There are some libertarian types who might put up a token objection to medding in foreign conflicts. However, Trump equivocated on foreign policy while Biden and Harris were fully gung ho about getting involved in every conflict everywhere, which allowed Trump to sell himself as more “moderate” on foreign policy (though in reality he’s also a hawk).

The core of Trump’s base has no problem with it, of course, but they’re always going to vote for him and not every voter Trump replied on to win fits that stereotype.

And to think, there are people around here who accuse me of not being a “real” leftist. Who but a leftist would post a page from from a webcomic that’s 90% text? Checkmate libs.

I’ll just leave this here

“We have to give them everything they want from us first, and then we can start pressuring^[1] them!”

I learn from the best! This comment would have been unironically upvoted a year ago by all the people downvoting it now.

You’re exactly right. There’s absolutely no way to influence the Democratic party’s decisions through criticism or making it clear that they’re on track to lose. Joe Biden is who we’re stuck with and if you say you won’t vote for him, you’re completely useless. He’s the only one who can beat Trump.

Strangely, he wasn’t listed on my ballot so I just had to write him in.

Wow, this thread is full of Russian bots and Trump supporters. Biden is the picture of health, extremely spry and cognizant, personally, I thought he handled himself very well in the debates, despite the media attacking him unfairly over his stutter. Regardless, he’s the nominee, whether you like him or not, no amount of complaining will change that. He’s the lesser evil so we’re stuck with him and you just have to vote for him, unconditionally.

We can’t condemn the Nazis because if we condemn the Nazis people will think we’re Nazis. When people see that we won’t condemn the Nazis, that’s how they’ll know we aren’t Nazis.

Non sequitor. Not what I said and not a Republican.

Campaigns are about winning swing states, those are just the rules of the game. Kamala lost that game worse than any Democrat in nearly 40 years. Maybe the rules we have aren’t fair, and if they were different, she would’ve lost by a smaller margin. But then, both campaigns would’ve been run completely differently, the same candidates might not have even been the nominees, etc.

By the actual rules of the actual game, Kamala lost extremely badly.

This was literally the worst electoral map for the Democrats since 1988 when Republicans won Illinois and California.

I’m confused, when you talk about voting “Democrat,” do you mean, for the Democratic-Republicans? I was thinking of voting Federalist, personally.

Since our system makes it impossible to change from the two currently existing parties, it follows that the two parties we have now must be the ones we started with.

But regardless, this is typical shortsighted liberal (i.e. capitalist) analysis that only looks at the immediate outcome and only at electoral politics. If a significant portion of the electorate can make a credible threat to sit out if their demands are not met, then they can leverage that threat to get what they want. The right is much more willing to do this because they put their values above reason, and it works - many Republican candidates understand that if they look soft on things like abortion or guns, a sizable portion of their base will defect, even if it means voting for a crank and throwing the election. Democratic voters are much more committed to being “reasonable” and so refuse to set any red lines anywhere, and the results are clear: the right successfully shifts the Republicans to be more extreme, the Democrats follow, and the left falls in line and accepts it. We are desperately overdue to start learning from their successful tactics and from our own failures, setting down red lines, and thinking beyond the current cycle. And we can debate where exactly red lines should be set, but if genocide doesn’t deserve one, nothing does.

Moreover, the facts of physical reality, the material conditions, and the myriad of crises we’re facing demand radical changes beyond what we are told are possible in the existing system. But those things are physical, natural, immutable facts, while our political system is, on a fundamental level, manmade. We do not have to abide by its rules and what it tells us is and isn’t possible - but we do have to do that regarding the laws of nature, which tell us about things like climate change. Monarchy had no mechanism built into the system to transform into liberal democracy, and yet, here we are. That’s because there are fundamental mechanisms for change that exist within every political system, whether the system wants them to or not, and I don’t just mean revolutions, but demonstrations, strikes, etc. And so, the party I voted for, PSL, participates in electoral politics for the express purpose of building organization beyond electoral politics. Helping a candidate who I see as fundamentally unacceptable win an election is less important that helping to promote that sort of organizing.

A note on this survey is that it was taken of all likely voters, so it’s possible it could be influenced by conservatives being, let’s say, not very normal about her. Regardless, people on both sides often see the Democratic party much further left than it really is.

More like, a good contingent of those voters voted unconditionally for these people, who they had every reason to believe would act like this. They did this to themselves.

Nothing? Who said anything about doing anything to them?

By the way, while I’ve got you here, did you know that a mod of c/Germany (as well as most of feddit judging by the upvote ratios) thinks you’re a rabid antisemite who wants to kill all Jews, and who thinks people should go to Gaza to join Hamas, because they misread some of your comments defending their policy? I was wondering if you’d do me a favor and explain to them that you’re on their side, I doubt that you’d want that sort of libel going around.

Feddit.org now bans

• The sentence “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”

• Comparing Israel to the Nazis

• Calls to end Zionism

• Calling for the dissolution of Israel

What’s the appropriate legal punishment for murdering 45 children? Because I think that all those responsible, including Netanyahu and Trump, should face the same punishment for this that an ordinary citizen would.

I just quoted what you said. Your real position is crystal clear, you’re a Zionist who thinks criticism of Israel should warrant a ban and also be illegal, because you view anti-zionism as a “dogwhistle” for anti-semitism. You are not, however, “happy to stand by it,” because you’re hiding behind all these excuses about “complying with the law.” The problem is you slipped up and gave the game away with your “dogwhistle” line.

It’s so funny how you types are constantly hiding behind the law and saying, “I didn’t make the law, I don’t agree with it, but they have to do this to avoid legal liability, hands are tied” and then five seconds later you say stuff like, “criticism of Israel is a dogwhistle for antisemitism.”

You’re a coward, refusing to admit your real positions because you know you can’t defend them.

Why would they have to “go” anywhere?