You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
9 points

We need a party that can say no to genocide. If that can’t be the Democrats, then so be it. I’m not sure where this goes, but the American political landscape is forever changed after this election.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

The problem is this:

Democrats want a peaceful solution to the Genocide.

Republicans want a faster, more complete genocide.

One of those two parties is going to lead for the next four years.

Since when has a genocide ever ended peacefully?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Democrats want a peaceful solution to the Genocide.

They certainly say they do.

permalink
report
parent
reply

This is provably a lie.

They can end the genocide right now. Implying that they can’t is trying (and failing) to provide them cover for committing a genocide. And yes, continuing to provide weapons to the grunts doing the work doesn’t absolve them of the moral responsibility for it, nor does it provide them enough cover to pretend that genocide isn’t the outcome they want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

No, they can’t, because they aren’t engaging in the genocide and Israel doesn’t need our help to commit it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Just because someone presents something as if there are a limited number of possibilities or outcomes, its important to keep in mind, this is often just a result of their framing. Its often more reflective of their incomplete thinking on a situation than it is reality, and cynically, its a kind of rhetorical slight of hand often used to keep a narrative structured in such a way that only certain outcomes are possible.

Democrats, and more importantly, their voters, have proven to be cowards in the face of doing the right thing. Demanding little and less from a party as weak as the Democrats has left a lane wide open. I think we’ll see that lane taken over the next couple of years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Let me frame it this way then… in my lifetime, more electoral college votes have been awarded ACCIDENTALLY than have been won by a third party. That’s an absolute fact:

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/12/enduring-mystery-america-s-last-faithless-elector/

The best shot a 3rd party had was with Ross Perot in 1992, how did that work out?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

Clinton - 44,909,889 - 43.0% - 370 EC
Bush - 39,104,550 - 37.4% - 168
Perot - 19,743,821 - 18.9% - 0

No other 3rd party run has even been close.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election

Clinton - 47,401,185 - 49.2% - 379
Dole - 39,197,469 - 40.7% - 159
Perot - 8,085,294 - 8.4% - 0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election

Reagan - 43,903,230 - 50.7% - 489
Carter - 35,481,115 - 41.0% - 49
Anderson - 5,719,850 - 6.6% - 0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election

Bush - 50,456,002 - 47.9% - 271*
Gore - 50,999,897 - 48.4% - 266*
Nader - 2,882,955 - 2.74% - 0

* It was found, after Bush’s inauguration, that any correct re-counting of Florida would have awarded it to Gore.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 180K

    Comments