Especially when those special interests with money take “the economy is very bad, and the Democrats are improving it only in modest ways” and use it to argue, “The Democrats are hurting everyone on purpose, so let’s give power to the Republicans instead.”
I really have no idea. Maybe joining up with the sensible ones and hoping they multiply, and supporting Bernie Sanders in whatever he’s wanting to do to adapt to the Trump era.
Also, joining with a union and your workplace and wielding political power outside of the professional politician class sounds like a good idea.
The Democrats are not a monolith.
I think a good way would be pushing to change the system so that it won’t naturally fall into being a money-fueled duopoly, supporting progressive Democrats and semi-Democrats like Sanders, and limiting the damage that the Republicans can do in the meantime. If you want to call that “bothering with them,” then I would want to bother with them.
What I am criticizing is this idea that we have to keep doing our best to have Republicans win, until the Democrats “learn their lesson” as you put it.
I completely agree. Usually the clue is when:
Number 3 is sometimes hard to distinguish from just normal internet jerkwaddery, but the conjunction of all the factors, along with the ever-present conclusion “we’d better not vote for Democrats,” is pretty noticeable once you start looking for it.
There’s a good example here: https://lemmy.world/comment/13459406
Notice how he fills in both sides of the argument to keep it going, to be able to keep repeating his points. For example I say “I also think it’s partly the voters’ fault” and he responds with “I don’t really understand what you’re getting at here. It seems like say you aren’t blaming voters.” I say “I can blame Biden for committing a crime against humanity by arming Israel, instead of doing the human thing,” and he accuses me of sowing division and blaming the voters, and keeps yelling at me that the Democratic Party is at fault.
Again, it’s hard to distinguish from just how people talk about politics on the internet, but the uniformity of the themes and the absence of any attempt at even reading other people’s messages and being responsive to them starts to look a little bit glaring after you run into this stuff a few times.
It’s an incredibly cynical take. I think it’s accurate, though. Observe how the Democrats generally treat Bernie Sanders, or for that matter how they treated Dan Osborn. I don’t think the idea that Washington mostly runs on money takes any kind of X-Files leap to take seriously.
I’m not trying to say we shouldn’t support Democrats, especially because they are the only viable party that has some nuggets of actual care for the people embedded within them in a few random places. But I don’t see any other explanation than the one I gave, in answer to OP’s completely valid question about why they keep giving such lukewarm endorsement to such incredibly sensible and popular ideas.
I wasn’t aiming my snark at OP, although it might have sounded like I was. I was just expressing some annoyance with some people I’ve been talking with on Lemmy over the last couple of days. The “if we just keep hurting the Democrats, it’ll all work out for the best” crowd has a suspiciously large and vocal representation on Lemmy.
I think for a productive solution, we should wait for Bernie Sanders’s promised announcement about next steps for the Trump era. God knows, I have no idea. It seems pretty bleak.
It’s mostly a contest of rich people who want as much as they can get, but do want the US economy to continue being okay, versus on the other side rich people who don’t mind burning it all down as they as they pay less taxes for the next few years. The Democrats are largely propped up by the former group.
The occasional leader like Biden or Obama who wants to be to the left of Reagan doesn’t change the fact that the “don’t burn it though” donor class is in charge of the Democrats. This is at the root of a lot of the things that make people say “but if Biden is good, why hasn’t he solved climate change or Israel or wealth inequality yet? Checkmate libs, he’s clearly the exact same as Trump.”
Mostly it all works out, over the long term, as a safe equilibrium for the majority of the wealthy people. The Republicans get to do their arson about half the time, which makes the super-wealthy even more wealth for a short time, and before it can get out of control, the Democrats come into power to put a check on it before it can start hurting the people who were born privileged. This election, that equilibrium has been upset, and Trump is planning to become unremovable and then badly hurt everyone, rich and poor alike, which probably means the rich people will manage to realize they fucked up and turn their media empires solidly against Trump and get rid of him. If they can. There may be a significant amount of damage that gets done by the time their now-antiquated weapons can accomplish that, if it’s even possible at all with Russia and a bunch of techbro rich idiots solidly in the tank for him. They may all have to simply shrug and abandon the US for some new parasitic host, leaving the corpse behind.
It’s a combination of:
There are some exceptions, of course, but they’re rare. DC is really an incredibly strange and sociopathic place on a human cultural level.
This is why I don’t understand the attitude that the way to progress is to keep punishing the Democrats until they figure it out on their own. The ones who haven’t figured it out, which is most of them, aren’t going to figure it out, any more than Google is going to realize that ruining search was a bad idea and they need to start making products people like again. It’s just not in their DNA to think that way.
If anyone’s curious, it takes GM 2.6 minutes to make $500k of gross income.
I wouldn’t check it, though. If I were going to go that route, I would just transfer my whole account over. I think just waiting until the fix gets implemented is the way to go.
That’s a shame… if it’s set for an upcoming milestone then probably it’s not an urgent problem, but that will undo a lot of the usefulness I can do in the meantime, yes.
They didn’t say that, no. This guy tried to hedge it a little bit, by saying that Trump was much worse but stopping short of saying that people should vote for Harris as a result.
Some of his other cofounders, as of election day, were still saying people should leave the line blank or vote for Jill Stein. She got almost as many votes as Harris did, in Dearborn, and Trump picked up something like 20% more votes than he had in 2020.
I’m not interested in echoing our points at each other indefinitely.
I’m sure she would have gained some number of “uncommitted” voters by verbally coming out against Israel’s actions. I’m saying there are other voters she would have lost.
I keep acknowledging that Biden deserves blame for his horrible Israel policy. You keep insisting that that represents “division” and “blaming,” because I’m not willing to also assign the exact same blame to Kamala Harris, exclusively, and hold the voters completely blameless on their side.
This will be my last message on the topic, since you seem to want to keep repeating your same arguments. I just wanted to clear up those two points.
Blame can be shared.
I can blame Biden for committing a crime against humanity by arming Israel, instead of doing the human thing and letting the electoral chips fall where they may. I’m not convinced it would have been the winning strategy in the election that you think it would have been, since there are a lot of voters in the US who are perfectly comfortable with killing Palestinians because they don’t really understand what the nature of the conflict is, and would see any arms embargo as betrayal of Israel in their time of need after suffering a horrific attack.
I can also apportion some blame to the voters who doomed Palestine, I think irrevocably, by letting Trump get elected. They can all be responsible for what’s about to unfold.
I’m definitely blaming the people who organized the “uncommitted” movement. That’s different from the voters. I keep saying the first one, and you keep bringing it back to the second one. This particular example of one person who’s personally responsible for pursuing and advocating a counterproductive strategy which will hurt the Palestinians, yes, I can definitely blame.
Alawieh was at least saying Trump would be worse, by the end of the campaign, but there were other co-founders who weren’t even saying that, who were recommending leaving the line blank or voting for Jill Stein. Well, they got their wish! Kamala didn’t win. Now, probably millions of people are going to die because of it. It’s not a game.
The uncommitted movement was at least 1.5 million people in the general election, enough to win the swing states but not enough to explain the 10-20 million Americans that were not convinced by Harris’ Campaign to go out of their way to vote. That shows that there were many other issues with her campaign. She did not address the material needs of the working class, she ran to the right on immigration and American Jingoism, and ran another neoliberal platform of ‘nothing will fundamentally change’ when people are angry at our failing institutions and desperate for change.
If I have cancer, and the doctor tells me about a treatment but isn’t persuasive enough about it, and I ignore them, and now I’m going to die, is that the doctor’s fault?
You’re holding Kamala responsible for three decades of Democrats ignoring the working class, and for Biden’s policies, and for a huge amount of misinformation attacking her about the economy or whatever to people who then bought it. Okay, sure. If she had been more persuasive or had better messaging, it might have helped. That doesn’t change the fact that if people had voted differently, that definitely would have helped.
To me, that’s the killer flaw of these things.
It would be great if they were designed from the ground up to be good machines for running models, say with a GPU that had a copious amount of memory that didn’t cost $1,500 for an add-on. Unfortunately, to do that they’d have to create something from nothing, so instead they’ve added something that is worse than most GPUs, added some dumb software which is designed to pair with the ultimate result of disappointing people, and called it a day.
Blaming voters is just sowing division when we need unity and solidarity to fight against Fascism.
Nothing anywhere in these comments was blaming voters. I was blaming the people who organized a whole campaign specifically to sow division and interfere with support for the only possible alternative, in this election, to full-on fascism.
I also think it’s partly the voters’ fault, in addition to being partly Biden’s fault. But I was pointing out voting numbers to argue for how effectively this particular campaign had sowed division, not to say it’s exclusively their fault.
Also, aren’t you a Stalin person anyway? Shouldn’t you be happy about the collapse of the US’s effectiveness to influence events in the world? Or is the nick meant to be ironic or edgelordy?
My point is that if the child isn’t vaccinated, and then dies of whooping cough, the uncle who put together a whole organized program to educate the family about the dangers of vaccines bears a lot responsibility for the tragedy.
Yes, even more so than the pharmaceutical companies who lost the people’s trust through their actions.
It would still be a heartbreaking loss if it was just Palestine that’s going to be lost. But the scale of the global tragedy is going to be much greater than just this man’s country. He’s helped to doom, not just his own family, but millions of other people’s families who weren’t even involved.
It is hypocritical for him to say that costing Biden votes is “campaigning for Gaza,” then translate that over into costing Kamala Harris votes even though she’s not the one who’s been making these genocide-friendly decisions, then suddenly be panicked that Trump is clearly going to make things quite a bit worse and it may be the total end of his country and his ethnicity on the planet. That was the totally predictable result of his method of “campaigning for Gaza,” and many, many people told him that, and got accused of being pro-genocide shills for the Democrats.
If his movement had campaigned for Gaza in pretty much any other way, or if he had come out and admitted now that they fucked up and asked for help in pressuring the Trump administration or the global community, this wouldn’t be posted here.
Radioactive materials really are the closest thing we have to ancient demons.
They can give you unlimited power, but it’s always an uneasy bargain. They must be contained in special places where no human can go, and the people tasked with keeping them sealed must be vigilant, with never a moment’s careless inattention, or they might get loose.
If anything ever goes wrong, they wreak havoc. And afterwards, that place is cursed beyond repair. No one can look upon it. No one can go there. If they do, they will die in horrible ways, with no hope of salvation. Machines that try to trespass will break. Film cannot develop, or is ruined. They must simply be left in the tomb, alone and undisturbed, forever.
That one grainy photo of the elephant’s foot is absolutely chilling to me, like a monster from another world lurking silently underground.
You can also bargain with them to destroy the cities of your enemies. There is no limit to the power. Whole continents laid waste, simply by the right type of priesthood making the right incantations. But for almost a century, no one has dared to do it, because of what might come.