Leaders of 'Uncommitted' and 'Abandon Harris' movements reflect on Trump's victory and early moves
A combination of worry and cautious optimism about Trump — and deep anger at the Democratic Party — pervade the groups.
You're viewing a single thread.
Look I get it, the Dems didn't do enough to win over their base and instead went to the center.
But these Dearborn folks in the article get what they deserve and should really shut the fuck up. They voted for a man who said he would extend his Muslim country travel ban to gaza and still thought somehow he was on their side.
You are a complete a total dumbass if you thought he was on your side. He has years and years of lying out of his ass and you believed him and it's the Democrats fault? No I reject that. He literally stated in 2023 that he would extend his travel ban to Gaza. I feel like I need to take crazy pills or something, these people are insufferable.
The article states that some of them just wanted a candidate to acknowledge them, which trump did. Regardless of how he's actually going to implement policies, he did a bare minimum for them, which reflects in the results.
No other real editorializing needed, unfortunately.
How completely pathetic some people can be. I don't understand.
"He had a rally in my town and told me what I wanted to hear, it's no wonder I voted for him" just makes me laugh.
You are a complete a total dumbass if you thought he was on your side.
No one in the dem party thinks trump was on their side in any way. But they also thought Biden/Harris was a rabid dog that it was important for the parties future to put down (rhetorically). Nobody owes fascism or fascism-lite a vote, and I demand better from dems if they want to continue to exist as a party at all. Centrist leaders are not kings who get to make choices like aiding terrorism and murder, and then walk away without accountability.
Not only was no one in the centrist camp doing anything for the peace vote (the anti genocide side), by shipping weapons the centrists were actively and violently acting against the human rights side and the law. Did you think you were siding with neutrality? The DNC has not been neutral in this at all. They are abetting genocide and terrorism, and violating numerous US laws and the geneva convention.
Besides the muslim vote, the youth and progressive votes were heavily influenced by this issue, and their votes were right there for the taking. The Republicans were always going to be violent and corrupt, but people had higher expectations for Dems, so Dems taking those AIPAC bribes had consequences. This seems obvious to so many but you just refuse to see that you're siding with the baddies, not some sort of neutral crowd you could make better someday.
And do you somehow feel powerful calling people dumbasses? Its against the TOS here and you lost along with the rest of us. Its pathetic that even in utter failure you are all mouth and contrived nonsense that your side has clean hands and was trying to do the right thing.
It’s hilarious how you talk about how simple and easy it all is when you quite clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Everything you listed, the Republicans are guilty of by a far larger margin. The difference is that dems were talking about two state solutions while Trump quite literally was telling Bibi to turn Gaza into a goddamn parking lot. (And that’s just the most obvious clue you’re saying nothing of value lol)
I especially enjoyed you attempting to mount your high horse after this piss-poor attack by mentioning the break in TOS when the OP is talking in general and is not attacking a single person. It’s okay to say “people who think x, or do y are dumb”.
If anything, you’re the one breaking TOS:
- Do not engage in name calling, ad hominem attacks, or any other uncivil behaviour. Criticize ideas, never people.
You using the threat of TOS can be seen as ad hominem as a way to delegitimize the comment you replied to.
Everything you listed, the Republicans are guilty of by a far larger margin.
Thats utterly meaningless.
Elaborate please.
This article was about deerborn residents who are Muslim, justifying voting for trump. So these people voted for the party who did things way worse than Democrats and that's utterly meaningless? Can't wait to hear the response.
Having your entire extended family disappeared over a period of a month is not significantly better than having them disappeared over a course of a day.
That isn't hyperbole.
I personally know 2 people that that happened too.
Expecting people to vote for the people that did that to them, and then getting mad at them when they don't vote is some of the stupidest "I don't have empathy and don't even want to try imagining myself in their position, even though I'm going to say I did." bullshit ever.
That isn't hyperbole.
Yes it is, it is an exaggerated claim that you have just said "trust me bro." That is as close as you can get to hyperbole.
Also, again this isn't your opportunity to grandstand about your vote not being earned, I'm sure it was a tough time for you, but I'm actually asking a question that has yet to be answered.
You know nothing about how I voted.
Stop assuming bullshit.
And no, it isn't hyperbole. It happened. If you know any Palestinians at all, and you bothered to show an ounce of human decency and asked them about it, you'd probably find out was true for you, too.
That's what happens in a fucking genocide.
If you had half a braincell you would realize that being argumentive and condescending will only drive people away from the Palestinian plight. Bringing up shit you cannot prove also really does not help your cause either.
Again I've made a point you have, yet again, failed to address, so like most lemmy users you find the opportunity to grandstand about your cause instead of having a discussion.
I mean look at your comments man, if the conversation gets even remotely close to that, you drive the conversation toward your own personal issues. I know you're hurting but you aren't helping your cause at all.
Again I want to point out, the points I made have no been addressed.
Elaborate please.
The vote-for-Biden-because-he-is slightly-better-than-trump-crowd forgot that voters have a third choice-- disengagement and apathy. Which is what happened isnt it. Reduced turnout from almost every single demographic.
Now the Dem brand is trashed, along with the western world order, the brand of democracy itself, and the brand of the united states. All so some incompetent idiots at the DNC could take some filthy AIPAC bribes to enable a far right wing religious genocide and other obvious war crimes.
Previous generations of dems understood that you dont win a campaign by just saying you are a centrist and stopping there. You at least pretend to be progressive during the camapign, because thats what the voters want. You need some carrot. All stick + cult of personality doesnt work. Its not exactly complicated. Canibalizing your base to reach for the mythical middle in republican territory has never turned out votes either. But the loss of the base is a sunk cost when you choose to roll that particular dice. We saw that play out as Harris lost support on a daily basis for the month leading up the election.
Thats not even taking into account that its just plain wrong, and causes people to lose trust in the Dem party. In the case of youth that trust might be permanently lost.
You have not addressed the points that were asked. All you did was a faux putin-esqe history lesson about the history of the Dems and what they did. I want to know why voting for a Republican is better than voting the the democrat. All you did was basically go on a separate rant about a separate issue.
Please try again and actually answer what is being asked.
I dont think you read or understood what I wrote.
We're using text as a medium, it generally requires elaboration. If you were actually interested in making a cognizant point, you would have done that by now.
They didn't vote Trump, they just didn't vote for your racist, sexist, corporate shitbag of a candidate. Sorry, you dont deserve the votes of minorities by promising to genocide them less than the other guy.
Actually yes they did vote trump, studies show that only 20% voted harris. Not to mention the article quite literally is quoting these folks' justification for voting trump. The remainder was split between the green party (you know that party that doesn't do ANY down ballot initiatives and only shows up in swing states in presidential elections) and trump.
This is ignoring the fact that not voting in a swing state is pretty much the same thing as voting for the other person because the race is so close.
It didn't help trump directly but it did help him win.
Despite breathless accusations by idiots, not voting does not equal a vote for the other side.
It absolutely does in a two party duopoly in a swing state. Stop trying to be right and look at the reality of the situation.
Nope. Hold on, let's wait a minute and see... Still no.
It turns out that you have to earn your votes in a democracy. I know that seems weird but it's true.
You're using a strawman here. Man, why are logical fallacies so pervasive here? Never said you don't need to earn votes. I said that not voting for a candidate in a two party duopoly in a swing state is the same as actually voting for candidate because the race is so close. You're welcome to try again though.
No it's a conspiracy, I asked time very nicely if I could use them as part of my joke.
And I am sorry if I went over your head but let me keep this simple. I don't owe the Democratic party shit. If they aren't worth voting for then people aren't going to vote. And that's nobody's problem but the Democratic party. It's not a vote for Trump, or Hitler, or the lizard people. Only a vote for them is a vote for them. And telling people they must vote for the Democrats or else they're a dirty fascist is ridiculous. They're going to laugh at you. And rightly so.
Sigh...... You are just a magnet to strawman fallacies and cannot reject any opportunity to grandstand about your feelings. Answer my question or fuck off lol. You keep taking the opportunity to slam on the Dems but you refuse to address the claims you made. Idk why people cannot answer questions and pretty consistently drive the conversation toward what they want to talk about, all the fucking time. So lame lol.
Your bad faith question about logical fallacies? Sure but first you have to tell me why you're a troll? (Two people can play this game.)
And no, the only "slamming" here is that the Dems didn't earn votes. It's a simple truth. Which is why it takes bad faith questions and aggressive attitudes to cover up if you're trying to convince people they're required to vote against the other guy.
Actually yes they did vote trump, studies show that only 20% voted harris.
As opposed to how many Trump voters and how many non/third party voters?
Dearborn election results:
Love it when someones sea lioning leads to getting facts put in their face, beautiful. Chefs kiss.
They didn't answer the question. Or they answered only the bit that backs their point and ignored the question.
How many people didn't vote is the more important metric here.
Also using the phrase sea lioning for people pointing out that genociding a requisite party of a winning coalition in a swing state is bad electoral strategy is both pathetically sad, and disgusting.
Genocide is not something that can be sea looked, and if you think it is then you're perfectly fine with genocide.
Sorry. My bad, the sea lioning is actually occuring in this comment I replied to.
for people pointing out that genociding a requisite party of a winning coalition in a swing state is bad electoral strategy is both pathetically sad, and disgusting.
Yet another bad faith strawman. For fucks sake lemmy, you all can't be this bad at debating, quite amazing.
Genocide is not something that can be sea looked, and if you think
What a stupid thing to say, you can 100% sea lion about anything including genocide (hello? Holocaust deniers, Moron)
And they did answer the question you asked. Perhaps of you weren't lazy and actually wrote out two sentences, it might not have been overlooked. The voter turnout was about 50% (53%) which was less than national average.
You actually need to learn the various types of logical fallacies. Just calling everything strawmanning just makes you look like a Raman that started, but didn't finish, Logic 101.
You're also not worth more than two sentences.
Well you just gave me three, dumbass.
I'm sorry did I misunderstand a strawman? In the past it meant using an argument a person never stated. I never said half of the shit you claimed, but sure I guess "I'M nOt WORth tHrEe SEnTences"
Moron.
