• aberrate_junior_beatnik (he/him)@midwest.socialEnglish
    353·
    9 days ago

    Of course being pro genocide lost Harris votes. The DNC is fine with Republicans (including Trump) winning so long as they can preclude the left, which is the actual purpose of the Democratic party. Most of the base will happily be useful idiots and spend their energy punching left rather than allow any criticism of the party, all the while calling the left naive and blaming them for losing elections.

      • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
        55·
        9 days ago

        Is that actually preferred?

        I dunno, maybe we should have an election to see. Oh, wait, we did. I guess you have your answer. So what should the Democrats do about that?

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          5·
          9 days ago

          Field a candidate which is not evil?!

          If they want to they’re the solution for the problem of their own making.

      • Salamence@mander.xyzOPEnglish
        286·
        9 days ago

        the brave pro genocide democrat lol, you people deserve a century of humiliation

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            8·
            9 days ago

            Fun fact: everyone who doesn’t support the exact amount of genocide Harris did is actually a Russian. Especially if they’re spewing bullshit like “that crosses a line” or “Jesus Christ it’s literally genocide”.

      • fodor@lemmy.zipEnglish
        122·
        9 days ago

        Oh my friend, you read like an undercover right-wing plant. It’s fairly obvious to anyone with a conscience that genocide is the simplest and most important issue that a candidate could fuck up. And Harris did that.

        Let’s compare issues. I would say that on various issues (immigration, defense spending, health care) her stances were certainly not left-wing. Center, center-right, pro-corporate, that’s what I would say. And these are important issues. But I think it’s also true that she could have maintained many of those stances and still win. After all, previous Democrat presidents did.

        If you’re afraid to say that genocide is wrong, and actively work to stop it, you deserve to lose.

        • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
          62·
          9 days ago

          It’s not even just genocide, it’s trust. Exactly how much trust should we put in a candidate who participated in supporting and covering for a genocide? Sure, she aligns with my issues slightly more than Trump. What good is that if she’s a liar too? It’s no damn wonder people didn’t show up to vote.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    322·
    9 days ago

    DNC: Um, aktuly, the Dems are running a candidate who has repeatedly endorsed a 10-12% reduction in genocide over 30 years. What have you lefty shits ever done?

    Leftist: NYC Mayor Mamdani’s revocation of the anti-BDS Executive Order issued last month by the previous mayor, who’s accused of serious corruption and was funded by Israel lobby groups. Executive Order 60 was modelled after similar, Israel-induced anti-BDS legislation in other US states and prevented any mayoral agencies or appointees from doing business with vendors and organizations complying with international law by holding genocidal Israel accountable. Mamdani also revoked an Executive Order which had adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, an anti-Palestinian racist tool pushed by apartheid Israel and its lobby groups to conflate condemnation of Israel and BDS campaigning to dismantle its illegal regime of settler-colonialism and apartheid on the one hand with anti-Jewish racism on the other.

    DNC: OH SO YOU HATE JEWS, DO YOU?! WELL I’M GOING TO VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP!

  • switcheroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    9 days ago

    And the dnc trash is also pushing moderates.

    We don’t want fucking moderates! We don’t want more status quo losers afraid to rock the boat and gasp actually improve the citizens’ lives.

  • meep_launcher@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    171·
    9 days ago

    Former liberal here. I always felt I had a more wonkish bent, that pragmatism needs to be more front and center in politics.

    But if I’m now in the leftist camp, it’s not like Dems are going to go anywhere but the way of the whigs if they don’t take some actual stances. They’ve lost all imagination. You can’t win on damage control.

    • astropenguin5@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      9 days ago

      At this point the wonkish pragmatism is that they need to be more progressive and actually take stances on shit. It’s clearly what works.

      It’s just that at this point the DNC doesn’t care about winning anymore

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish
    72·
    9 days ago

    DNCs are most certainly not on the left, they never were, i dare say it they are REPUBLICAN rejects. aside from a few of them. center right is the parties main stance on most things. They are the defense while the gop is the spear. its too keep minority groups(women, pocs, lgbtq) from gaining significant support and power and overtaking the party from the status quo.

    • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
      2·
      9 days ago

      It’s not all Democrats though. Unfortunately the Democrats in charge are the absolute worst of the bunch.

      • adminofoz@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        01·
        8 days ago

        Its not all democrats… brought to you by the same group who produced hits like “its not all white people” and “its not all cops”!

        • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          8 days ago

          One of these three is not like the others: oh, right, one of them is an entire fucking class of people who don’t get to choose their skin tone at birth. Shut the fuck up with that. Cops and politicos get to choose where they stand. The fuck, precisely, do you expect people to do about the color of their skin?

          • adminofoz@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            12·
            8 days ago

            My issue isn’t with white people, my issue is everytime someone accurately identifies an issue, there is always someone in the comments with the “its not all X…” except 95% of the people are not saying its all of them. It’s a distraction.

            Your comment proves exactly what im getting at you got so upset that I suggested white people have some issue that you didnt stop to question if you even understood what I was saying. Im not saying white people are inherently bad at birth. I never even said anything close to that.

            We need to be able to say democrats have a genocide issue. Full stop.

            White people have a racism problem. Full stop.

            Cops have an accountability problem. Full stop.

            Politicians have a lobbying issue. Full stop.

            • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              8 days ago

              Checking on your comment history, you seem like a reasonable person, with whom i probably agree on many issues. I agree with nearly everything you have said. However, since i know you’re american, just like me, allow me to try to give my perspective on why your statement on white people, writ-large, is problematic:

              Every single person on earth is hardwired to discriminate against “the other”. You, me, Trump and <insert person you don’t find reprehensible here>. This instinct toward petty tribalism is the single greatest challenge we currently face as a species (aside, perhaps, from the fact that we’re allowing industrial capitalism to actively boil our planet).

              Can you not see how the unmeasured response of saying “people with this color of skin have this problem” is, inherently, not just problematic, but actively defeats the purpose of what you’re trying to say? This isn’t the same thing as a positive statement like “black lives matter”. Yes, of course “all lives matter”, but clearly the fact that black lives matter needs to be explicitly pointed out. However, saying that “black lives matter” is not claiming anything negative about any person based on an immutable trait.

              Consider the following statements common here in the US, each of which is something you should find reprehensible. In each case, consider the immutable trait, and what libelous problem is being inherently associated with that group of people:

              1. “Mexicans/Colombians have a drug problem”
              2. “The Chinese have a genocide problem”
              3. “Black people have a crime problem”

              For each of these, a portion of the people with that immutable trait definitively do have that problem. There are Mexican and Colombian cartels. The Chinese government is perpetrating a genocide against an ethnic minority. Some black people are criminals. However, when you paint with such a wide brush, you don’t just perpetrate discrimination against the whole group of people who don’t get to choose where they were born, or the style of their governance, let alone the color of their skin. You actively alienate any people in each group who might agree with the existence of a problem, and you also ignore any context which shows the greater, actual problem:

              1. The systems of drug regulation have failed.
              2. Dictatorial regimes perpetrate genocides as easily as signing a piece of paper.
              3. Crime is a problem everywhere, regardless of skin tone, as are its underlying causes of poverty and lack of opportunity.

              Obviously, each of those earlier statements (especially the one about black people. That one hurt to write) is deeply flawed, and utterly unproductive. Anyone painting an immutable trait as having a specific problem (aside from genetic problems) is inherently engaging in that same alienation, that same othering, as the people they find so reprehensible. Everyone has a moral duty to work toward ending the issues which plague our civilisation, but saying “you have a racism problem” not only misses the point entirely, but actively makes the problem worse.

              I have no problem with calling out discrimination against group people, but making a statement like “men have a domestic abuse problem” is inherently unproductive and problematic, and sounds like nothing but picking a fight. “There is a serious problem with white people discriminating against people of different skin tones.” Vs. “White people have a racism problem. Full stop.”

              In fact, I wouldn’t even take issue with the statement “We have a racism problem caused by white people”. That’s still painting with a wide brush, and is still problematic, but it isn’t directly implying that every single person with white skin is perpetrating racist acts.

              Anyone engaging with the democratic party must contend with the fact that the leaders of the party are actively abetting genocide. But the fact that you were born with white skin does not imply that you need to engage with the problem of racism. EVERYONE needs to engage with the problem of racism, and bringing an immutable trait into it to call people out is inherently problematic.

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubEnglish
    21·
    8 days ago

    My impression is that what should be simple (always “genocide no”) gets much more mealy-mouthed (e.g. “I’m totally pro Israel…but maybe let’s rein in the genocide…oh no I don’t mean Israel shouldn’t have the right to defend itself!") precisely when anyone who wishes to do good by getting elected is confronted with the reality that there’s a rampaging nationalist organization sandbagging and bullying candidates, promoting others for policy favors and effectively holding big chunks of the electorate hostage in elections.

    In practice, that means when I see otherwise good candidates use their talking points or be evasive and spineless on the topic of Israel, I’m quicker to think that they might simply have chosen a different battle, than to think they actually believe that there’s nothing wrong.

    More simply, if standing up to the nationalist bully will almost certainly end their career/role/office before they even had a chance to begin, how many do you think will divert from the issues they entered politics for just to be the one to take out the bully? I’m guessing it’s a small number.

    So while I do see it as cowardly on a personal level, and personally I’d prefer to quit politics than to get pushed around and just hold my tongue or say their lines, I also assume that it’s a decision made under duress without further evidence to the contrary.

    In short, calling candidates “pro genocide” and expecting individual candidates to take the bully head-on in any particular race feels unfair to me, or at least misguided since, if we actually want to change this situation, my generation really needs to have some frank chats with their parents about their AIPAC donations.

    What am I missing?

    Edit: typos swype errors missing words