The voters don’t control the platform…they don’t even have a meaningful voice on the platform. No matter how many people show up to the meetings saying “we should not arm genocide,” the platform will not change. You will be asked to leave, and if you don’t leave you’ll be arrested. And if, by the grace of god, you take over a caucus, the DNC can and will simply ignore you.
Does it take too long? Yes. Is it ruled by 300 people who have jockeyed for years to be one of the leaders, yes. Like all human endeavor it is flawed. But it doesn’t exist without the people who make up the party.
We need to get money out of politics, kill the Slaver’s College, re-democratize voting, kill FPTP and a ton of other things. But those things won’t happen through a third party, or the republicans. They can happen through the Democrats if only we’d all agree for one goddamn day. Which is the point of the meme.
I don’t mind the sources, it’s got a sprinkling of schadenfreude!
Is that forward motion? Looks more like walking in a circle to me, and like the focus is absolutely not on the suffering of other human beings. Like…bandying about how much we reference god or not while we fund the extermination of palestinians.
If they win without changing, why would they change? The Democrats have shown us over and over that if they win, they take it for granted. When they win they think “well I guess I could scooch a little further right.” Look I’m not saying they gotta guillotine the leadership (though that would be welcome and might in reality be required for my much more reasonable line in the sand), i’m just not going to vote for them until they stop arming a genocide.
That’s a thing. And yes, if you don’t recall, the whole god bless the united states is a reaganism that infected all discourse and mutated into brylcreem and flag pins so specifically dropping it from the platform after spectacularly failing to do it as we wanted in 2012 is progress.
I’d love to be more than a single issue voter, but yeah I think that issue is completely overriding. I guess i’m a single-issue vote-withholder. And again, I’m not judging anyone who thinks otherwise, or are single-issue voters for the environment or whatever. I just object to being told I’m the problem when I’m not the one arming a genocide.
e: on reflection I’m not really sure that’s right, though, in that if the republicans cut aid to nothing and the democrats cut aid to a thousand dollars, I wouldn’t go vote for the republicans. It’s not that it can’t be overridden inherently or something…its about the scale. The scale is what makes it so overriding.
Well the opposite happened so - I mean republicans cut more than funding, they closed up the entire agency, leaving millions of people around the world without food and medicine, and the Democrats would have continued sending food and medicine. That’s scale.
And just to reiterate the genocide didn’t stop, and trump has sold the Palestinians down the river for thirty pieces if silver and a statue of himself plus the naming rights. So how did that even help? There’s no way Harris would have even come close to that. Much less start a War for our buddy Bibi and let Pooty-poot continue his own genocide.
It just makes zero sense to not try and make it better. Letting trump win - even for the ethical reasons stated - is worse.
Sorry, to be clear, in my edit I meant if both sides cut US military aid to Israel, not aid in general. And yeah cutting off USAID is horrifying. I don’t think the scale is the same as the genocide in palestine (it’s a lot less money, and I think that money spent buying bombs is probably more effective at killing than money buying aid is at saving lives, but I may be wrong about that), but no doubt that’s one major difference. There are lots of differences, and I don’t deny they matter. I just deny they matter as much as the agreement between the parties to help israel exterminate Palestinians.
I’m also not convinced Harris wouldn’t have us invading Iran all the same; she was extremely hawkish on Iran. Just go look at what she was saying in 2024.
I also don’t see any reason to think Palestinians would have been better off under Harris. Biden gave way more to Israel than Trump has (again, granted, he had more time to do so…i just don’t see any reason to think it would ever go down). Maybe bibi and putin “feel empowered,” and we’re just gonna vibes that into assuming it’s actually worse? IDK vibes don’t make guns go bang, bullets do, and it’s the bullets that I think are the same.
And as for how it helped; it hasn’t yet. If the democrats announce that they’re changing course on Palestine, then win, then follow through I’ll feel like it’s made all the difference in the world. I’m not holding my breath, but that’s how it’ll help. As I said, i don’ think voting for the democrats wouldn’t have helped either, so I’d rather try for the option that has a chance.
Well I disagree, obviously, but it doesn’t mean there weren’t things like this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/convention-floor-erupts-as-dems-restore-references-to-god-jerusalem-in-platform (apologies fir the source, it was the first one in my enshittified search results)
Which was obvious bullshit. But then look at 12 years later and https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/aug/14/democrats-have-officially-abandoned-god/ (apologies again for the source - ugh) and hey lookit that: forward motion.
Does it take too long? Yes. Is it ruled by 300 people who have jockeyed for years to be one of the leaders, yes. Like all human endeavor it is flawed. But it doesn’t exist without the people who make up the party.
We need to get money out of politics, kill the Slaver’s College, re-democratize voting, kill FPTP and a ton of other things. But those things won’t happen through a third party, or the republicans. They can happen through the Democrats if only we’d all agree for one goddamn day. Which is the point of the meme.
I don’t mind the sources, it’s got a sprinkling of schadenfreude!
Is that forward motion? Looks more like walking in a circle to me, and like the focus is absolutely not on the suffering of other human beings. Like…bandying about how much we reference god or not while we fund the extermination of palestinians.
If they win without changing, why would they change? The Democrats have shown us over and over that if they win, they take it for granted. When they win they think “well I guess I could scooch a little further right.” Look I’m not saying they gotta guillotine the leadership (though that would be welcome and might in reality be required for my much more reasonable line in the sand), i’m just not going to vote for them until they stop arming a genocide.
So you’re a single-issue voter?
That’s a thing. And yes, if you don’t recall, the whole god bless the united states is a reaganism that infected all discourse and mutated into brylcreem and flag pins so specifically dropping it from the platform after spectacularly failing to do it as we wanted in 2012 is progress.
I’d love to be more than a single issue voter, but yeah I think that issue is completely overriding. I guess i’m a single-issue vote-withholder. And again, I’m not judging anyone who thinks otherwise, or are single-issue voters for the environment or whatever. I just object to being told I’m the problem when I’m not the one arming a genocide.
e: on reflection I’m not really sure that’s right, though, in that if the republicans cut aid to nothing and the democrats cut aid to a thousand dollars, I wouldn’t go vote for the republicans. It’s not that it can’t be overridden inherently or something…its about the scale. The scale is what makes it so overriding.
Well the opposite happened so - I mean republicans cut more than funding, they closed up the entire agency, leaving millions of people around the world without food and medicine, and the Democrats would have continued sending food and medicine. That’s scale.
And just to reiterate the genocide didn’t stop, and trump has sold the Palestinians down the river for thirty pieces if silver and a statue of himself plus the naming rights. So how did that even help? There’s no way Harris would have even come close to that. Much less start a War for our buddy Bibi and let Pooty-poot continue his own genocide.
It just makes zero sense to not try and make it better. Letting trump win - even for the ethical reasons stated - is worse.
Sorry, to be clear, in my edit I meant if both sides cut US military aid to Israel, not aid in general. And yeah cutting off USAID is horrifying. I don’t think the scale is the same as the genocide in palestine (it’s a lot less money, and I think that money spent buying bombs is probably more effective at killing than money buying aid is at saving lives, but I may be wrong about that), but no doubt that’s one major difference. There are lots of differences, and I don’t deny they matter. I just deny they matter as much as the agreement between the parties to help israel exterminate Palestinians.
I’m also not convinced Harris wouldn’t have us invading Iran all the same; she was extremely hawkish on Iran. Just go look at what she was saying in 2024.
I also don’t see any reason to think Palestinians would have been better off under Harris. Biden gave way more to Israel than Trump has (again, granted, he had more time to do so…i just don’t see any reason to think it would ever go down). Maybe bibi and putin “feel empowered,” and we’re just gonna vibes that into assuming it’s actually worse? IDK vibes don’t make guns go bang, bullets do, and it’s the bullets that I think are the same.
And as for how it helped; it hasn’t yet. If the democrats announce that they’re changing course on Palestine, then win, then follow through I’ll feel like it’s made all the difference in the world. I’m not holding my breath, but that’s how it’ll help. As I said, i don’ think voting for the democrats wouldn’t have helped either, so I’d rather try for the option that has a chance.