I fail to see any logic with anyone interviewed. They knew things would be worse for Palestine and Lebanon with the donvict, they know they personally may face hardship as a consequence of the election. They know they were duped.
But they wanted to punish Democrats and Harris particularly. Does that satisfaction make the rest of the shit sandwich taste good?
Not just worse for Palestinians. Remember, Trump enacted the first US Muslim immigrant ban in 2017.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/the-enduring-harms-of-trumps-muslim-ban
The logic is that it’s simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, “yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!”
It’s just a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy. The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others, who want to do what they can to make a positive difference in this world. And Kamala’s brilliant plan was to appeal to those bleeding hearts with a message of, “yes, I’m fine with genocide, but the genocide will go even faster if my opponent is elected!”?
What dirt-fucking moron thought that was a good idea?
The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others
That hasn’t been true since Clinton and the blue dogs. They became what Republicans used to be over the last 30 years. It has been said many times, but there simply isn’t a viable left wing/worker’s party in the US. Other countries have labor and social democrat parties for that.
They used to be a hell of a lot more radical. The “new deal” was originally planned to go a hell of a lot further with social policies. We could have had taxpayer-funded healthcare in the 1940s.
What dirt-fucking moron thought “I’m against genocide, so I’m going to make the genocide go faster! That’ll show 'em!” was a good idea? You don’t tell someone not to shoot you in the foot by telling them to shoot you in the head instead.
Because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference. At some point you’re sitting there deciding between Hitler or Mussolini. Mussolini might objectively be the better choice, as his crimes are fewer than Hitler’s by pure magnitude. But given that choice, a lot of people will just refuse to participate.
People don’t vote based on pure logic. That’s not how human beings operate. Don’t make your voters feel like they need to go to confess their sins to a priest after voting for your candidate, and maybe then you won’t have people refusing to vote for them.
As the song goes, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” If you sat out knowing full well that doing so is a de-facto vote for Trump, you still chose to sit out. That means you still chose to make things actively worse. And you made that choice knowing that it would make things actively worse for them and for you.
Your choices have consequences. Your choice will make things worse for yourself and the people you claim to be standing up for. And you made your choice knowing that doing so would make things worse. You share in the responsibility for that, and all the cognitive dissonance in the world may make you sleep slightly better at night, but it doesn’t change that fact. Congratulations. You sent the Democrats a message to put up a “better” candidate in 2028. I’m sure that the few million Palenstinians that will be either displaced or outright killed between now and then will be grateful for that.
I voted for Harris. I support Gaza, and I know that Harris would not have likely done very much to help them. But I do not believe that the answer to that problem was to send someone in who’s plan is to kill them faster while fucking over a shit-ton of other people in the process.
And I get it. It’s a classic example of Sophie’s choice. I don’t particularly like the “Hitler/Musollini” bit but let’s just say “Killer A” and “Killer B”. I get it; No matter which one you choose, you’re dead either way so why does it matter? Totally get it. But that wasn’t what was here. It was “Killer A saying you may die in six months” vs. “Killer B is going to kill you tomorrow.” See the difference? A lot of people would likely want to live another six months, if only to hold onto the hope that they’ll find a way out in the interim.
Instead, they voted for a guy who wants to send missiles over there like it’s the 4th of July.
Vote now. Protest later. Don’t elect Trump.
Maybe you missed the statements calling for a cease fire.
Someone else assembled this reference for those ignorant of the news.
who want to do what they can to make a positive difference
Then they elect Trump. Smart.
a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy
Sounds like a description of the GeNoCiDe jOe crowd who helped end democracy
Imagine believing the USA was ever a democracy.
Yes because it was a piece of shit already so let’s make it worse and pretend to be moral while doing it
The logic is that it’s simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, “yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!”
This has been explained. I worry that going over it again will somehow not be helpful. Just let the leopards eat all our faces like you decided.
You have to understand Harris accepted millions in bribes from pro-Israeli lobbying groups.
It was a hard choice between genocide and money, but Harris found a way to sell out America and keep both.
As did literally every other president for the last 40+ years. Now you’ve elected Trump instead. Smart.
Libs trying to argue for participation in the system by pointing out how it’s a complete failure.
Standard dem election strategy.
Yeah better elect Trump. That’ll sort it.
Vote now. Protest later.
But they wanted to punish Democrats and Harris particularly. Does that satisfaction make the rest of the shit sandwich taste good?
It doesn’t, but they won’t admit it. Spite is a powerful driver for self-delusion and denial.
It’s not too dissimilar from how a Trump voter thinks in my opinion. Alot of them know they’re getting fucked but just want someone they hate to get fucked a little harder and they’re happy.
TBH I just want the dems to stop supporting genocide. Since the dems aren’t motivated by empathy or principle but by self-interested politricks, I’m hoping that a trump-led genocide will motivate the dems to stop genociding people.
Well it’s great to hear you’ve found a silver lining for a fucking genocide. /s
Y’all nostradamuses keep saying it’s going to get worse while genocide joe never ceases genociding. It’ll probably be the same like it’s been for the past 75+ years.
U.S. to Keep Sending Arms to Israel Despite Dire Conditions in Gaza
Palestine is the same as it has been for the last 75 years.
Narrator: it wasn’t. Everyone in the country loses.
spoiler
It was not.
The article is a lot more nuanced than the headline. Arab- and Muslim-Americans knew that neither candidate cared about them, and the article explains various ways that affected their thinking.
It really was, well except for Rola Makki, her view was just bog standard Republican cognitive dissonance.
Still, absolutely infuriating that they would not vote for Harris even when they knew deep down it would be worse and while I can feel for them and actually do agree with some of their points about Democrats not really being behind minorities, I still find it hard to really feel too bad knowing they not only screwed themselves, they the rest of us too.
They didn’t lose the election for Harris. She failed to get voters across the board. And they’re the one group with the most justified reason to vote spitefully and a conveniently “othered” minority to focus on so the people who ran that terrible campaign don’t have to own up for their failures and liberal white America that thought “the Democrats don’t need to do anything for them because they have no other options” can avoid recognizing that that was a bad sentiment with which to build a coalition.
They didn’t lose the election for Harris.
Right… I don’t think there are enough Arab- and Muslim-Americans in PA to swing it, and she needed that to win the election, even if she had won MI. I suspect it was her failed messaging on the economy that made the difference. But we don’t have final numbers yet so it’s hard to tell.
Whereas the incredibly close elections like 2000 or 2016 could be blamed on basically any one group as pleased the accuser, this one is an across the board loss. That’s not going to stop the moderates from trying to scapegoat minorities though, because otherwise they might need to address that a dedicated dive to the center was an abject failure.
Next up on the list, the trans people, who despite being entirely ignored by the campaign are clearly the people who need to be shoved back in a corner for the convenience of white moderates.
Some Dems have already started to blame focusing on trans people’s basic rights as humans as the reason they lost.
Step 1: Avoid anything related to social justice for the entire campaign and never forcefully counter conservative narratives about vulnerable populations.
Step 2: Blame being too woke for losing.
Do we actually know that Kamala would be any better for Gaza than Trump? Because Biden never altered a single Trump policy when it came to Israel. He enabled Israel just as strong as Trump did.
Moreover, Trump has told Israel that he wants them to wrap it up quickly. That likely means a surge in violence in Gaza in the next few months. And while the death toll from those months will exceed what they would have been under Kamala, the conflict had no end in sight at all under Biden/Harris.
What evidence do we actually have, other than just vibes, that Trump will be worse than Harris? I mean sure, he personally despises all Arab people, but it’s not like Biden or Harris really see the Palestinians as human beings either. Trump is just more overt about it.
Do we actually know that Kamala would be any better for Gaza than Trump?
Given that Israel just announced a plan to annex the West Bank with Trump’s blessing, I’d say the answer is that yes, she would.
That isn’t something new. They’ve been annexing land in the West Bank for years.
It may accelerate under Trump, but it’s nothing new.
Which still leads to the same answer though. Yes, Harris would have at least been better for them because Israel would have moved much more slowly. Had Israel believed they could have sped things up under Biden, they’d have done it over a year ago.
I’m not saying either was particularly “good” for Palestine. But Harris would have still been better than Trump. Look at it this way. Your landlord comes by tomorrow and says you have six months to move out. Or he comes by and says you’re moving out tomorrow. (Legal issues aside. It’s an example. I’m sure you get my point). Which one is better for you? At least with the former you have six months with a roof over your head.
There is no “legal issues aside”. The landlord had his buddy in government change the rules.
Do we actually know that Kamala would be any better for Gaza than Trump?
1000% yes and I don’t believe you’re really asking
Ok. What is Trump going to do that Biden hasn’t already been doing? Everything I’ve seen is that nothing will change except perhaps an acceleration. Whether Gaza is genocided in 1 year or 3 is pretty irrelevant.
I already said I don’t think you’re asking so why would I volunteer to be sealioned for 30 minutes about public information, most of which direct quotes from trump that we all know about?
I’ve seen those stories, but again, I really don’t see anything Trump will do that Harris wouldn’t have.
The big claim is that he’s going to allow Israel to annex land in the West Bank. But that’s been going on for years.
What about annexing land in Gaza? Well, Biden’s sat by while the entirety of north Gaza is now actively being ethnically cleansed. The Israeli military has declared any remaining civilians in the area to be enemy fighters and valid targets. There are hundreds of thousands of people dead.
That is what Biden has sat by and abetted. And the big fear is that Trump might sit back while Israel annexes North Gaza? I’m sorry, but why would you think Biden wouldn’t allow it? Annexing is just filing some paperwork. Hundreds of thousands have been massacred. Emptying a land of its people is a far, far greater a crime than filing some paperwork to formally annex it later. If Biden didn’t have a problem with full-on ethnic cleansing, he is not going to lift a finger to prevent Netanyahu from filing some paperwork. He’s already tolerated the greater crime, he won’t suddenly move to stop a lesser one.
I have certainly heard things that Trump will do. But they honestly don’t seem any worse than what is already happening. I think the only real difference is optics. The key difference between Biden and Trump is that Trump is an overt racist. Trump overtly hates all Muslims; he doesn’t even try to hide it. And because of this, we assume that Trump will be worse for Gaza than Biden has been. But on closer inspection, there really isn’t much more that Trump can do that Biden hasn’t already been doing. Biden already has the “US support to Israel” dial set to 100%. It simply doesn’t go any higher.
No
Yeah he sat by. Trump will almost definitely encourage and support it fully.
It would have been better because like her hero Biden, she would have quietly said Netty was mean behind closed doors.
She would have kept sending guns and money, and defending them from repercussions so they continue to have free rein to commit genocide, but it would be better.
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
Removed by mod
She did not. Do you know what “advocate” means?
Don’t just show up making shit up.
They “turned against?” Inflammatory much?
