump.
Look at Feinstein. The people pushing her wheelchair were absolutely ready to have her run for another term, with fucking dementia or whatever her health issue is…..
Maybe! I'm not really advocating that thought, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. And I'm pretty happy to say I was wrong in thinking the DNC would be a total shit show of competing interests. She's not my perfect candidate, but honestly no one is and I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good. Plus I like Walz.
Look at Feinstein. The people pushing her wheelchair were absolutely ready to have her run for another term, with fucking dementia or whatever her health issue is…..
That was one of the most fucked up things I've ever seen in politics. She was more mostly dead than Westley in The Princess Bride.
I’m torn, I really like Walz, but I also can’t in good conscience vote for someone who supports the genocide in Gaza.
I’m very thankful I live in a blue state.
I’m open to Harris walz but I need something to happen to end this genocide before I can take them seriously.
I’m so glad folks are getting excited about Harris walz though….
Edit: I suppose downvoting this comment means you openly support genocide, so I could give fuck all other than seeing how sad and pathetic your life must be to be in full support of suffering of this scale. 138,000 dead Palestinians, which is most likely a very low estimate, close to 10% of the population is now dead.
As a preface to this, I'm not the one downvoting you. I also think what's happening is abhorrent.
Since you're in a blue state, it's not nearly as big of a deal. However, for anyone reading this in battleground states, remember that the only alternative who actually has any shot of winning in FPTP electoral college is Trump who thinks Israel should "finish the job".
I'm pretty sure you know why you're being downvoted. If we want more real options we need to start working towards any system that isn't FPTP electoral college bullshit.
I’m being downvoted because of libtard blue no matter who neoliberal folks who only watch cable news.
Yes, I know exactly why, and it’s very sad that they can support genocide so flippantly
And if this hurts your feelings get over it I guess there’s a fucking genocide going on and you’re in support of it
What about "Trump who thinks Israel should “finish the job”." did you not hear? What makes the opposition, Trump, more worthy of your vote?
I’m open to Harris walz but I need something to happen to end this genocide before I can take them seriously.
But you take Trump seriously?
This is definitely a whatanoutism.
What about Trump. I’m not talking about Trump, I’m talking about the current vice president and president
Again, I ask you, what part of Biden is currently directly supporting genocide do you not understand?
I don’t give a fuck if it ends democracy or whatever boogeyman the dems are threatening this election cycle, much as they have done since I have been old enough to vote. Every time I have gone to vote, in fact. But this time it’s real?
I don’t give a fuck. I am not going to vote for a candidate who defends and directly supports a genocide.
There’s no lesser of two evils here. What the fuck is wrong with you. You either don’t know what a genocide is, or you don’t believe Palestinian lives hold any value in the world.
Which one is it?
This is pretty brain dead of you. It's not a boogeyman, it's just reality.
I understand being angry at the current admin. I don't like Kamala either. I don't like the genocide. I disavow the genocide and I wish Israel's apartheid regime was dissolved.
Now let's face facts. The Trump admin did a lot of damage. And honestly, the Biden admin has allowed for a lot of damage to continue. And maintaining that honesty, I think the Harris admin will not be much better.
But this is absolutely a choice between an evil and a lesser evil, and to disagree with that? Fucking stupid. You want to make a difference? Too bad. Your vote isn't going to solve the genocide. Your lack of a vote isn't going to solve the genocide. Nothing you can legally do is going to solve the genocide.
If you want to do something about it, then you should. But if your idea of "doing something about it" is not voting for the democratic ticket... it isn't productive. Maybe spend that energy differently.
I live in a red state so I'm voting third party anyway. But if the alt right is allowed to proceed with project 2025, let's see how long we have before we are dealing with our own genocide, huh?
Wake up call: literally every admin has supported the wanton murder of civilians. Literally every admin has blood on their hands. Literally every admin is a war criminal.
Advocating for not voting for the Harris admin won't do anything about it.
It'd be interesting to find this out, but given how disorganized the Democrats tend to be, I seriously doubt that's the case.
What an absolute gamble that would be. Trust me, reality is stranger than fiction.
I'm glad everyone feels this way, I do too. I thought with Joe we had pretty solid chances of winning, but now with Kamala I think we're going to win by a lot more than Joe won by last time around.
Same here. What a pleasant surprise this whole turnaround has been. I was certainly pesimistic that the Democrats would somehow make the situation even worse, like perhaps bring Clinton back.
The Democrats will nominate George Clinton before they nominate Hillary again.
Hey now, we're only halfway there. Between Biden, Hillary and likely protesters for Palestine it can still be a shit-show convention.
Though fiercely hope not.
I love how Trump's treatment of the Kurds gets a free pass from those protesters.
Or, you know, this? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna141905
For those who hate clickbait:
- Trump breaks silence on Israel's military campaign in Gaza: 'Finish the problem'
"The former president has largely avoided weighing in on Gaza as President Joe Biden has faced criticism from within the Democratic coalition over his support for Israel."
I would bet my next paycheck that most of them probably could not even explain what he did to the Kurds.
Most of them didn't know (or knew and did not care) about what Israel has been doing to Palestine for decades now, and were told that this is somehow Joe Biden's fault or some shit.
To be fair (and I was a great supporter of Dark Brandon), Joe Biden has been a huge supporter of Israel including derailing Hillary Clinton's attempt to stop settlement construction (when she was secretary of state).
You do realize that there are Palestinians who live in the US, yes? And they're upset about their friends and families being slaughtered right now? And you're turning your nose up at them and saying, "What about the Kurds, tho"
I love how Trump's promise to deport those protesters gets a free pass from those protesters. My brother is one of them, always ranting about "Genocide Joe" and hating the Democrats passionately despite being (ostensibly) liberal. It's like in his universe the Republicans don't even exist, and I just can't understand his viewpoint.
It's plain as day: They think their "conscious will be clean" and to them that's more important than the lives of millions of Palestinians.
Or maybe they're upset about their friends and families being killed?
Apparently, there's a giant far Left majority in the USA, and the only thing holding it back is the DNC.
[better add the /s, because someone is going to explain that it is true.]
The Repub leadership seems to be clamoring for taking actions on a spectrum between deporting protesters to Gaza or simply nuking Gaza.
Absolutely none of those protestors believe Trump would be better for Palestine. They believe genocide is criminal, and immoral — and can't in good conscience stand behind anyone who supports or enables it, regardless of the threat of something worse.
It may not be diplomatic or cunning, but it isn't rocket science. It's called morality and conviction. Don't be disingenuous.
I don't think you, or other idiots who were willing to give up their vote to allow Trump to win an destroy Palestine, have any fucking idea just how bad it will get if he wins.
Maybe your conscious will be clear, but you will have been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Palestinians due to your inaction.
That is the reality.
There is no "do nothing" here. Doing nothing is tantamount to aiding in the complete destruction of the Palestinian state and its people. You should be ashamed.
Well you're wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, I'm not American. Secondly, If I were American I would've voted Democrat my entire life, including for Biden and any corporate whore they put forward in a skin suit — probably longer, and more well-informed about the nuances of modern American politics, than you ever will be — but just because I'll suck it up and eat the shit sandwich doesn't mean I'm not gonna call the Democrats corporate whores or genocide enablers, because that is what they objectively are.
There's a real simple solution here. Stop funding and arming a genocidal ethnostate! What a radical concept, huh?
I’m not American.
Then I'll explain how the political system works.
A lot of people in the USA like the ethnostate and are happy to keep it going.
If the people who oppose it try to just cut funding they will be voted out and can do nothing.
A lot of people in the USA like the ethnostate and are happy to keep it going.
Mate, I already know America's a proto-fascist failed state. You're not making a solid case for the continuation of American democracy if the majority support genocide. The majority of Germans supported Hitler. But congrats, I guess?
Luckily for you, even with a media wholly owned and operated by an oligarchy who profits from eternal war, there is a solid division in supporting the ethnostate among the people. They just care more about domestic problems and defeating Trump than the oligarchs crimes in the middle east. It's understandable, considering most of what the people actually want is completely ignored by politicians on both sides of the aisle anyway.
Maybe your conscious will be clear, but you will have been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Palestinians due to your inaction.
Using that logic, the people who supported Biden are directly responsible for the 40,000+ Palestinians who've been killed during his presidency.
It's not being 'disingenuous' it's about living in the real world.
Back in the day, there were escaped slaves and women who couldn't vote who worked for politicians who couldn't assure them that, if elected, they would be able to actually change the laws.
There were plenty of African Americans who volunteered for WW2, knowing first hand about the Jim Crow laws. They decided that supporting the US was the best way to stop something worse.
If you fight against a Joe Biden, knowing that the Trump will be worse, you're not being moral.
This is whataboutism.
Any time you point out hypocrisy it's a 'what about.'
What Kurds
😢
(I know about it. I'm making a dark joke.)
Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.
Don't forget boogaloo fellas and local cops who have been taken in by some kind of propaganda and left-wing useful idiots who got all spun up on internet nonsense to think that the best way to help the Palestinians is to make sure Trump gets elected. I hope not, but the convention has the potential to be a fuckin atom bomb of colliding toxic forces.
left-wing useful idiots who got all spun up on internet nonsense to think that the best way to help the Palestinians is to make sure Trump gets elected.
I said it before about Biden and I'll say it again about Kamala: the one thing that could sink her chances will be to burn the bridge with pro-palestinian protestors.
It's not up to protestors if Kamala looses, it's up to Kamala.
This is domestic abuse logic
"I have decided to do X, which outcome will be catastrophic, if you do Y. So therefore, if you do Y, it's going to become your fault what will happen."
If you wanna push the Democrats to better outcomes on Gaza, sounds fuckin great. I definitely think that the activism so far has woken them up + it's clearly better than just the only voice they hear that has any teeth being the Israel lobby. But don't play games with the placement of responsibility.
Did I send you the Ralph Nader interview where he talks about how to apply this principle (specifically to the Democrats, I think specifically as pertains to Gaza) productively instead of terroristically?
If you wanna push the Democrats to better outcomes on Gaza, sounds fuckin great
Then who the fuck are you complaining about?
That's what the protestors are doing you nag, maybe you should stop comparing them to domestic abusers
Then who the fuck are you complaining about?
I am complaining about the people who are trying to make the Democrats lose the general election, with no particular plan to translate that into good action from the Democrats on Gaza, all the while congratulating themselves about what a great and noble thing they're doing. I can cite many of them on Lemmy. I assume that they exist in the real world also, and that a bunch of them will show up this week at the convention.
I am not complaining about the people who are trying to get better outcomes for Gaza, which does in fact include getting concessions from the Democrats including withholding support. Sounds great.
If it's done strategically with the aim of better outcomes for Gaza, then fuckin fantastic. If it's done with a strategy which sort of seems accidentally like maybe it may produce mostly bad electoral outcomes for the Democrats, and not much in the way of good outcomes for Palestinians, then I don't like it.
It's fair that you asked the question you asked. Now that I've explained a little, though, does that make sense? I can't see how it can be a confusing point of view or anything you want to say literally anything to aside from "yes I can agree with that."
Here's Nader talking about good ways to do it. Fuckin fantastic.
Somewhere in my history is (supposedly; it's impossible to know for sure) a Palestinian laying out in extremely passionate detail how disgusted he is with people who are using his dying countrymen to make a bad-faith political argument to try to get the guy elected who will endanger, not just his family still back home, but also his friends and family here, in the US, here and now. I looked for it a little bit but couldn't find it. If you want to hear, I'm happy to dig it up.
There is no form of activism that does not harm the reputation of those who are being protested. And since it seems we're choosing to be vague about who it is who is supposedly crossing this imaginary boundary between good and bad faith protest, I'm going to assume it's arbitrary, based on what you personally find uncomfortable.
There is no form of activism that does not harm the reputation of those who are being protested.
I would argue that a lot of the right kind of activism against the genocide in Gaza will in the long run actually help the reputation of the Democrats, because it'll involve educating the public about what is actually going on, at which point the Democrats supporting it will be unpopular, at which point they'll (hopefully 😐) stop doing it and lose this persistent stench of death about them that they currently have to a certain activist population that actually knows what's going on.
I mean I do get your point. My counter-point would be that not everything that harms the reputation of the people being protested is productive activism. It seems like you're persistently not grasping the point that I'm making here.
And since it seems we're choosing to be vague about who it is who is supposedly crossing this imaginary boundary between good and bad faith protest, I'm going to assume it's arbitrary, based on what you personally find uncomfortable.
return2ozma, Linkerbaan, and jimmydoreisalefty I think are crossing this imaginary boundary, because they're not helping the situation or trying to educate anyone about what's going on, just persistently trying to damage the reputation of the people in the best position to do something positive, using attacks both true and false. Ralph Nader and the "uncommitted" voters in Michigan are examples of people who are not crossing the boundary; they are trying to help the Palestinians by putting pressure on the Democrats in ways that are specifically goal oriented and productive. I'm not real concerned about their actions "hurting" the Democrats, or not severely enough concerned to oppose it, because as you said, protesting against someone does (I would add sometimes) harm their reputation, and them's the breaks. Does that help make it more concrete?
IDK why you're saying I'm being vague. I'm being very specific about what behavior I do and don't support. If you want me to pick out particular people or explain what of their behavior I do and don't support, if that's helpful, I'm fine doing that too.
I'm not getting into another effort posting disagreement with you.
You're entitled to your perspective on what you view as 'crossing the line', but you'd be well advised to acknowledge that there isn't any objective standard for it.
I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it has any basis outside your personal feelings on the matter.
The democrats should be confronted by as many people as possible in support of a Gaza ceasefire. That includes convincing others that the issue requires action from them, too.
My objective standard is, what is going to help the Palestinians? And what is masquerading as that but (in large part) not going to help them but just going to risk a catastrophe for them that is continuation and widening of what's already their hell on earth?
That's not my personal feelings. I'm sure we disagree on what the outcome of different courses of action are, and that's fine, but that's why I am saying this and what my goals are in saying this. If what you're doing is the first thing then all good and I have no complaints about it.
I'm not getting into another effort posting disagreement with you.
Fair enough. You started talking to me, man. I was just talking about the convention. I'm gonna be giving criticism to people I think are making a mistake, just like you would give criticism to the Democrats or to me, if you think there's a mistake happening. All good from my side.
in support of a Gaza ceasefire
I mean, they're already "supporting" a ceasefire. They've been doing that. That's the issue, is Netanyahu is laughing their faces and telling them fuck your ceasefire, and they're not then escalating with him. But I don't think the issue blocking progress is just that they need to want a ceasefire very badly, and then that will solve the issue.
Biden seems to be going all in for Harris, but according to the AP, the DNC still hasn't updated their paperwork to reflect Biden dropping out, so it could very well end up a shit show.
I think Biden will be alright to be honest, even should he stumble through his speech it's not too bad given he's not running anymore. Just look at the joint Harris/Biden adress the other day about the pharmaceutical prices. Not a great speech by Biden, but everyone is sort of in "alright grandpa, let's get you to bed" mode.
The protests can get ugly, though I truly pray they won't. But another unfortunate reaction/statement about Palestine from Harris would be bad, and worst case the protests get violent and actual fights break out - which would be bad bad.
I also don't see why we're opening the Hillary box again even though it's just a speech. But what do I know.
How about addressing the ongoing support for genocide, instead of blaming it on the people protesting it?
I hope it's a major shit-show. I want to see how Harris handles Gaza.
I got plenty of flak for suggesting Joe needed to go. The thing is, Kamala isn't a perfect candidate either but holy hell the (perceived) difference in voter attitudes is absolutely palpable. With Joe we'd have had people voting Trump just to avoid falling asleep (not supporting that at all, but the average voter operates on extremely simple heuristics).
The big danger with Biden wasn't people switching to Trump. It was people not voting at all. Democrats realized that would hurt down-ballot candidates, too.
I'll hold my "I was wrong" until the day the last votes are counted...
I don't think we have to wait for that. Biden was 100% losing, now Kamala at least has a chance.
Just another voice in the crowd to say "Same". Herein lies one of the major differences I see with "R" vs "D". One side sees learning and admitting mistakes as the ultimate sin, whereas the other generally embraces learning and changing a viewpoint as new information comes to light.
I remember writing that the Vietnam was was a terrible mistake and someone came to tell me that it was a noble cause and a moral victory.
Very true. This overall symptom has accelerated vastly since Regan.
