5mo ago

Consent machine

You're viewing a single thread.

343 comments

Meanwhile 🦗🦗🦗🦗 from the genocide Joe caucus.
- Hey, me here from the Genocide Joe caucus, I voted for Harris, Trump is a despicable pathetic genocidal idiot...and Genocide Joe disgustingly facilitated the conditions for a genocide to be expanded upon by Trump.
  Also while saying all those things I was chewing gum and walking, heap praise on me for doing the impossible.
- Do you not think Biden was instrumental in setting this up?
  
  Biden: doesn't invade Gaza
  Genocide Joe crowd after Trump cleanses Gaza: But did you think about how this is Joe Bidens fault?
  It's clear that Israel has major sway with the US. We were not gonna stop them no matter who was in charge. I think Joe did as much as he could without pissing off our corporate overlords but him ending the conflict was never gonna happen.
  
  People would be blaming Biden for genocide even if he did not partake in the genocide
  
  We haven't invaded Gaza yet, and i don't think we will just like i don't think we'll invade Canada or Greenland. Trump says a lot of dumb shit that will never happen. The only thing that has happened since trump took over is a ceasefire.
  we were not gonna stop them no matter who was in charge. I think Joe did as much as he could
  He could've at least tried by blocking arms shipments. Biden could've done that at any time since there's already a law on the books that the u.s. must stop weapons shipments if there is credible evidence they will be used in war crimes. Biden and his state department refused to enforce this law and ignored multiple reports about war crimes to do so. One time they tried to do it on a specific squad in the Israeli military of ultra orthodox that was doing crimes in the west bank but gave in after bibi said it was anti-semetic.
  Even if that wasn't an option Biden could've vetoed the many arms packages that were passed after it was clear Israel was attempting a genocide, he didn't. Even after he was effectively a lame duck after he dropped out and didn't have to worry about the Israel lobby. Even after he was actually a lame duck and the dems already lost.
  This wasn't Biden being handcuffed by outside forces, he had multiple opportunities to stand against the genocide and refused to because he is an ardent zionist who is fine with the horrors in gaza.
  
  Doesn't matter about the ifs. People decried Biden for not stopping the conflict. Here's trump saying he'll do much, much worse. Where all the Genocide Joe's at? Oh right, they never cared. Just needed something to sway people opinions away from Dems.
  Also, you left out the critical part of my quote (which is just arguing in bad faith) Bidens does as much as he can without pissing off our corporate overlords. This is an oligarchy and has been for years. Money rules all. The war machine demands blood to convert into dollars.
  
  where are all the genocide Joe's at?
  Here? It looks like the person who posted this is what you'd call a "genocide joe". There are tons of people in this thread like me arguing that what he did is still horrible. Do you want us to say trump is worse? Yeah rhetorically, but objectively Biden presided over a year and a half of unmitigated horrors and trump has presided over a ceasefire.
  Money rules all. The war machine demands blood to convert into dollars.
  If this were true, Biden wouldn't have pulled out of Afghanistan. He did though, despite huge backlash, which i commend him for, because he knew the war was an unjust waste of money. He didn't do the same for Gaza because he is a staunch zionist. This also ignores his lame duck period where he wasn't beholden to any corporate interests, and he still kept sending weapons to Israel, because he's doing it out of principal not pressure.
  Also it's not like Afghanistan since there's still another war going on. If Biden cared about the genocide he could make a deal with these oligarchs to compensate any loss in sales in gaza with more spending on Ukraine.
  
  If this were true, Biden wouldn't have pulled out of Afghanistan.
  Leftists respect and remember this, especially given how the mainstream media went full warhawk on Biden for actually doing it. If only Biden had got his head out of his old racist ass and used his power to stop the Palestinian Genocide.
  
  Biden presided over a year and a half of unmitigated horrors and trump has presided over a ceasefire
  ... That started under Biden. As far as US diplomats were involved, who do you think was in charge of directing them?
  If we want to give the US president credit for a ceasefire, why would we give the credit to the one who any involvement happened before they were in office, to say nothing of the one who wasn't even in office when it started?
  
  Yes bidens diplomats made the deal, along with Qatari and Egyptian mediators, but they were unable to get Israel to sign it. It was only after trump was elected and started talking to bibi as the president elect that the Israelis signed the same deal that they rejected 6 months ago.
  They hadn't achieved any significant accomplishment that would prompt them to say "we're good now" and finally sign. The only thing that changed was the incoming administration.
  I don't know what trump said to bibi but whatever it was it changed his mind on a ceasefire. My guess is he just wanted a 6 week break so that he could roll out all the horrible shit he's been doing in his first month without having to deal with Gaza. They probably went along with it because trump is more likely to follow through on stopping weapons shipments because he's less committed to the zionist cause and political norms of unwavering "defensive" support for Israel.
  Or maybe bibi was just tanking peace talks to drag down Biden and they were actually fine 6 months ago but wanted to help trump win first. Possibly with some collusion with the trump campaign but I doubt the dems will ever investigate that like they did russia because that would be anti-semetic.
  In either case I don't think bibi would've signed if Harris won. Either because he doesn't respect her or he wants to drag down the democratic party.
  
  It was Trump's envoy that secured the ceasefire
- I'm not sure the incessant chorus of 'I told you so's is really helping the cause.
  Personally, I'm watching the dumpster fire from up on your hat, without any option to participate in your elections either way, but it's still getting pretty grating. Surely, there's a better strategy.
  
  I’m not sure the incessant chorus of 'I told you so’s is really helping the cause.
  I've heard so much MSNBC bigotry in the last month.
  "Palestinians cost us the election!"
  "Trans people cost us the election!"
  "Hispanics cost us the election!"
  "Everyone under 40 cost us the election!"
  This is typically followed by some sickeningly smug "I hope they enjoy what they get" from the most vile and repulsive insider slime the party has to offer. And now Dem Leadership is just throwing up its hands, insisting Trump's just a dictator now and there's nothing any of them can do.
  Hell, the fucking CIA - the agency that exists to topple foreign governments - seems equally indolent and feckless. So, idk. Maybe saying "I told you so" isn't impacting the cause one way or another.
  
  Wow I'm glad I don't watch MSNBC, that does sound truly sickening.
  
  Yes, because hopefully if we point out how much not voting has hurt us and everyone else, these dimwits will actually choose the lesser evil next time instead of letting the greater evil win
  
  Oh yes, calling people dimwits will totally win them over.
  
  We absolutely will not. Take that into account and stop thinking it's a bluff you can call.
  
  We absolutely will not
  Better to let the greater evil win, eh? If some Palestinians are bound to die, better that American transes die too?
  *I have literally seen people on Lemmy share this sentiment
  Screenshot of now-deleted comment
  
  You need to update your rhetoric. The Democrats have already started talking about how they lost because of their support for trans rights and plan to move away from that. Your line in 2028 is, "If Palestinians and trans people are bound to die, we might as well let the Republicans win and go after bi people too, eh?" But maybe you should start practicing for 2032 and say, "Oh, so if Palestinians, trans people, and bi people are bound to die, we should let the Republicans win and go after lesbians too?"
  Or, instead of walking down the list of "then they came for's," we could draw a red line and say that if they keep walking down that path, we will make it impossible for them to win. And if enough people do, then they will either have to give in or be replaced.
  Edit: You posted two removed comments that nobody upvoted lol. Reminds me of that Bloomberg ad about random Twitter users saying mean things lol.
  
  Sources for Democrats saying they lost because of their support for trans rights please?
  
  NBC - Some Democrats blame party’s position on transgender rights in part for Harris’ loss
  
  Thanks. To be honest, that article doesn’t really convey a sense that Democrats are going in that direction. That’s just a few politicians in a large party saying things that they then are made to apologize for which should be a pretty good indicator of what is well-supported by the rest of the party.
- What the fuck are we supposed to say? We spent a year and a half doing everything in our power to show the dems what they need to do to have a chance to win, they chose genocide instead.
  
  Too late to say anything now that you've helped elect the orange felon. Too bad you couldn't stfu before and steered a significant amount of people to vote for the cunt as a protest vote. Enjoy the alternative.
  
  you’ve helped elect the orange felon
  I never see liberals say this shit to Obama or Clinton, despite Barry and Hildawg being the two most invigorating force behind the 2016 Trump climb to the top of the GOP Primary. I don't see them flinging it at the Starmer campaign staff, who popped across the pond to neatly derail Harris's poll climb with their shitty advice. I certainly don't see any mention of the DNC, the Dem donor class, or anyone who actually ran for office taking blame.
  But hey, maybe cuddle up closer to your friends the Cheneys next election cycle. Maybe they've got the secret sauce that wins elections.
  
  Nah the mistake radical leftists made was not to support Bloomberg, that was surely where went wrong!!!
  
  Did you think that maybe uniting behind an evil candidate as your collective sole effort to defeat Trump was a bad plan?
  You all say, "if only you all did what we did, we would have won." That's true in reverse - if you had all only done what we did, we would have won. And we wouldn't have had a war criminal in office either.
  Why is the Democrat the default vote? How is it compatible with democracy at all, that the one thing we actually control as a people, the vote, isn't even based on who's the best candidate?
  In my mind, this is very simple, we have a basic responsibility as a people to exercise FULL control over who's in office, to secure the outcomes we want. And we're failing to do that. We don't go through the process of figuring out who out of every candidate is best. The TV tells us which of two candidates to pick, and we pick one of those two. That eliminates all democratic checks on the government.
  
  Hey you can elect this person that'll slap you or this person that'll stab you in the face.
  Oh well the slapping is so bad we should just not choose either and give the win to face stabby candidate. That's the dumbass "logic" that got us here.
  I mean, I fully expect it was also mostly a foreign psyop to steer votes toward Trump or at least generate apathy and keep votes from going to Kamala (same outcome more or less). Mostly because it's such a dumb premise of why you wouldn't vote for Harris and just sit out the election. So I can't imagine it was truly widespread and I think that's also why it's crickets now that the election is over and Russia's orange gremlin candidate for president of the USA won.
  
  The actual choice:
  A) Stabs you in the heart
  B) Stabs you in the lung
  C) No stabbing, picks wildflowers for you
  And you guys go, "C isn't viable! At least you're less likely to die if you get stabbed in the lung - you have an entire hour to get to the hospital!"
  Bro, C is right there. Was there the whole time. Why the fuck would we, AS A POPULATION, choose anything but the best option.
  
  No, C is not "right there" when our electoral politics work the way they do. That's a huge strawman argument.
  The reality is there were two choices, one clearly better for Palestinians.
  
  A strawman argument is when they misrepresent something you're saying, not when you think they're wrong about how electoral politics work.
  
  Yes, they took my argument and created a false third choice that was never part of the argument. Then said to choose that.
  That's misrepresenting what I said to have that third choice.
  Regardless we're getting very pedantic here and I'm not really disagreeing with you if that matters to you.
  
  "Work the way they do". Oh, OK. If that's not how electoral politics work!
  
  C got you trump you utter doughnut.
  Game theory has consequences.
  
  Did you see this part of my comment?
  Why the fuck would we, AS A POPULATION, choose anything but the best option.
  The population voting for C gets you....what? Let's think about this. Is it....C? Hmm, yes, it is.
  Notice how I made a point to phrase it that way, to preempt comments like yours entirely? And then you went and posted that anyway, either because you didn't read my comment, or just felt like ignoring the point I was actually making?
  You people INSIST we only ever look at it in terms of, "49.999 are voting Trump, 49.999 are voting Harris, your vote decides the election!" The pre-narrowed, individual choice. But that's not how the game theory applies here. The game in this case is that there's ~210M people with the ability to vote for anyone. There is no pre-narrowing. Their collective decision results in the electoral outcome. Your application of game theory here is literally incorrect.
  
  People are not a hive mind.
  
  People have both individual thought and herd-like psychological behaviors? Your comment could be read as either supporting or disagreeing with my comment, not sure what you're trying to say.
  
  I'm saying that people who are paying attention can't know for certain that a sufficient number of other people are paying enough attention to even shift their vote from the democrats to a brand new leftwing party with sufficient "brand awareness" without undermining the lesser evil's chances by jumping over for any given major election.
  Half the population pays virtually no attention to politics. Meaning trying for a third party for president is a laughably if not willfully ignorant unless you've done the ground work elsewhere in government built up awareness of the party from holding smaller offices first.
  
  You need to stop believing you know anything about game theory because the Dunning-Kruger klaxon is going off and you can't seem to hear it.
  
  You claim I don't, but you don't show it. That's the big red flag for "Dunning-Kruger" - unsubstantiated claims, or claims with faulty arguments behind them.
  And for the love of god, don't respond to that with anything but specific responses to the actual claims I made. I cannot take anymore of these circular arguments today.
  
  Go read even a little bit of game theory, like an introductory video on YouTube even, before you start claiming it supports your illogical nonsense take. Introductory test: how many players?
  
  By your logic, choices A through Z all have equal odds of winning.
  They don't.
  I can go into a full explanation about how you're wrong and you are also to blame for this happening, but I won't cause were so far past the tipping point there no reason to explain it to you anymore. Just know most everyone here knows you're either ignorant or dumb. The rest of us know you're both
  
  The odds of winning, for the candidate that secures a majority of EC votes, is exactly 100% (so long as that process is followed). The determining factor of that is the voting decisions of the population. That is not a function you can describe only in probabilistic terms. By all means, let's hear your broken explanation filled with omissions and logical errors.
  
  No, I don't care nor are you important enough to do that. I just want to reiterate that you're dumb
  
  Case in point - pigeon on the chessboard. You shouldn't even comment if this is your attitude.
  
  Case in point - the commenter above me is still dumb.
  
  49% of the country is voting for A
  49% of the country is voting for B
  2% of the country is voting C
  Idunno guys, I just feel like if we work really hard to siphon votes away from B, we can make it work
  
  Yes, I have heard this math. Many, many, many, many times. Now, try the math where this is a democracy, we have the right to vote for whoever we want, the election results aren't magically predetermined, and the 100% can be subdivided in any way among the group of all candidates - so long as the population, or even just a majority of it, isn't religiously locked into the idea that they must vote for whatever candidate has a specific label or color next to their name.
  
  There are no wildflowers on the road to hell, but it is paved with good intentions.
  C is right there only if you're naive enougn to believe it.
  Most people don't want war. Yet they will go to war, each side convinced in their own self-righteousness. That is the human condition. Picking wildflowers isn't going to stop the Nazi boot or anything else for that matter. Another way to think about it - Charlie Chaplin's messages in the 1930s were great, full of hope, and reached a lot of people. But that was nowhere near what was needed. Tens of millions had to die. It's not gonna be any different this time around, Chaplin or no Chaplin.
  
  It's not the "human condition". All of these things are products of cultural practices and belief systems. Not all societies wage war. Not all societies put mass murderers in control. You cannot be so careless with your logic and hope to ever arrive at a correct conclusion.
  
  And we (informed voters) spent a year and a half painting you a very detailed picture of what was going to happen if you didn’t suck it up and do what was necessary to keep a rapist traitor out of the White House. Hell.. even HE spent a year and a half telling you exactly what he was going to do.
  Remember Project 2025? Yeah… that is the actual name of what’s happening right now.
  Sooo…..
  What the fuck are we supposed to say?
  Start with: “I’m sorry” and work from there. Because anything short of this is unacceptable.
  
  To be honest, of all the posts I've seen of the shit Trump is pulling, all I've seen is comments complaining of the Democrats who didn't vote. The actual story in the post...crickets. It's unnerving when you want to actually see comments about the subject of the post and all the comments are "wwuuaahhh, you didn't vote for Harris it's all your fault" against people who aren't even reading the goddamn posts. I'm sick of it!
  Like...I hear you guys. I don't fully agree but I hear you. But for fuck sakes, let it go, lets talk about the actual post instead of going on and on about the perceived injustice the Democrats have suffefed. Right or wrong, it's done! Let it go!
  
  Did you think that maybe it’s because we all already knew about all of this shit? So it’s not as important for us to spend time discussing it because…
  WE ALREADY HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST YEAR.
  
  Yes, I know you know. You are all very smart and sofisticated. But by being stuck on your complaining you are preventing people from discussing what really matters. In my case I see a post about the latest Trump antic, I go in with a opinion to give and eager to see other people's insights.
  But it's all "wuahhhaaa...it's all their fault" and the actual shit that Trump pulled takes the back seat and is buried in your moping. So I've mostly given up on commenting on these posts even though I agree more with you than not. Trump himself couldn't censor me more effectively.
  Your priority is being right. And since the shit that Trump does makes it easier for you to feel right then that is all you want the world to know. How right you are and how wrong the others were. And they should say "sorry" for eternity so you can feel right forever, while Trumps rapes your butt because your ego is what matters.
  I want to be angry with you. But ultimately I just find it sad and depressing.
  
  Neat!
  
  So wtf are you doing on here then? Your entire premise is so sad, months after one failed victory and you're demanding random strangers say they're "sorry" to you? Were you Kamala's campaign manager or something? Because the vibes fit right in.
  You spent a year telling people what to do, congrats. Do you think the progressive movement just started? Do you think this is the first set-back the world has succumbed to?
  It's kinda obvious that comments like yours reveal it's just some sort of sports game to you. You spent one singular year talking progressively, so now it's not as important to you but will post several comments saying how important it is for others on your team to bow down to your superiority.... because you spent a singular year talking progressively.... whoopdee fucking doo.
  
  You've also been whining and crying about third party voters for the past year, but you still find that important enough to go on about at every opportunity.
  
  You mean prior to the election? when we all told you what would happen and instead of listening, you all played victim and reported everyone for being mean to you?
  Yeah… if you want to call asking people to do the right thing “whining and crying,” sure.
  Now I’m absolutely going to go on about it at every opportunity because I truly believe that you should never be let off the hook on this.
  
  spent a year and a half painting you a very detailed picture of what was going to happen if you didn’t suck it up and do what was necessary to keep a rapist traitor out of the White House
  Oh, far more than a year and a half.
  Joe Biden to rich donors: "Nothing would fundamentally change" if he's elected
  Dems made it crystal clear that they were going to roll over to Republicans, whether nor not they won. Absolutely nothing in the last month has lent weight to the contrary.
  
  The only thing that would have kept Trump out of the whitehouse was for the democrats to stop facilitating genocide.
  You blue MAGA are the ones who helped them maintain the delusion they could have both their genocide and win. You helped them maintain the delusion they could have won with Biden until 5 months before the election.
  
  The sad truth is that turning on Israel would have done more damage to the democrats electorally than it would’ve helped. Not saying it’s good, just sayings it’s true, and waving Gaza around as “the reason” Harris lost is kind of disingenuous and misses the bigger picture
  
  Yes, the bigger picture is that as soon as Harris got the nomination, she ran back to the cold, dead embrace of the Biden campaign, and supported every single policy that made Biden so unpopular. No muslim spoke at the DNC, but they had cops, CPB, and republicans speaking for the party.
  Her words when asked what the difference between a Biden and Harris admin would be was "Well I would appoint a republican to my cabinet".
  
  Yes, the bigger picture is that Harris was a bad candidate for a litany of reasons.
  
  Harris could have been a great candidate. The flaw was that she promised more of the same. She would have trounced Trump if she became the candidate we all hoped she would be in the weeks after she announced and appointed Tim Walz VP.
  This isn't a messaging issue. Biden's greatest flaw wasn't that he was old, it was that he didn't fight for the things people elected him to fight for, and instead compromised with republicans, ended covid protections, built more of Turmps wall, deported more immigrants, sent more weapons to Israel, and did fuckall to protect women's rights.
  
  Right up front, I voted for the ‘lesser evil’ in a swing state, so stow those comments about me enabling fascism.
  
  The sad truth is that turning on Israel would have done more damage to the democrats electorally than it would’ve helped
  I mean, you can keep saying that. But it’s not even true among Jewish voters, let alone the larger electorate.
  I’m really starting to suspect these kind of comments are morality laundering after spending months backing an immoral stance held by a feckless executive who refused to see past his moral blind spot.
  The populace didn’t want the death and destruction.
  Career bureaucrats at the state department didn’t want it.
  Online commentators refused to seriously entertain criticism of Joe as anything but bad faith - so the message became “we’re okay with it” never “I don’t want this or Trump, do better Joe”
  
  The sad truth is that turning on Israel would have done more damage to the democrats electorally than it would’ve helped.
  "Our country just wants genocide too much" is quite the take.
  I love this logic because it doesn't even matter how bad the position is - we could be arguing against sending immigrants to gas chambers and you could still say "sorry, they can't run against that because they'd lose more votes than they'd gain". Nevermind the fact that they helped to create the political reality that they are now claiming to be helpless against. They spent the last 80 years making Israel into the centerpiece of middle eastern foreign policy and now they can't speak out against an ongoing genocide because they might lose their control and influence in the region.
  Even better - some of the same people saying 'gaza isn't the reason we lost' are also saying 'we lost because we're too woke' - it shows just how much contempt the democrats have for their base that they dismiss the problem being with their genocidal foreign policy and instead blame their loss on being too friendly toward minorities.
  
  LMAO your moral stand is going to literally get people murdered.
  How does that feel? I think it'd feel bad.
  
  You don't even need to take the moral stand to tell democrats to do the moral thing when the moral thing is also the only shot they had at winning.
  Your stance is morally repugnant, but more importantly, ineffective. We told the democrats they would lose if they did genocide. You told the democrats they could win while doing genocide. Look at what happened.
  
  Lmao, are you making a moral argument against acting according to morals?
  
  bLuE mAgA!
  It’s good to see you leaning into what your entitlement has won for you. Glad you can own it so transparently.
  People are going to suffer but at least it’s not the democrats brand of genocide, right?
  
  You learned nothing in 2016, you learned nothing in 2020, and you learned nothing in 2024. Can't wait to see you insisting that the democrats can win while running on compromise, building the wall, deporting every immigrant, getting tough on crime, banning trans people from public life, and continuing whatever war Trump starts in 2028.
  
  That still doesn’t sound like “I’m sorry.”
  
  And that's all you care about, the personal insult to you
  
  Doesn’t even rhyme with “I’m sorry.”
  But to respond, since clearly you haven’t read (or understood) anything I’ve said up to this point-
  What I care about is the personal insult to women, the LGBTQ+, minorities, asylum seekers, birthright citizens and all the progress each of these have made that is being erased as a result of entitled minions that think they have the luxury to gamble the rights of others away….
  (For the record, I don’t fall into any of these categories, so the only insult happening to me here, is the unmitigated ignorance it takes for one to think that doing nothing at all somehow brings change. I hate willful ignorance. Especially when this country provided all the freedoms one needs to educate themselves enough to grasp even the most basic concept of common sense)
  
  God imagine if there was a Blue MAGA, a cult that was just as die-hard about protecting transpeople, labor rights, and all that as Red MAGA was with destroying them.
  
  I cannot imagine a cult stronger than one supporting genocide.
  
  There is, they're called leftists and they've been systemically expelled from the Democrat party.
  
  🤡
  
  Its difficult because the dems 100% were enabling genocide. But, crazy enough, there's bad and worse genocide.
  People who protest vote think they're "showing the dems" when they don't vote. Maybe the dems lose now but they learn a painful lesson and change in the future.
  But here's the thing. The dems would rather lose to republicans than change. They will eat your protest vote. And they will accept they lost power for 4 years. And then they get re-elected and go back to what they were doing before. Being greedy and taking money from lobbyist as much as possible, including AIPAC, but not outright malicious. They never change because people only vote centrist dem or further right.
  And them dems suck. They're bad. But Republicans? They're worse. They aren't doing genocide just for the profits. They're also doing it for the fun of it. The dems will show some restraint to avoid war with Iran. The Republicans won't.
  So the protest vote won't show the dems shit. It will just unleash unapologetic genocide instead of milquetoast genocide. And while they're at it, the republicans will tank the economy and fuck up the lives of every minority they can manage.
  
  They never change because people only vote centrist dem or further right.
  Except no they don't, every time the dems run to the center, they get beat the fuck out. The only reason rightwing and centrist dems do well in primaries is because the billionaires and the party elite will do anything to keep it that way. There's a reason Bloomberg dropped out the moment Bernie was no longer a threat.
  Left policy is overwhelmingly popular with the people because it helps the people instead of the capitalists. It becomes even more popular when it's implemented, hence why even rightwing parties in countries with universal healthcare never run on switching to the american system.
  The dems didn't lose due to protest votes, they lost because they ran to the right and nobody came out to vote because rightwing policies are unpopular. Which is what I have been saying would happen since 2020 if Biden doesn't fight for us. Shit, when I was phonebanking for Biden in 2020, when I got young potential voters who were already activated, I didn't have the heart to tell them that none of the issues they associated with the dems, emptying the cages full of migrants, regular checks for people who couldn't work during covid, free healthcare, free college, weren't part of Biden's platform.
  
  The dems would rather lose to republicans than change. They will eat your protest vote.
  Fine, watch as we dismantle and destroy the DNC and build a structure in its place that responds to and respects the voices of its members, especially the vulnerable and oppressed.
  We aren't fucking around and no amount of money or corporate media spin is going to stop us.
  Your move DNC
  
  Work within the constraints of the first past the post voting system you have while working toward ranked choice or something more functional.
  
  Joe offered me Vanilla Ice Cream, but I prefer Strawberry, so to spite Joe I took Donald's offer to let him piss in my mouth...
  You were warned what Trump wanted to do, and now he's turning Palestine into a Trump Resort
  
  Joe offered me Vanilla Ice Cream, but I prefer Strawberry,
  This is literally what centrists think about people who are upset about their genocide.
  
  Your daily reminder that BlueMAGA don't care about genocide
  
  You spent a year criticising your own side and supporting a "both sides" narrative. You can't now pretend that you were trying to help the dems get elected.
  There are literally commenters all over this thread (about Trumps intention to invade gaza), who believe Trump will produce a better outcome for Palestinians.
  
  It is extremely telling that you consider criticising your own side to be incompatible to wanting that side to win.

343 comments