Donald Trump has no idea what has hit him, and it’s a joy to watch - AOS for Lemmy.World - A generic Lemmy server for everyone to use.

709245

Donald Trump has no idea what has hit him, and it’s a joy to watch

1y 9mon ago by lemmy.world/u/MicroWave in politics from newrepublic.com

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.

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.

What an absolute gamble that would be. Trust me, reality is stranger than fiction.

It'd be interesting to find this out, but given how disorganized the Democrats tend to be, I seriously doubt that's the case.

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.

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.

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 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.

I didn't debate whether or not genocide was happening.

It is genocide. There is no debate.

The genocide will get worse if Trump is elected. I am so glad that your conscious will be clear because you abstained from voting Blue. I am, again, also not voting Blue. Doesn't make your decision any less brain dead, and it doesn't make my point any less poignant. If you believe in harm reduction, then you should learn how to practice it.

Don't think you understand what cognitive dissonance is. I understand the reality of the situation. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't.

I'm tired of arguing with a stupid person. It's genocide. You're not going to get a better candidate. I am dealing with reality. You are coping by opting out. Good luck. Hope Trump loses.

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

The Repub leadership seems to be clamoring for taking actions on a spectrum between deporting protesters to Gaza or simply nuking Gaza.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

At the risk of repeating myself: there's no objective measure for this. Creating pressure for action always involves risking some damage, that's what activism is. Your standard doesn't mean anything for determining what level of pressure is acceptable because all of it risks damaging electiral odds to some degree. If anything, your standard would seem to suggest that the only form of protest is that which doesn't risk anything, at which point it becomes purely aesthetic.

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.

You mean like sharing reporting on the matter? How does this exclude people like r2o and linkerbann?

If anything, your standard would seem to suggest that the only form of protest is that which doesn't risk anything, at which point it becomes purely aesthetic.

So back when I was saying "I'm not real concerned about their actions 'hurting' the Democrats...". What do you think I meant with that whole explanation / that whole paragraph?

I think you're personally confused, because that statement is in direct contradiction to this other statement of yours:

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.

You say that you're fine with hurting the reputation of democrats, but your material concern over some forms of protest/activism is that it's going to "damage the reputation of people in the best position to do something positive".

The war in Gaza must end. Israeli occupation must end. Israel must face consequences for their war crimes. Until those conditions are met, I think all forms of protest are fair game. Comparing the defense of those protests as "abuser logic" is a crazy weird way of assigning blame to people holding the US and Israel to account for the war crimes they are currently and continually complicit in, especially when you notionally agree with the subject of those protests.

edit: just to illustrate the absurdity of that comparison -

The US and the pro-zionist democrats are materially supporting the actual abuse and genocide of Palestinians, and you're suggesting the people pushing for an end to the abuse are the ones abusing the abuser.

your material concern over some forms of protest/activism is that it's going to "damage the reputation of people in the best position to do something positive".

Incorrect. My prime material concern is that these forms of protest/activism are much more likely to hurt Palestinians than to help them. I can’t believe that I need to explain this this many times.

If you persist in telling me that my own argument is something different than what it is, I am going to report you for strawmanning. Either start dealing with my argument as it actually is, or stop talking to me.

much more likely to hurt Palestinians than to help them.

Hurt them through what mechanism, exactly?

Edit: this is why i constantly have to spell out the implications of your arguments to you, because you bury them in verbose explanations that you hide behind and cry foul when I bring them out into objective language. You're saying that by hurting democrats' electoral chances, it risks bringing more harm to Palestinians because republicans would be worse. But hurting democratic chances is the thing we're actually discussing: any protest against continual Israeli defense aid will hurt democratic chances if and until they commit to stopping the aid. Those protests can only hurt democrats if they continue to avoid addressing the subject of that protest in a satisfactory way.

Kamala has done nothing more than signal support for a ceasefire, but has largely avoided any language that would indicate what she would do if she ran up against the (predictable) resistance of Israel to commit to one. I (and the other protestors) are not satisfied by that ambiguity, so we continue to pressure her campaign to make a firm commitment. A part of that pressure is going to drag down enthusiasm by raising the issue repeatedly, but that is am unavoidable part of protest. That you are satisfied by her soft language around the issue and we are not doesn't suddenly make that form of protest invalid, and claiming something as an objective standard doesn't make that subjectivity disappear.

By getting Trump elected

I already explained it all… I mean it’s fine if you disagree with my calculus and think that what ozma is doing is the best way for good outcomes for Palestinians. I can disagree with that, and it is fine; it’s just talking. But it seems like because what I’m saying isn’t what you want to hear, you keep pretending that I am saying something different (saying that any criticism of Democrats is not allowed or etc), or like it’s too vague to make any sense, or etc etc.

People can have different points of view and still be both aiming for good things. It is possible. They can even talk to each other and understand the points of view without ever really coming to 100% agreement on details. It is actually more common than not; usually the only places where everyone sees it exactly the same way and anyone who disagrees is some wild enemy who’s trying to defeat all the progress, is in weird MAGA-like political monocultures.

By getting Trump elected

... by hurting their reputation through protest.

See my edit above. I haven't misstated your argument at all, I am presenting you with its underlying inconsistency. Referring to your opinion as 'calculus' doesn't suddenly make it objective in any meaningful way. I don't hold my opinion as objective standard, but I also don't accuse those who disagree with me of abuse.

usually the only places where everyone sees it exactly the same way and anyone who disagrees is some wild enemy who’s trying to defeat all the progress, is in weird MAGA-like political monocultures.

I see the subtle accusation in this statement, and I would probably point out that the 'weird MAGA-like political monoculture' is likely one where protestors are blamed as having 'abuser logic'.

By getting Trump elected

... by hurting their reputation through protest.

Yes! You have grasped it.

I don’t give a shit inherently about the Democrats’ reputation. I’m fine with actions that may hurt them in the election, as long as they’re aligned with better prospects for the Palestinians. Actions that have a lot of risks on the “getting Trump elected” side and not a lot of benefits on the “getting better behavior from the Democrats” side, I’m not in favor of.

How can that possibly be confusing? I feel like I’ve restated it enough now. If you’re really determined not to pick it up, I will not keep repeating and trying to force you to, though.

I see the subtle accusation in this statement

It’s not all that subtle. It sounds to me like you’re part of a political monoculture as I described. Most people even in political discussions are not this obstinate about pretending that something they don’t personally agree with must therefore be some crazy thing that doesn’t make any sense, and spending most of your time talking with people who see it exactly like you do is one explanation for maybe how you got to be that way.

I’m fine with actions that may hurt them in the election, as long as they’re aligned with better prospects for the Palestinians.

Lmao, fuckin.... no, you're not! What could you possibly mean by this? You're fine with hurting democratic chances as long as, what, the alternative candidate is better than or equal-to the democrats when it comes to saving Palestinian lives? Doesn't this mean that you aren't fine with it in our current reality where our only options are Kamala and Trump? Or are you suggesting you'd be ok with it if there was a third-party candidate with a better policy?

Any form of protest risks damaging democratic electoral odds, it is only a matter of degree. I've been saying this the entire time. I'm not at all confused about what it is you're arguing, you just don't like saying it outright because it sounds (and is) arbitrary, petty, and completely subjective. When a protest gets big enough to present a genuine threat to the Democratic electoral machine, suddenly it's the protestors fault for, what, successfully raising the issue and pressuring the democrats? Lol fuuuuuucccckkkk offfffff. If a substantial portion of the electorate is turned off by their stance on an issue being protested, it's not fault of the protestors, it is the thing being protested that's doing the damage. The Palestinian genocide and the US's complicity in it is happening in real-life objective terms. Protestors are simply pointing out the US's continued roll in it and asking the democrats to put an end to it (quite peacefully i might add). Fuck, even simply making a definitive statement or commitment to it would be great, but they continue walking on egg-shells because they still value Israel as an ally more than they care about Israel committing war crimes.

Your "calculus" is simply 'democrats have moved as much as they are willing, and any more protest will hurt their electoral odds, so let's top now'. There is a HUGE, MASSIVE GULF of subjectivity in that thinking. Instead of acknowledging that as subjective, you keep doubling down on what is essentially your personal gut feeling (which, i might point out, has already been proven quite wrong in one notable example this electoral season).

You are entitled to your opinion. I realize you are less optimistic than I am when it comes to realistic political responses, and more pessimistic about the risk of the protests impacting democratic odds. That's perfectly fine. But don't confuse your opinion with objectivity, and certainly don't compare those who disagree with you as 'abusers' (i keep giving you opportunity to amend your language here, but you don't seem like you want to)

You're fine with hurting democratic chances as long as, what, the alternative candidate is better than or equal-to the democrats when it comes to saving Palestinian lives? Doesn't this mean that you aren't fine with it in our current reality where our only options are Kamala and Trump? Or are you suggesting you'd be ok with it if there was a third-party candidate with a better policy?

I am fine with hurting Democratic chances as a side effect as part of a campaign which will produce better behavior from the Democrats. Sorry, I should have made that clear. I think there’s been a slight (pitifully slight) shift in the Democratic line on Gaza this year, and I think a lot of that is because of how much pro-Palestinian activism was creating real credible threats to them electorally. To me that is fine, that’s a good thing.

It would be great if our system supported a third option, but it doesn’t 😢. Not in this election. I think advocating for reform of the system in the future, and pushing for more humanity from the Democrats, is the best we can do for now.

Anything which actually goes as far as leading to Trump getting elected for real will be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Palestinians (even relative to their existing level of catastrophe which is already hell on earth). I think they might literally all be dead or pushed into Egypt by the end of a Trump term. (They might be at the end of a Harris term, too, but it’s at least less likely).

When a protest gets big enough to present a genuine threat to the Democratic electoral machine, suddenly it's the protestors fault for, what, successfully raising the issue and pressuring the democrats?

No. I don’t know how many times I need to keep explaining that this is not what I am saying, or why you keep not listening to me when I do. Do it one more time and I will report you for strawmanning and see if the mods feel that that represents approaching the conversation in bad faith, and either way just end my side of the conversation.

If a substantial portion of the electorate is turned off by their stance on an issue being protested, it's not fault of the protestors, it is the thing being protested that's doing the damage.

It is highly relevant whether the thing being protested is actually happening.

So e.g. when the uncommitted voters punish the Democrats for their support of Israel, I’m in favor of that. When ozma makes something up about the Democrats that isn’t accurate, which only hurts their chances but doesn’t do anything productive for anyone except Trump, I’m against that.

Why do I keep having to explain this? This is such a weird conversation.

The Palestinian genocide and the US's complicity in it is happening in real-life objective terms. Protestors are simply pointing out the US's continued roll in it and asking the democrats to put an end to it (quite peacefully i might add). Fuck, even simply making a definitive statement or commitment to it would be great, but they continue walking on egg-shells because they still value Israel as an ally more than they care about Israel committing war crimes.

100% agree

Your "calculus" is simply 'democrats have moved as much as they are willing, and any more protest will hurt their electoral odds, so let's top now'.

I feel like just typing again the same thing I have been typing will not be productive here

Let me try just pure pattern recognition

Is that what I am saying?

Pick one

don't compare those who disagree with you as 'abusers' (i keep giving you opportunity to amend your language here, but you don't seem like you want to)

No, I do not. I can take another stab at explaining it, but first let me ask something: Would you agree that Trump would be an even worse catastrophe for Palestinians (as well as many many other vulnerable people) than a second term of the existing Democratic status quo?

I am fine with hurting Democratic chances as a side effect as part of a campaign which will produce better behavior from the Democrats.

So e.g. when the uncommitted voters punish the Democrats for their support of Israel, I’m in favor of that. When ozma makes something up about the Democrats that isn’t accurate, which only hurts their chances but doesn’t do anything productive for anyone except Trump, I’m against that.

This is it, I think. If it were just about misinformation, we'd be having a different conversation. I don't think anyone here would defend sharing outright false information. But that isn't the only complaint you've had about Ozma; you've complained that they only post bad things about democrats, not just that some of them are incorrect (not even incorrect in entirety, sometimes simply incorrect it its framing, or maybe even factually accurate but simply uncharitable in its framing). I disagree with suggesting that behavior is 'over the line', outside of any alleged misinformation. Similarly, if there are pro-Palestinian protestors at the DNC today, I wouldn't classify those people as ""useful idiots"" (I cannot put enough scare-quotes around this). The democrats have not moved hardly at all on their Israel policy, why wouldn't they be legitimate protestors? I am indignant that I have to keep defending loosely-targeted attacks against protestors coming from you, when you are still being vague about what makes a protest or online protest behavior something that you consider to be "actually leading to Trump getting elected". How the fuck do you measure that? What proof to you have that Ozma or Linkerbann or anyone else is "actually leading to Trump getting elected", or that their building popular discontent around democrats on this issue isn't "helping lead to better behavior from democrats"? Fuck you for accusing me of misrepresenting your argument, when your argument seems completely dependent on some imagined future that only you could possibly see. Honestly, 'actually leading to x' is effectively meaningless. Who the fuck knows if something "actually leads" to something? And it also still incorrectly places the responsibility of the protestor, who is protesting against a policy they would like to see changed, instead of the person in power, who is consistently refusing to take meaningful action toward better policy.

Is that what I am saying?

Yes >2. No

I reject your question.

FFS, how about you apply your logic on your own example, then? If there are massive palestinian protests in the DNC this week that constantly interrupt the proceedings, is that an example of a good or bad protest? Is there additional information that you need to make that determination?

Or maybe online: if there's a user who exclusively posts (factually accurate) information about the Democrat's culpability in the ongoing Palestinian genocide, is that a good or bad protest behavior? What makes it so? How do you know if that behavior "actually leads to x or y outcome" without traveling to the future to see what impact it had?

No, I do not. I can take another stab at explaining it, but first let me ask something: Would you agree that Trump would be an even worse catastrophe for Palestinians (as well as many many other vulnerable people) than a second term of the existing Democratic status quo?

I'll answer your question with another question: would you agree that supporting any amount of genocide is beyond indefensible? Hint: the answer should be fairly obvious and the question should feel incredibly condescending.

If I wanted to be petty I'd apply your own logic on your own behavior in defending democrats on their inaction. Does mozz's behavior lead to better or worse policy from democrats? Does making excuses for their lack or response improve their policy on Gaza? No? Well fuck, looks like he's just another useful idiot, then. 🤷‍♂️ Absent any concrete qualifiers i guess anyone or everyone could be a bad-actor

Honestly, 'actually leading to x' is effectively meaningless. Who the fuck knows if something "actually leads" to something?

This is totally weird to me. Why would you possibly advocate for any particular course of action, except in terms of what it’s likely to accomplish?

What else would lead you to what you’re deciding to do? Vibes? Allegiance to the group? I’m just lost. I mean of course it’s impossible to know for sure what the outcome will be, but you can at least make an educated guess.

Why else would you do a protest, unless you were aiming to impact the future? That is a serious question.

I don't think anyone here would defend sharing outright false information. But that isn't the only complaint you've had about Ozma; you've complained that they only post bad things about democrats, not just that some of them are incorrect

Hm. So, I just looked over a bunch of Ozma’s recent history and it honestly looks fine. Maybe it’s a little dishonest to characterize one of the main architects of the IRA and the Paris Agreement as “former alum of Blackrock” as if that’s the most relevant thing about him. But I mean basically it’s fine and that’s the only story I have much of any complaint about.

I think most of my complaint about ozma is historical at this point. Back in the day he would do stuff like say Biden betrayed his voters on marijuana policy because he said he would do X Y and Z and then he didn’t. When I pointed out he had done X and Y and tried to do Z but failed, ozma would ignore it and post more memes about how Biden betrayed his voters on marijuana. That to me seems like it implies you don’t give a shit about X Y or Z, or pushing Biden to better marijuana policy, but you do want to try to get Trump elected. That’s weird and counterproductive. To me.

If there are massive palestinian protests in the DNC this week that constantly interrupt the proceedings, is that an example of a good or bad protest?

No idea. I’m not even plugged in enough to that culture to know. Probably it’ll be a good thing; anything that’s directly putting pressure on the Democrats and bringing public awareness to the issue will probably be a good thing, because those are two excellent things.

Like I said, I don’t know if there are any people who are doing protests at the DNC who think the answer is to unconditionally blow up support for the Democrats, imply that they caused inflation and they love what Netanyahu’s doing and are cheering him on, and so vote instead for Cornel West. I know they exist on Lemmy, and if they’re in Chicago too, then I would classify those people as useful idiots.

Does that help answer the question?

I'll answer your question with another question:

Dude, I am not asking that as any kind of “gotcha” question or anything. I want to know where you are coming from.

would you agree that supporting any amount of genocide is beyond indefensible? Hint: the answer should be fairly obvious and the question should feel incredibly condescending.

If it’s a choice between blowing up the earth and destroying India or something, and those are the only two possible options, then I would choose destroying India. That’s sort of the type of choice you have to make in modern American politics. If there was a way to lean on the lever to make the blow-up-India explosion smaller, I would definitely support doing that.

If someone was saying, blowing up India is SO BAD that it is indefensible, and so I want to aim a whole bunch of criticism at the blowing up India option (and in a way that seems only in the vaguest of senses to connect with leaning on the lever to make the explosion smaller and in practice seems more likely just to make more likely the blowing-up-earth option), that would alarm the fuck out of me and I would disagree with that person.

I mean doesn’t that make sense? If the alternative is no genocide, then supporting genocide is indefensible. If the alternative is a bigger genocide, then supporting genocide can be an “acceptable” (if you want to call it that) lesser evil. Putting pressure on to reduce the magnitude of the lesser genocide, while also advocating for it to be the lesser and not the greater genocide, sounds perfectly defensible. It sounds right to me.

Does mozz's behavior lead to better or worse policy from democrats? Does making excuses for their lack or response improve their policy on Gaza? No? Well fuck, looks like he's just another useful idiot, then.

I doubt anyone from the DNC is on Lemmy. I think the impact of anything I am saying, if any, will be on the voters.

That’s what makes it not make sense to me why shitting on Democrats on Lemmy is supposed to help any Palestinians. It seems more likely to get Trump elected, which will hurt them.

Why else would you do a protest, unless you were aiming to impact the future? That is a serious question.

Lmao no it's not, you've been articulating the other reason repeatedly, haven't you? According to you, a great many people protest simply to get Trump elected, right?

Like I said, I don’t know if there are any people who are doing protests at the DNC who think the answer is to unconditionally blow up support for the Democrats, imply that they caused inflation and they love what Netanyahu’s doing and are cheering him on, and so vote instead for Cornel West

There's good news here: there actually is a condition to running interference to democratic support, and it's very well communicated.

The funny thing is that people want to treat the opposition as a monolith, but it's a coalition of various interests just like any other group. If there's a group within the group that is hard-lining a Palestinian liberation movement, the good news is that group likely isn't big enough that you'd need their support. But there's likely some compromise policy that gets the support you need from that larger group without conceding the least practical conditions.

But when you treat them as a monolith, it's easy to complain that nothing you do can appease that group of crazies so they must not be acting in good-faith!

doubt anyone from the DNC is on Lemmy. I think the impact of anything I am saying, if any, will be on the voters.

Lol this would be more funny if it weren't so depressing. You don't even see the self-contradiction. It reminds me a little of that conservative minority trope: "our opposition is both laughably weak and existentially dangerous"

According to you, a great many people protest simply to get Trump elected, right?

But when you treat them as a monolith, it's easy to complain that nothing you do can appease that group of crazies so they must not be acting in good-faith!

Let me try a different tactic: I'll just ask it as a question. Am I supportive of people protesting at the DNC, trying to get the Democrats to improve their policy on Israel by vocally demanding change, and withholding support unless they do?

I've given you the answer as to what my feeling on this is, several times.

Based on your varied responses: sometimes.

It seems to depend a great deal on what you think the likely outcome of that protest is, and if your imagined calculus puts the protest on the wrong side of some imaginary line, suddenly those protestors are 'useful idiots' at best or 'bad-actors' at worst.

It seems to depend a great deal on what you think the likely outcome of that protest is, and if your imagined calculus puts the protest on the wrong side of some imaginary line, suddenly those protestors are 'useful idiots' at best or 'bad-actors' at worst.

Yes. You have grasped it.

If someone's protesting with the most likely result being better outcomes for the Palestinian people (because of useful pressure on the Democratic party, or even better some longer-term reform to our broken system that leaves these as the only two options), then I'm in favor of it.

If someone's protesting in such a way that the most likely result is Trump winning the election and making things 10 times worse for the Palestinians, then I'm against it.

I have no idea why that would be weird or surprising, but yes. There's a little bit of overlap between those two goals, and it's impossible to know the future or the impact of any particular action definitively, but a lot of real-world situations are messy. Them's the breaks.

I describe as "useful idiots" people who are falling for deliberate propaganda which is being deployed to turn them unconditionally against the Democrats, alongside a lot of objectively false criticism, producing only a vague level of improvement to the Democrats' behavior but a strong result of making it more likely that Trump will win, yes. If you're not doing that them I'm fine with you. And I have no idea, as I said, how many (if any) of the DNC protestors will fall into that category in practice. I just know how I categorize people based on the outcomes they're promoting, and I know I see people in that "useful idiot" category on Lemmy. I don't think you're one of them, for the record; that's why I laid out some of the specific accounts I'd describe as more specifically promoting propaganda as opposed to good activism and tried to be specific about it.

Hope this all is helpful; glad we could clear it up.

I describe people who are falling for deliberate propaganda which is being deployed to turn them unconditionally against the Democrats, producing only a vague level of improvement to the Democrats’ behavior but a stronger result of making it more likely that Trump will win, as “useful idiots,” yes.

Jesus christ. Do you consider US culpability in the Palestinian Genocide a part of this 'deliberate propaganda'? At what point does someone protesting against democratic involvement and complacency in Israeli war crimes become someone who is protesting against democrats generally? Is there any grey area that you're willing to acknowledge between these two categorical binaries you've proposed? Can there be a legitimate protest against the democrats, that hurts their odds at winning, but doesn't directly result in a change of policy? If the democrats and the protestors both refuse to bend to the other, is it categorically the protestors' fault if and when trump wins? Even if it isn't apparent that they've lost explicitly because of those protestors? Is it also the fault of the protestors if the democrats adopt a pro-palestinian policy in response to the protestors, AND THEN lose? What i'm gathering from you is that it is ALWAYS the protestors fault for the loss, no matter what the democrats do in response.

Fuck off with your electoral reductionism. The democrats are not helpless here, and they could absolutely be fighting to save palestinian lives and it is 100% their own fault if voters decide they can't support them over it. They are welcome to weigh the electoral calculus to predict how voters might react to their policies but it is completely their own fault if they've chosen the wrong ones.

“I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

Do you consider US culpability in the Palestinian Genocide a part of this 'deliberate propaganda'?

At what point does someone protesting against democratic involvement and complacency in Israeli war crimes become someone who is protesting against democrats generally?

When they stop either conditioning their lack of support on Democratic behavior, or advocating for voting reform or some other strategy which can lead to effective replacement of the Democrats with something better. Either one of those sounds fine and sensible to me, but when they reach the point of saying, functionally, "well if the Democrats aren't doing what I want then I will let the Republicans win even if they are 10 times worse at the things I hold as priorities in the world," that to me stops making sense.

I think if you're a Palestinian who is still alive right now, and a protestor "on your behalf" enables Trump to come to power, and then Trump supports someone who kills you, the idea that the protestor was mad that the Democrats weren't doing enough for you before Trump and Netanyahu cooperated to kill you would be cold comfort. I think this whole "harm reduction isn't worth doing" idea is a childish and entitled reaction from someone who is safely far away from that harm that is very real to very real people in the real world, who have the luxury of poo pooing the entire idea of predicting outcomes in the real world and strategizing how to get them.

Is there any grey area that you're willing to acknowledge between these two categorical binaries you've proposed?

Yes, quite a substantial one.

Can there be a legitimate protest against the democrats, that hurts their odds at winning, but doesn't directly result in a change of policy?

Yes. If it's only hurting their odds of winning, and not even trying to change their policy, then it's suspect to me, but as you said there's quite a substantial grey area and it's not easy to tell ahead of time what protest might result in what outcome. You have to just kind of do what you can and hope that you've worked it out what is going to help the Palestinians and what is going to hurt them, and do the first and not the second as best as you can figure it out.

If the democrats and the protestors both refuse to bend to the other, is it categorically the protestors' fault if and when trump wins?

Not categorically, no. The Democrats have a lot of responsibility, the Republicans and Netanyahu obviously have quite a bit more. The protestors might have some responsibility, but depending on how they were protesting, potentially not much at all.

Honestly, I'm less concerned with assigning "blame" after the fact than I am with strategizing what I could do, or what someone else could do, to get better outcomes. Like I say, I consider this whole thing of it being real important "whose fault it is" when something horrifying happens to be an entitled mentality from someone who's not directly in danger. Mostly when people's families' lives are threatened they're more focused on "how can I keep them safe" than they are on "whose fault will it be if someone comes to power who kills them, and how can I make sure it won't be this person's fault but instead this other person's fault."

Even if it isn't apparent that they've lost explicitly because of those protestors? Is it also the fault of the protestors if the democrats adopt a pro-palestinian policy in response to the protestors, AND THEN lose?

So this brings up a really good point. To me, it makes a lot more sense to help the Palestinians by educating the American people about what's going on in Palestine, so the Democrats won't have to decide (to any degree) between enabling war crimes and losing the election.

A lot of protests right now are serving a double purpose -- one, they're bringing awareness to the issue with the American people (and it's working), and two, they're threatening the Democrats electorally and forcing them to change their calculus of what types of Israel policy they should do if they don't want to lose the election from the other direction (and that's working, too). Both of those are good things. I keep saying that, and you keep insisting for some reason that I must have a problem with them. I guess because it makes the point that you're trying to say easier if I am just against all protestors. As I keep saying, I am not.

What i'm gathering from you is that it is ALWAYS the protestors fault for the loss, no matter what the democrats do in response.

I don't care whose "fault" it is. I am talking about what actions are good (in terms of creating better outcomes in the future), and what actions are bad (in terms of getting people killed). Like I said, this emphasis on "fault" having any significant importance is the mindset of someone who isn't watching their family getting killed.

A lot of protests right now are serving a double purpose – one, they’re bringing awareness to the issue with the American people (and it’s working), and two, they’re threatening the Democrats electorally and forcing them to change their calculus of what types of Israel policy they should do if they don’t want to lose the election from the other side (and that’s working, too). Both of those are good things. I keep saying that, and you keep, consistently, insisting for some reason that I must have a problem with them. I guess because it makes the point that you’re trying to say easier if I am just against all protestors. As I keep saying, I am not.

Yea, that's the point. But you continuously allude to some "other" type of pro-palestinian protestor, who is putting the pressure squarely on those most directly responsive to their protest, as "useful idiot", or "bad actor", or alluding to them having abuser logic for placing agency on the people currently providing Israel military aid and not, weirdly, on themselves. You even use a double-standard when discussing online behavior: in one instance, the correct way to Do Activism^tm is to convince the american public to sway public opinion, and then in the next you hand-wave away activity that is directed at swaying public opinion because 'you doubt the DNC reads your comments on Lemmy'.

That, OR, you're trying to distinguish between types of pro-palestinian protestors using some weird, "that's not gonna help" classification system that's opaque and/or ambiguously defined, so that at any given moment someone saying "democrats haven't done enough" can be cast aside as "other" or "bad actor". It is almost as if you are defending a naieve enthusiasm from water being thrown on it, simply because you value that enthusiasm even while there is a veritable gulf between what is needed from democrats on Israel and what they are doing. No, you may not return to your brunch, look at the shit that still needs cleaning up. Protestors are there to remind libs (who, as you pointed out, are safe from harm themselves no matter what the democratic policy is on Israel) that the work is not yet done. This includes people on Lemmy who are serving you reminders that things continue to be shit, despite what little democrats have actually done.

And it's not even like the Democrats can't, also, campaign for that change being worked toward. You're pretending as if the desired policy must grow from grass-roots before democrats can take action, but the democrats already know what the right thing to do is, it is just politically inconvenient to have to do it right now. A huge part of the problem is that the Democrats actively use the bully pulpit to deflect blame and run cover for Israel - when they should be using it to make the case to the american public why things need to change.

Literally anything to disembody the problem away from your personal electoral goals, while also claiming to support the issue being raised. It is the quintessential 'white moderate' take that MLK discusses in Letter from Birmingham, but you're so blinded by self-confidence that you couldn't possibly see it.

Okay so I just deleted a whole bunch of stuff. Honestly, let's just get to the root of it.

Protestors are there to remind libs (who, as you pointed out, are safe from harm themselves no matter what the democratic policy is on Israel)

No - I meant you. You're safe from harm. You can advocate for something that might get Trump elected, and I think it's safe to say no fighter jets will commence carpet bombing anywhere where your family is, if it happens.

I'm safe from harm too. I've flown close enough to see little flashes in the distance, I briefly dated someone who grew up in a refugee camp, I've spent a little bit of time staying with someone who was captured and tortured at one point in his life. That kind of secondhand stuff is as close as I've come. I don't want to come any closer. I have my safe, privileged life. But I've experienced this stuff second hand; I've been friends with people who were crippled by these policies and decisions, had the arc of their lives changed without their consent.

You keep bringing it back to shit that doesn't matter. I don't care whose fault it is. I don't care what you think is opaque or ambiguously defined, or what frameworks you feel like are too complicated to want to spend the mental effort on, so you use simple ones instead. I care about dying people, and how we change it; what's going to work, and what isn't.

No, you may not return to your brunch, look at the shit that still needs cleaning up

someone saying "democrats haven't done enough"

that the work is not yet done. This includes people on Lemmy who are serving you reminders that things continue to be shit, despite what little democrats have actually done.

I can dig up 10 different times when I've been doing exactly that, on Lemmy. Do you want me to? If it's useful for you to hear it, I'm happy to show it to you.

I thought about it for a while, and I think the reason we're not seeing eye to eye is this: The Democrats are not my friends. No one in Washington is my friend. When I'm saying, I want the Democrats to win this upcoming election, it's purely because that will keep some people alive who will die under Trump. There's a very few people in Washington, of any party, that I actually think have any kind of human standing on anything, that I would "support" in the sense of hey I like this person, I want them in charge. Kamala Harris isn't one of them.

I feel like -- tell me if I'm wrong -- you're interpreting all this that I am saying like I "support" Kamala Harris, and you're trying to get me not to. Like I think what she's doing is sufficient and you need to debunk that. You can stop. I don't. Put it this way: If one of my neighbors regularly made phone calls and ordered people to be killed, I wouldn't hang out with them. That's pretty much everyone in power in Washington: Biden, Harris, McCain, Trump, Adam Schiff, you get the idea. I look at them all (again, with a very small number of exceptions) as almost like these dangerous robots who somehow have this unimaginable power.

I'm not saying that I think, yes let's change the system and get these fuckin maniacs out of power and also let's Kamala Harris win this particular election, because of any of the stuff you are debunking in your message. Most of your message, I agree with. I am saying blah blah also let's Kamala Harris win this particular election because according to the only other available alternative, a whole fuck a lot (more -- much more) people will die. That's not imaginary -- it is real as you or I. Figuring out how to make a non performative change and what will work and what won't is important.

If you show me a strategy "hey here's how we can get better than the Democrats in power" I will start supporting it instantly. It feels like -- again, tell me if I'm wrong -- you think that what you're advocating is that, and I'm refusing to support it and so I must love Democrats or something. That's not the case. I just don't think what you are advocating will work (definitely not in the short run which is when most of the Palestinians will die). If you want to talk about, why not, how can we get something that will work, let's rap. But -- I don't know how many times I have to say it -- stop telling me how important it is to arrive at something better than the Democrats. You can silence that, and move on from it, or just keep wasting your time typing it over and over again, I guess, if you want to, but that's what you're doing when you type it.

Doesn't that make sense? Or no? You tell me.

I feel like – tell me if I’m wrong – you’re interpreting all this that I am saying like I “support” Kamala Harris, and you’re trying to get me not to.

No, and I find this reduction to be a huge part of the problem with most of the political discourse on Lemmy. There's this intense urge to reduce or interpret discourse into 'support' or 'don't support', usually electorally and usually as a strict binary. To most Americans, the most interaction they have with politics is voting, sometimes even just for the general. IDGAF if anyone 'supports' Kamala/Joe/Dems, whatever that means. I view who people end up voting for as almost incidental to the broader direct action that I think is the true driver of political change.

That's not to suggest you're making a reference to that binary - you're clearly speaking more broadly. But even the way you're interpreting direct action through its "actual" electoral result is frustrating. Because the people protesting (even the people on lemmy who seem (to you) dead-set against democrats) contain multitudes, and most of them will end up voting for an option that's not perfectly aligned to their principles in the end (because there are none who are). That's not the point of direct action. You (or maybe not you specifically, but liberals generally) complain that people repeatedly casting criticism without proposing an electoral solution are just fanning the flames of division, but what they're doing is creating a kind of "positive tension" within the electorate that the democrats will eventually need to address if it's allowed to grow. Democrats can't do x or y policy change because "it just isn't popular", but it isn't popular because people aren't being confronted with the results of the policy that needs changing. Protesting is a part of that, but so is posting on social media about it. Those are doing the same thing.

But what I specifically take issue with is your objection to protests that have real and legitimate standing, simply on some theoretical calculation where policy doesn't change but the damage to voter enthusiasm remains, and the "fault" **implicit ** in that judgement. I realize you've made explicit statements of affirmation toward Palestinian protests generally, but you've still defended this abstracted way of assessing advisable/in-advisable protests independent from the 'righteousness' of the cause itself. From your perspective, it seems that even a protest that is completely justified in its cause can be viewed negatively (and liable to accusation, labels and insults) if your personal judgment has determined it will only cause damage and not result in policy change. It's a form of dismissal that comes from an intense sense of paternalism that rhetorically allows you to identify yourself with the cause but avoids the uncomfortable work of reflecting on your own complicity. Even if you object to that complicity on grounds that you do direct action yourself, blah blah blah - you're also vocally defending a system that enables that type of subjugation you're fighting against. (I can already hear you objecting to this framing on the grounds that you want the system to change, and I'll just say it now that i'm not talking in abstraction. I'm saying you're defending the electoral system by insisting we must conduct ourselves in a way so we can preserve your desired electoral outcome)

You keep bringing it back to shit that doesn’t matter. I don’t care whose fault it is. I don’t care what you think is opaque or ambiguously defined, or what frameworks you feel like are too complicated to want to spend the mental effort on, so you use simple ones instead. I care about dying people, and how we change it; what’s going to work, and what isn’t.

Funny. I don't care about whose fault 'it' is, either! I don't care if you've judged a form of protest as ineffectual or not, even. I care about dying people, and the real ways in which our system of power enables and supports the killing of those people. I think the point of direct action is to tie the policy outcomes of the system to the people acting on that system's behalf in order to pressure them, and tempering that direct action around preserving a desired electoral result is antithetical to that rhetorical goal. You cannot pressure political agents into change if you're undercutting the protest by implicitly assigning electoral responsibility to that protest. I know 'you don't care' about fault, but you're still drawing a causality between the protest and the electoral outcome, when the explicit goal of that protest is to draw causality between the electoral outcome and the policy.

If you show me a strategy “hey here’s how we can get better than the Democrats in power” I will start supporting it instantly. It feels like – again, tell me if I’m wrong – you think that what you’re advocating is that, and I’m refusing to support it and so I must love Democrats or something.

No, that is not what i'm advocating. It sure would be great if we had a better system, but placing our political goals behind that fantastic revolutionary goal first is just a way of deferring our problems to a different time, a better season. We have the system we have, and trying to change that system (even simply influence the outcome of that system) without damaging it is like trying to box with both hands tied behind your back. Democrats won't do their job better until they're made to swim in their own shit, without trying to white-wash it or rhetorically dance around their own complicity in them. Protest helps to reflect the impact of those policies back on the office, and a side effect of that is damaging their electoral chances.

I think judging a form of protest based on its hypothetical electoral impact isn't just pointless, it neuters and subverts it. It isn't 'abuser logic' to assign responsibility for electoral losses on the policies being protested - if anything it's holding the 'abuser' responsible for the harm they themselves are committing. By flipping the responsibility of that loss on protestors it rhetorically excuses democrats for their shit policy.

I hope that makes sense.

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.

I hope it's a major shit-show. I want to see how Harris handles Gaza.

How about addressing the ongoing support for genocide, instead of blaming it on the people protesting it?

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.

Just to remind everyone in 2016 people had pretty much already planned their Clinton victory parties and everyone "knew" that Trump was going to lose, the polling was so clear and Trump was such a joke. Perhaps some even took care of "more important" stuff than voting because it was so sure.

So keep your excitement to take you to the voting booths rather than letting it make you complacent.

Yea while Kamala is ahead in the polls , a frighteningly large amount of people still support 45

Even then, the error % on polls is high enough that Trump could be ahead instead.

Polls post their calculated error %. If they could be off by like 5% in either direction, then that’s what they say. And if the poll shows Trump losing by 2%, with a 5% error, that means Trump could win by 3%.

Every single reputable poll that has been published shows a Trump victory within the margin of error.

I don't know a single person that has been polled. They are all guesswork.

No, they just don't have to poll massive groups, surprisingly small groups work well enough for polling.

Well they didn't prove shit when they said Hillary was gonna win. Just gonna say I'm not ever gonna trust one.

Almost every poll had him winning within the margin of error, 2016 was never certain, just like this election isn't.

Polls are all about probability. They can't predict the future. So, even though Hillary was likely to win, there was still a chance that Trump could win. Does this mean that polls are useless? No, because knowing the popularity of your candidate relative to the other candidates is important information.

I doubt too many polls could have predicted the Comey/GOP/FBI election interference, for example.

Thanks for saying this. It's Mid-August. There are two whole months in which things can go wildly off the rails. Rather than celebrating polls in mid-August, let's take this happy energy and make plans to go to the only poll that matters -- the actual election -- and make these mid-August hopes turn into January certainty. Plan the celebrations after we win in November, to coincide with Harris taking the Oath in January.

There are two whole months in which things can go wildly off the rails.

It’s astonishing how long the US election cycle is. There’s longer until the next US election than the entire campaign here in the UK, yet it’s all I’ve heard about for the past three years.

Can you guys not just chill the fuck out?

I wish. Our politics are so exhausting.

Can you guys not just chill the fuck out?

I used to go years between worrying about politics before Trump was president. I'm hoping those days can return somehow.

Yes, this. During his "presidency", I got so sick of dreading the morning's news. When I'd see someone else and they'd say "did you see/hear what he did now?", you didn't even have to ask who "he" was; you knew.

It was exhausting and the country barely survived it. I have no idea what's in store for any of us if they put his ass back there again.

"I wish I could just go back to sleep for 4 years." What a privileged take.

Not everyone wants to think about politics all day everyday.

"Make Politics Boring Again" Republicans have by-and-large politicized a HUGE number of things that should simply be left up to the scientific community. We shouldn't NEED to have hearings on whether the planet is warming. The debate should be on minutia that aims to bring equity to all humanity, and frankly that's pretty boring.

Obviously not. If people would chill out it would have to be about judging and responding to actual policy decision, instead of watching GoT political drama.

The longer the election cycle, the more politics are a show and bad policy can be justified with "election tactics".

Media companies and political consultants have a vested interest in making this take as long as possible.

The polls only look good because they're so much better than they were for Biden. It's still a toss-up, because those percentages are within the margin of error of the polls. (At least, for most of the swing states.)

And make sure you tell everyone else to get out and vote.

Offer carpools to take people to vote if you can. We need numbers at the booths. Especially if you're in a swing state or red.

The mainstream media just doesn't reflect/represent the majority of Americans anymore and hasn't for quite some time, actually.

This would suggest that the polls indicated that Hilary was more popular despite Trump going on to win the popular vote. This did not happen. The majority of Americans dislike Trump and he lost the popular vote and never had an approval rating over 50%.

However, there's a lot of reporting on polls that operate like the popular vote, despite the popular vote not really mattering.

The actual assessment is that the electoral college just doesn't reflect/represent the majority of Americans, and it never really did.

Wait, that's what "they" all say?!

Yeah, don't be so sure of winning that you get too lazy to fricking vote. And also watch out because I'm sure there will be some dirty tricks around polling stations as certain Republican areas get desperate

and there's plenty of time for the propaganda machine to find a server, laptop or some other bullshit to give people an excuse to not vote for her.

Honestly, I think this is one of the many reasons the hard right hate mail-in voting. There is less time for them pull off their typical rat-fucking dirty tricks if people already mailed in their votes.

Unfortunately I don't see Kamala winning just yet, nothing is certain, there's a lot of Trump supporters in the wood work, and the establishment liberal media play a game of "maybe if we pretend they're losing, they'll lose".

...which is wishful thinking that destroys people's grip on reality, and causes a lot of voters to not bother to show up.

The establishment media wants Trump to win, don't fool yourself.

I think it's pretty obvious that if that guy gets elected, it's going to be a shitstorm, and that isn't good for the establishment.

And yet they carry his water every day.

The newsmedia seems to be gutting him right now, except for a couple of right-wing outlets.

Are you kidding? The "establishment" (mainstream) media is extremely left. They don't like trump and do all they can to hurt his campaign.

Where do you live?

"Extremely left"

lol

Ok, maybe it's more correct to say 'totally' left or 'completely' left, but that's what it is. That's why it's called the "liberal media."

The right wing calls it the "liberal media". Nobody else does.

Do something for me. Google "the liberal media" and learn something.

The term "liberal media" is only used by those within the corporate media itself, right wing kool-aid drinkers, or with scare quotes around it by the actual left.

The term "liberal media" is a correct term because 90% of major news outlets (and media in general) lean left. This is accepted by everyone who has eyes to see.

This is a good place for you to be. It's easy to do little research and find that MSM leans left, like 95% of major news outlets do. The bias for things that are left of center in media isn't even argued by left, or right, or anyone. The only people who don't realize this are those who have "drank the kool-aid". Please, just do a couple of google searches. These major news outlets don't even really hide it. Google "the liberal media" or "major news outlets bias". Something like that.

They also hated Bernie Sanders and did everything they could to hurt his campaign.

Where is this so called extremely left media and what are they doing to hurt low t's campaign?

... NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX (fox has fallen into this group recently), etc. It's crazy that more folks don't realize this. 90% of MSM is pro liberal agenda.

Liberals know mostly know this, but they don't care because they are on their side. MSM bias for the left isn't even argued. It's common knowledge (at least it should be).

Many many local news stations are also run by this media conglomerate, and that's why you will see all these news stations reading from the same script. They have a collective agenda. Well, actually, it's not THEIR agenda, it's the agenda of a VERY small group fed to these stations to repeat.

Lmfao including all of those in the same sentence is good times

And then calling them all liberal! Lmfao! And then calling liberal, left! LMFAO!

I hope your eyes open sooner rather than later

The "liberal media" wants low t to win.

I love this for him.

We're draining his power, and we cannot stop. There can be no question that this referendum on him and the culture he fosters is wrong and cannot/ will not be tolerated any longer.

Trump: “she doesn’t like Jewish people. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it, and nobody wants to say it.”

Yeah, probably because she loves them, and everyone else as well.

If she loves Jewish people so much then why doesn't she marry 'em?? 🤪

Oh wait...

Please tell me he said this.

Yes, yes he did. https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-emhoff-jewish-voters-2024-election-3024bed25abf542d7133e1ad81d86165

I literally laughed aloud. Thanks, mate.

Her husband Doug is Jewish.

Dotard Don 🤦🏽🤦‍♀️🤦🏻‍♂️

I think Trump is accustomed to thinking his spouses are lesser beings that exist only to bolster his image and serve at his pleasure, and he probably harbors deep feelings of disdain for all of them that he can't express publicly.

So for him it totally tracks to be married to a type of person that you hate.

So for him it totally tracks to be married to a type of person that you hate.

Women, for example

Sounds like he might want to marry a man then

he probably harbors deep feelings of disdain for all of them

It's not even a question. He literally buried his ex-wife on his fucking golf course without a headstone and then let the site become overgrown.

This isn't a bad thought but it implies that he remembers she is married to a Jewish person. He definitely doesn't. He can't even pronounce her name or pick a wrong pronunciation to go with.

And Trump's wife, mother, and grandfather are and were immigrants, but it doesn't stop him from hating immigrants. That type of inconsistency isn't an issue for him, so I imagine calling Harris an antisemite is perfectly reasonable to him.

Great point. Same with openly gay Peter Thiel who hand picked weirdo JD Vance, completely behind Project 2025, which is staunchly anti-gay.

Thiel knows that money and power trump the law (pun intended, I guess) so anti-gay legislation won't affect him or his circle.

Hey Donnie, you remember those “fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville? What were they chanting exactly?

Fucking asshole

As much as I'd like to celebrate, I can only think about how the attitude was the same regarding Hillary, and we all saw how that turned out. Fingers crossed.

People hated Hillary though. I know everyone who liked her wanted to say it was sexism but the Clinton's are fucking crooks. I don't like that Kamala put a bunch of people in prison for weed but there isn't any evidence that she killed people for political gain.

Hell, Hillary even kept Henry Kissinger around while campaigning Somehow thinking that was a good idea? Basically a hello America, look at this war criminal I am good friends with, let me talk at length about how amazing this war criminal is. To say she was out of touch would be a bit of an understatement.

To be fair, Kissinger was pretty amazing at being a war criminal.

100%. Fuck political dynasties.

Yeah. Lot of misogynists out there.

It's the truth, though... If trump could beat out Hillary, Kamala stands no chance in hell.

Edit: Quit reading into this. It's an opinion based on observation. It's fine if you disagree and want to tell me why I'm wrong. I welcome that. But assuming I'm pro-trump or anti-harris because of this comment is an assumption you shouldn't be making. I said nothing to indicate support for either.

The energy around Clinton was different, even most dems weren't thrilled with Hillary and she was unpopular with undecided voters, meanwhile we know and have seen the threat that is Trump, and Harris is fairing better so far.

We'll see of course, but it's not as similar as it might seem if you're just saying "Woman vs Trump is the same"

I agree. Doesn't feel the same at all to me. Kamala is a likeable person and candidate.

Also Waltz was a great pick for VP

I wish you were joking.

Why? Clarify for me, I've only seen relatively good things about him.

This is from a more detailed comment I made:

"Tim waltz (and family) finances. Facts: Tim owns no stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs. He owns no real estate, investment property, or otherwise (neither does his wife). He also has no 401k, IRA, or any retirement fund. His net worth is estimated to be 115,000$ to 330,000$. All this is not great, considering he's 60(ish?) nearing retirement. the average net worth for congresspeople and senators is around $1 million. His only legitimate source of income is his pension.

Pros or cons, we can decide for ourselves if all this makes him a better candidate for VP or not. We can make some assumptions, and one assumption I can make is that waltz personally seems to be financially ignorant.

There are other pros and cons about Waltz, but as far as finances, Tim Waltz is a scrub. And I think that these facts are very important when considering electing him into a position where he's at the controls for financial decisions for an ENTIRE country... whatever side you lean toward, all this should be concerning."

There are reasons, but what sticks out to me is that he seems financially illiterate. Neither he nor his wife own a home or any other assets. He owns no business. No stocks, bonds, securities, 401K or investments anywhere. Waltz ownz nothing... None of this is bad, necessarily, if you're a regular citizen, but I'd want/expect someone running for Vice President to be more financially savvy.

Tim waltz is a scrub

That all seems like positives to me 🤷‍♂️ no incentives to misue the power for personal gain in any of those particular subjects.

We've got enough mega wealthy in government imo.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/06/tim-walz-policy-record-guide-00172844

Seems like a lot of positives to me, but absolutely willing to hear anything else you might have in mind.

100%. I was so disgusted with how the democrats shoved Bernie under the rug that I voted 3rd party. I also had a small glimmer of hope that Trump would tack left on at least a few things. I won't be making that mistake again.

Are you me?

It didn't help that I knew several left leaning people who don't really get politics and voted for Trump "for the meme" not thinking he'd actually win... Dumb dumb lol

Yeah. Don’t get caught out by the fact that 74 million people voted for him last time tho. I’ve always been a fairly 3rd party leaning voter, but no more.

Well we've certainly reached hell to find out.

I already have popcorn. Have had it going non stop for years.

Wouldn't be sure:

Clinton suffered from an overconfident base, that might not have shown up at the voting sites as they assumed it was in the bag. After 2016, some of those voters hopefully learned a lesson
Clinton suffered from a lot of bitter Sanders supporters. This time there was no big 'other' candidate people considered to have been cheated out of.
I know at least some people not crazy about any 'dynasty', and Clinton was mostly remembered by her relationship to Bill. Sure she was Secretary of State (no one cares) and NY senator (which was seen as weird, out of nowhere she was suddenly a NY political figure despite no particular affiliation with NY before).

Circumstances are different, and I don't think people were specifically excited over Hilary. I think some were excited about "a" woman candidate, but not really Clinton in particular.

Clinton suffered from a lot of bitter Sanders supporters. This time there was no big ‘other’ candidate people ~~considered to have been~~ were cheated out of.

FTFY

I disagree a little bit. If Biden had dropped out earlier, we would have a proper Democratic primary season and to have some other politicians run and make a case for themselves. It feels like Kamala Harris was appointed to be the successor. Of course she would still need to win the general election, but I still feel uneasy that within the party, there was no democratic process.

True, but given the timing of when he did drop out, Harris is about as close to approximating a democratic choice as they could manage. She at least was on the ticket in the 2020 election so people did technically vote for her as VP in 2020, with everyone knowing that an 80 year old man becoming incapacitated would mean she would be president. They are at least following the succession as was voted for. Any other person would have absolutely been a "coronation" of sorts on that timescale.

While you may say "but people don't really pay too much attention to the VP", I'd say that Palin tanked McCain's chances by being obviously unfit for office.

It's kinda funny because Harris was kinda seen as a non-starter for a while as the VP, even among leftists, feels like that feeling has changed recently though.

I will say it still wasn't very democratic, they could have done some kinds of snap elections if they really cared, but they don't lol.

There's no way they could have pulled off any vaguely credible election from scratch with about a months warning.

You really think that wouldn't be possible in 2024? I think it would have been a huge undertaking for sure, but damn would it have given a lot of potential goodwill 🤷‍♂️

My point was the timing. It wasn't good for any other candidates but the incumbent.

Even if we did voted for Harris as VP, that was 4 years ago. Democracy is not just about a one-time voting, but having regular elections every 4 years. I may have voted for Harris as the VP as part of the ticket, but I should be allowed to change my mind 4 years later to vote for someone else.

One of my biggest gripes about our two-party system is the lack of competition within both parties. Every 4 years, we are presented with candidates from each respective party and then we're asked choose the "lesser of the two evils". It sucks.

I will note the idea Harris was picked at the 2020 primaries is bunk, people don't vote on a President/VP ticket then(though that would be an interesting system). Harris was picked by Biden, and while she was on the 2020 ticket in the national election it's impossible to say how many people she swayed.

I don't think she's perfect, but unlike Hillary at least Harris was picked by circumstance, even if unfortunate circumstance, not appointed years in advance like Hillary was. (Hillary had been intending to go for it after she gained some political experience and Bill's scandal faded. Al Gore was supposed to carry the democrats, but that didn't work out, and JFK Jr who was being courted for a 2004 run died in a plane crash in 1999, so they had to work with John Kerry which didn't go well. Then Hillary was ready and initially had party favor, but Obama came in like a locomotive without brakes: All the DNC's horses and all the RNCs men couldn't stop Obama in 08, no my friend)

Also that second to last point isn't 100%, but there's a lot of rumor and evidence to suggest the plan at the end of Clinton's term was to bring in Gore, and then either when he lost or ran out his terms JFK Jr. was to be the next guy in line. Him dying and Al Gore losing put them in a tough spot in 2004.

Overconfident is an understatement. I remember people thinking that Trump was the end of the Republican party, some people actually said that the party would be forced to disband after their crushing defeat in 2016.

Even many Democrats didn't like Hillary, but the idea of Trump winning was outright laughable to many. I think that combination of "I don't want to vote for her" and "there's no way she can lose" left a lot of people at home twiddling their thumbs instead of going out to vote.

Even putting that aside, the "bad" was also underestimated.

So Trump gets 4 years before we can vote him out, he's bad, but how bad could it be.

Folks didn't think about the number of supreme court justices that would go over.

Folks certainly didn't expect January 6th to go down the way it did and for there to be lingering aftermath of "if we win again, we will overtly rig the system to prevent losing again".

So I hope people view the stakes as higher and the GOP as more dangerous than people would have guessed in 2016.

I know a lot of people who assumed she would win and later claimed their lack of voting is because of incorrect polls. Very frustrating to hear.

I heard many frustrating narratives after low t "won" in 2016. Things like "Democrats are just as bad" (so they voted for Stein or stayed at home), Hillary was gonna take all the gunz, didn't like her laugh/wouldn't want to have a beer with her, some fell for low t's ridiculous talk about what he was going to do for parents (tax credit and/or some child daycare).

Most exasperating of all were the types that were like "ACA is not perfect, therefore I'm gonna vote for the guy that will fix it". 🤦‍♂️

Still got the 5th most votes of any presidential candidate ever. (1st is Biden 2020 and 2nd is Trump 2020, 3rd is 08 Obama, 4th is 2012 Obama)

Hilary lost because she sucked major ass. I didn't vote in 2016 because fuck political dynasties, and the DNC did everything it could to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination, which unfortunately worked. Being less young and stupid, I probably would have voted for her if I were in 2016 again. I would have hated it though, just as I would have hated voting for Biden but would have done so. I'm not particularly excited about Kamala but she's definitely a lot more palatable with SO much more appeal than Hillary or Biden had.

Hilary lost because she sucked major ass. I didn’t vote in 2016 because fuck political dynasties, and the DNC did everything it could to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination, which unfortunately worked. Being less young and stupid, I probably would have voted for her if I were in 2016 again. I would have hated it though, just as I would have hated voting for Biden but would have done so. I’m not particularly excited about Kamala but she’s definitely a lot more palatable with SO much more appeal than Hillary or Biden had.

The stupid thing was that they didn't need to do their dirty tricks. The things like what DWS in Arizona were well after Bernie was mathematically out of the running. I'm a Bernie fan and I voted for him in the primaries in California, but he lost on Super Tuesday (well before CA and AZ voted). He failed to capture the votes and was not really in contention.

I think Hilary lost for three reasons. 1. Republicans had their smear machine running on her for over a decade. Propaganda works. 2. Her public speaking persona was bad. I heard her speak in a more normal conversation and she sounded smart, articulate, and hitting all the right points. I was impressed. But her speech giving persona was bad and came across as snobbish. 3. Sexism. It's not THE reason she lost, but I think there was and is a vein of that running through America. "What if it's her time of the month and she has her finger on the big red button?" "Blood coming out of her whatever", etc.

I think time has proven out that she would have been a 10x better president than Trump. Just like Gore would have been 10x better than Bush. So much less death, so much better policy. If they'd been elected, the world would be a different place today. (Stupid undemocratic electoral college system)

The vast right wing conspiracy literally had decades to create a false narrative around Hillary, though.

"Time" is the greatest clarifier. This narrative you're talking about isn't made from lies about Hillary. It is about things that were called called lies at first, but then, over time, were proven to be correct. But by they time they were proven correct, hardly anyone cared about it anymore, the focus had shifted to other topics, and the MSM hardly reported on it.

It's all in the clock

80 days until election day

70 days until early voting starts in Michigan

66 days until early voting starts in Wisconsin

61 days until early voting starts in North Carolina

45 days until the vice-presidential debate

30 days until early ballot drop off starts in Pennsylvania

24 days until the first presidential debate

Can you be a bot for all the posts until then? Or is there a simpleURL.com for this?

has no idea what has hit him

well it ain't a bullet that's for sure

Six days ago, The New York Times ran a story under the headline “Inside the Worst Three Weeks of Donald Trump’s 2024 Campaign.”

You know things are bad when the worst three weeks are after an attempted assassination.

"TFW you get shot (at) and it's not even the biggest political story of the week"

Or when the NY Times stops doing puff pieces on Trump or his supporters.

Is there a greater douchebag in this world than Donald Trump? What an idiot.

Every Communist foreign leader, but yeah, he stands right next to them in that line of idiots.

China and Vietnam seem to be doing pretty well as counties. China is markedly more Authoritarian than Vietnam (which is more unionist/laborist), but both are providing livability to their citizens.

Vietnam actually has less homelessness than the US.

I heard China had dropped the ball on housing. Apparently home ownership is getting really cheap there. The poor fools. Tsk tsk.

Lets not suck the red fascists off, sons of bitches built a bunch of "tofu building" which will fall apart. Combine that with some other trite mixed in with their housing and they probably will only be cheap cause everything implodes.

Before anyone starts getting a bit too high off their own supply Harris's polling averages peaked on August 12th. They were stagnant or declining on the 13th and 14th, briefly spiked on the 15th, and that spike was completely undone on the 16th. Today is dropping again. Not big drops, like 1/10th of a point every other day(which day depends on which conglomerates you use), but the growth trend is over.

Agreeing that it is wise to not grow overconfident.

We still are far from winning this battle.

Canadian, not my fight. Our liberals ain't doing so good

Today is an all time high on slightly right leaning RCP, and a slight rebound on 538(But not to 12th/13th/15th levels). More like 16th or 11th evening. RCP tends to lag a bit on D rises and vice versa for 538 so we'll see. Still suggests the overall strong growth trend passed and we're nearing a ceiling. Not a bad ceiling, a winning ceiling, but it's there.

it's also only a matter of time before Fox News finds some kind of bullshit to sink their teeth into that changes swing voters minds.

“Mock the devil and he will run from you”

Watch out, this may mean he's going to take the low road a cheat. Regardless VOTE!!!

Of fucking course Trump is going to cheat! In fact, his MAGA flying monkeys are cheating now, as we speak. The Trump campaign is recruiting literally 100,000 poll "observers" (read: saboteurs) to help it cheat. "Donald Trump and the MAGA movement’s coup attempt on Jan. 6 never stopped."

The Trump campaign's main strategy for 2024 isn't to actually win votes. It's to deliberately interfere with the counting of the votes and cast so much FUD on the process that as many states as possible either won't (because they're MAGA-controlled) or can't (because there was genuinely that much disruption) certify their votes. In other words, he wants to file dozens of lawsuits challenging the results again, but manufacture valid bases for them this time. Combine that with the chaos of more Jan 6-style violence, and it's very likely he will succeed in getting a decisive number of swing states decided by the Supreme Court a la Bush v. Gore -- and not only does the Supreme Court have a MAGA majority, three of the fucking "justices" were lawyers on Bush's side in that very court case!

This is why Trump is going around telling his supporters that they won't have to vote anymore after this election, and why he doubled down on it when given the chance to walk it back. He has every intention of so thoroughly destroying Americans' trust in Federal elections that four years from now he will simply make a dictatorial decree that it is pointless to have them and he will simply remain in power indefinitely.

Trump is 100% committed to seizing power and being coronated as America's king, votes be damned.

More people need to be taking about this. The only way to stop it is to shine as bright a light as possible on it.

VOTE!! and also there is NO QUESTION his fart sniffing followers will CHEAT FOR HIM — let’s all get this through our heads NOW

There is already cheating with gerrymandering and reduced voting areas in specific places in many places, so even if you see lots of activity that suggests a major win for Harris, vote anyway to cover those whose votes will be suppressed. That we even have to plan for that in a country that touts voting as a right is insane.

Here's where to check your status or register

People know Trump is a genocidal white supremacist Nazi and the world isn't populated by cisgender white males.

You know, you can be a cisgender white male, and still hate Donald Trump.

Can confirm

Yup

General Mattis has entered the chat.

Best part is watching him eventually get convicted. Tic tac, orange man.

i think you mean sentenced

Convicted again*, he's already got 34 felonies.

Eventually?

Angry orange will never stop flailing. Hes simply out of his depth and all the life preservers being thrown to him are just so much wet paper and about as effective

"Forget it Donny, you're out of your element!"

He's drowning and they're tossing him rolls of bounty like he did the people in Puerto Rico.

"Prices... YOU'VE BEEN BAD! Folgers! Rocky road! BABY RUTH!!!

Because kamala harris is playing checkers whilst donald trump is playing tic-tac-toe.

This was dumb in 2016 on /r/thedonald, and it is dumb now

I didn't know it was already a thing. I assure you i made that up on the spot. If someone else already made the joke, then i didn't know. But im glad im not the only person who thinks it's funny.

He's playing Snakes and Ladders (Chutes and Ladders?) in 4D. The man's a genius, I tells you.

trump is playing bingo.

For anything Trump says; what did you expect? Something better?

Well, we should.

And here she is.

https://archive.ph/8mDHK

It didn't hit him, maybe only his oversized ego got dented, a man behind him were hit, this guy should be in media on a daily basis, not Trump. DJT was scratched only.

He's a narcissist to the degree of it being a mental illness, I don't think most people are aware how little reality these people let into their psyche, to protect the image they have of themselves. There is no dent, this simply didn't happen for him.

New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for New Republic:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://newrepublic.com/article/184951/donald-trump-flailing-harris

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

I love this storyline but I am reserved about the narrative from New Republic. A lot of their reporting comes off tabloid-ish.

Oh geez.. I swear, this sub is becoming just like r/politics... one sided.

That's because there's only really one reasonable side. What, do you WANT to see antivax misinfo in here?

Now, that's not fair. Conservatives offer more than just antivax misinfo.

They also have misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, anti-education, climate denialism, billionaire worship, war-mongering, domestic terrorism cheerleading and so much more!

Oh yes, how could I forget their main platform? :-)

You can't be sane and support Trump. You just can't. There's no debate here. He's a lunatic and people who support him are lunatics.

Key-rye more

It is?

Democrats should not be supporting genocide. Netanyahu should not be able to buy candidates.

Now watch what happens.

You say that as if Trump, as the Republican nominee, would do anything better with Israel

Not only is it possible to be upset about genocide (you should try it sometime), it's also possible to be upset about genocide without being a Trump supporter.

Thank you for proving the point I was making.

Absolutely, 100%... but you didn't bring that up in this specific post and context because it was a standalone point. You were already bringing the us vs them narrative and now are playing the pearl clutching.

My only mistake was feeding the troll here

Nice whataboutism.