• Tja@programming.devEnglish
    28·
    4 hours ago

    Microwave pizza? You have two hours to get me a gourmet truffle caviar pizza, or I’ll eat a bowl of shit!

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish
    183·
    14 hours 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
      102·
      14 hours ago

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

      • adminofoz@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        36·
        9 hours 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
          81·
          7 hours 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
            42·
            7 hours 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
              21·
              3 hours 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 a group of 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”. Or “among 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.

  • meep_launcher@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    242·
    16 hours 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
      171·
      15 hours 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

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubEnglish
    35·
    6 hours 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

    • WraithGear@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      4 hours ago

      you are missing all the other issues that were swirling around her as a candidate, but may have been swallowed, up until she double tapped her self on live tv backing a genocide and the wealthy that are currently sacking the nation, after the dnc attempted to push biden again who was also for the same reasons not popular AND doing it so late that they could push to skip a primary.

      from a party that is doing its best to help the right while thinly claiming ignoreance.

  • switcheroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    39·
    20 hours 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.

  • aberrate_junior_beatnik (he/him)@midwest.socialEnglish
    836·
    1 day 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.

      • fodor@lemmy.zipEnglish
        203·
        17 hours 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
          112·
          14 hours 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.

            • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
              6·
              8 hours ago

              That’s not how elections work. It’s way more complicated than identifying the lesser of two evils, especially when turnout is a factor.

              It’s also not all about voting, it’s also about organizing and outreach. Sure, I voted for Harris. Did I make calls for her, put up signs, or canvas the neighborhood? Fuck no. The last thing I want to do is try to convince people to vote for a candidate I hate. Enthusiasm matters, especially for Democrats. Harris had a shit ground game, and that’s why.

              • Claidheamh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                33·
                8 hours ago

                I’m enthusiastic about voting against fascism, and I’ve done so in every election in my adult life. It’s really not that complicated. The only reason to make it complicated is increasing profit factor for media conglomerates, which I guess somewhat explains what’s happening to your country.

                • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
                  2·
                  4 hours ago

                  Republicans are liberal fascists and establishment Democrats are fascist liberals. There was no realistic “against fascism” option on the ballot. I took the harm reduction path and voted for the fascist liberal, but that’s irrelevant.

                  Yes, media consolidation was a huge factor. Russian influence operations were likely another. Both are dwarfed though by the impact of constant lies and betrayals from establishment Democrats.

                  I strongly agree that allowing Trump to win was a really dumb move. However, I do understand how people got there. It makes total sense that the Democrats lost, given their history and the campaign Harris ran. I don’t think that’s an “American” thing. We’re hardly the first to elect a demagogue when neoliberalism fails.

                  Of all eligible voters, around 2/3 didn’t vote for Harris. (1/3 stayed home or cast protest votes). Of that group, I have the least problem with those who were (de)motivated by a candidate who actively participated in the commission of a genocide.

                • WraithGear@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  4·
                  6 hours ago

                  then you should not be content with the lesser of two evils, and playing the blame game instead of joining us in attacking the dnc until it gives up what we want… instead of enabling the very pattern that got us into this mess to begin with. but here we are.

                  you probably blame people for not voting hillary clinton as well even though she promoted trump as a punching bag and still managed to lose. on top of all the other bull shit she was up to.

                  you are too focused on short term ceding of ground to a slow fall right instead of fighting against all rightward movement

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            101·
            18 hours 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”.

      • Salamence@mander.xyzOPEnglish
        338·
        21 hours ago

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

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    736·
    1 day 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!

    • thlibos@thelemmy.clubEnglish
      304·
      21 hours ago

      I have enough time to do both, thanks. I am not content to just sit around and do nothing but punch down until election day and happily vote for GOP-lite every fucking time.

    • All Ice In Chains@lemmy.mlEnglish
      335·
      22 hours ago

      No, you’d rather pre-complain about a choice that you can actively influence and hasn’t happened yet.

      Literally complaining about actively influencing said choice using memery

    • deathbird@mander.xyzEnglish
      71·
      16 hours ago

      I haven’t seen one yet that I really like, but it’s still 3 years out. This is the best time to talk about what you do or don’t like about a candidate or policy, and the worst time to settle.

    • Mniot@programming.devEnglish
      54·
      15 hours ago

      Not “someone”. It has to be the DNC. And it need to show me the text where it broke up with Israel. And it needs to apologize to Bernie. Also I will still not like its candidate.

      If I tried to promote a candidate on my own or talked to any other org, than DNC would think I wasn’t serious about how much I’m not going to vote for its candidate.