I have problems with people who abstained. The hard thing is, how do you change voter behavior?
I never called Joe and Kamala with such pejoratives, but both still would have enabled genocide on Palestinians even if the number would have been fewer.
The hard thing is, how do you change voter behavior?
Give them something to vote for. You can write articles of many paragraphs to analyze the course of the election, but in the end it boils down to this: The DNC pissed off too many of their voters and offered nothing in return.
Give them something to vote for.
This. We saw the energy and joy when Biden dropped out, and it was reflected by Harris almost matching Obama’s small donor numbers. Hope. Change. They were simple campaign slogans, but people coming out of the Bush era wanted to believe, and had a candidate to believe in.
It’s a damning indictment that my most genuine electoral engagement, in my entire adult life, was voting “Uncommitted” in the 2024 Democratic primary. That was my most enthusiastic, “I 100% support this” vote ever, because almost every other time has been against something/one, or accepting lesser. From ballot initiatives, Senate races, down to the local comptroller chair.
Contrast that to my vote for Kamala in the general afterwards. It’s so unbelievably hollow to say “our democracy is strong” when the choice is always ‘well they’re better than them’.
Yeah. No matter how I look at it, this seems to be the only real solution that would have helped.
Gaza was bombed into a parking lot under the Biden admin. Harris was going to continue Biden’s policies. Liberals are just mad because now the policies Trump is implementing affects them. They never cared about Palestinians.
They gleefully wanted blood on the ground, they’re just upset it’s not them doing it. Now they can pretend to care again.
Exactly this! You can’t just “lesser of two evils” your way through life as you slide towards hell. “Lesser of two evils” isn’t a choice, it’s a hostage situation.
The lesser of the two evils didn’t go after the bigger evil, offered nothing, said the economy was doing great as people suffered higher rent and groceries, and then wondered why people listened to the lying devil saying that they would fix their problems.
They don’t want to offer solutions, they want votes.
I had some vote blue no matter who nitwit yelling at me the other day about this. i asked them what are we supposed to do when 2028 is Mitt Romney (D) vs Trump ®. They said you vote Romney.
People who voter shame others when both parties have crossed their personal morals are the reason the Democats don’t ever run on anything substative. They have forgotten they have to earn votes. They’re not owed.
And they have forgotten that when they lose, real people suffer deeply for it. The democrats sin of apathy is often worse than the republican sin of cruelty. At least the republicans are honest about how they want to screw over the country.
Here is Chomsky explaining why yes, that is the more logical choice
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/
I had some nitwit self-described Chomsky-anarchist the other day who sounded a lot like you, went real quite after I shared that.
Choosing the bigger evil ain’t the way out of it though. Unless you are an accelerationist that believes things have to get worse before it can get better.
You can’t get out of a hostage situation by making out with either of the two bank robbers.
no one is making out, but you if it’s life or death you would listen to their demands until help arrives/opportunities arise.
This ‘logic’ (and metaphors are not logic) is why help isn’t coming.
then are people actually punching the robbers themselves?
The reality right now is the bigger robbers are now taking things even more brazenly.
By not voting, you are telling both robbers “both of you are free to do whatever you want”
God I hate the stupidity of blue MAGA.
I did vote. You don’t know me.
Your stupidity, and the reason you can justifiably be called blue MAGA, is that you don’t understand what the primary responsibility of the politician is, and instead blame the political parties failures on the voters. Because the Democratic Party can never fail. They can only be failed, right?
There is one group that can and should be blamed for identifying, and then happily handing power over to fascists. Hint: it isn’t the voters.
Blaming the voters is some Stockholm syndrome level bullshit to protect the campaign consultants and other unelected assholes that got rich off of this loss. That is who you are protecting.
offered nothing in return
Wow. Nothing? Because of cheaper health saving prescriptions, finally getting access to healthcare at all let alone an affordable price and knocking out the rest of student debt, I have a life now. My family has a future for the first time.
But yeah, being the ass hole of the globe and removing any remaining restrictions on the billionaires has been cool too.
I was, I think pretty obviously, talking about their 2024 election platform here.
“DNC gave me nothing in return so I’ll let the US slide out of democracy”
Smart. Those pissed off voters? Fuck them.
I think they offered more than most people see on social media. Their messaging isn’t great and I’ve seen a lot more left-leaning youtube channels talk about them but not outside of that.
Then again, I’m also not American so I don’t know.
Lastly, the non-voters are as much to blame in my opinion. If you didn’t know you should have voted, that’s on you.
Giving subisidies to green energy companies and improving the GDP doesn’t tangibly improve people’s lives in 4 years and that’s what people wanted.
It also takes longer than 4 years to rebound everyone out of the spiral Trump left the nation in. I think messaging around realistic goals and checkpoints could go a very long way to allowing people to understand no President is going to save everyone in a single term, or probably in 2 terms, especially if they have a crater to climb out of just to start at zero. Real change is a long term goal, it would take multiple administrations working towards a goal.
Americans are not educated enough to understand any of that.
They’re hurting finantially, so they get mad and vote out the incumbent.
Democrats push policy like the avg american went to their ivy league schools.
It’s not even really that, it’s just that home loans of like 10,000 to people who have made rent for the past 2 years and have a salary of over 80,000 but not over 200,000 and own a small business and own at least 2 cats but not over 3 cats and have a birthmark in the shape of a strawberry, isn’t very enticing or hopeful policy. Neither is campaigning with liz cheney when like 200,000 people are being killed with US bombs.
That’s sorta the problem with the Harris/Walz campaign, and why I’m thinking this was malice rather than stupidity. Their policy on their website and a lot of the early rhetoric was very progressive, which led to Harris getting the highest single day of donations and the largest number of small donations the DNC has ever seen.
After the money had poured in from all us poors, including my $20, the campaign started shifting its message further and further rightward to appeal to more and more corporate donors, all the while still asking progressives for more money. Eventually, the speeches being given stopped matching the previously posted policy platform at all, and we started to get the absolute insane shit like Obama telling black men to fall in line.
I think they offered more than most people see on social media.
The problem is that they made big promises in the early Harris campaign, then continuously abandoned them and watered them down until the campaign became a shadow of its former self. Equally problematic is that they continued to shift to the right and adopt policies that are unpopular with their base. I mean remember the border wall? And of course let’s not ignore the elephant in the room that was Gaza.
The DNC platform was free medicine, money out of politics, and taxing the rich.
If they could have resurrected a Unicorn live on stage and it could have magically cured cancer in the radius as thanks: people would still be shitting on them all over the internet.
The DNC platform was free medicine, money out of politics, and taxing the rich.
Money out of politics? From the DNC? Do you seriously believe this? When was the last time Hardis talked about this in her campaign?
They voted on campaign finance caps and limitations in 1995 and 2002 which passed and was sued by Citizens United in 2007 when 5 republican leaning SCOTUS judges struck it down as unconstitutional, and the DNC tried to pass more campaign finance laws recently with HR 1 For the People Act in 2019 and 2021 and again as Freedom to Vote Act in 2021 and 2023.
So yes, the DNC have actively attempted to pass campaign finances for over 20 years. That’s a core part of their platform.
Admittedly I didn’t know that, but also where was any of that in their 2024 platform? When was the last time Harris included getting money out of politics in her campaign speeches?
I think they focused too much on emotions and cowboys in their advertisements as well, but it’s not like they never stated their intentions. People just don’t talk about this stuff in social media, these days, and thats sadly exactly where most people hear about politics in general.
The reason I’m asking is that the Harris campaign progressively dropped or watered down its promises throughout the campaign. For example the wealth tax promise started out good (I don’t remember how much) and ended up as an unfulfilled Biden-era promise. Statements or promises from the early part of the campaign, let alone from before the campaign, don’t reflect the choice voters had at the ballot box. One example would be the DNC going from rejecting the border wall to promising to build it.
The US Tax Laws dont expire until 2026.
Trump and the GOP wrote the last round in his previous term and we gave him the power to write this next round as well.
The fact is despite all of the great bills passed under Biden and all the great things the regulatory bodies did by going after big businesses, we gave them a neutered congress that couldnt even pick a senate majority without VP Tiebreaker, much less clear the 60 votes needed to bypass filibuster.
The Democratic platform is really quite leftwing. It contains things like increasing the minimum wage, getting money out of politics etc etc. The problem is in how they run campaigns. The role of consultants is far too big, and this lets the GOP set the agenda.
Example: The GOP talks about the border constantly->media reports on the border-> voters in focus groups report caring deeply about the border->Dems campaign on the border (arguably their weakest point).
If Kamala had campaigned heavily on healthcare (say expanding Medicare), she could have shifted part of the focus away from the border and towards healthcare (the GOPs weakest point), which shifts the momentum.
The same happened with many other topics. The campaign talked about the economy (whatever that means, but somehow voters associate this with GOP), rather than raising minimum wages or building homes (a strength of Dems). Climate change was never even mentioned throughout the campaign.
Dems have to find a way to lead the conversation, rather than follow a conversation set by the GOP or they will never win.
The DNC platform in general has a lot of leftwing policy yes. However, they’re very… noncommittal about it. The party leadership is a bunch of geriatric centrists who only pass some progressive policy among an ocean of status quo centrism. However, that part alone is… fine. It’s not good, but not really a big problem. The big problem is how they sideline their leftwing platform whenever there’s an opportunity where they think they can do that without being flayed by voters, such as in this election. I’ll paste my reply to the other guy here.
The reason I’m asking is that the Harris campaign progressively dropped or watered down its promises throughout the campaign. For example the wealth tax promise started out good (I don’t remember how much) and ended up as an unfulfilled Biden-era promise. Statements or promises from the early part of the campaign, let alone from before the campaign, don’t reflect the choice voters had at the ballot box. One example would be the DNC going from rejecting the border wall to promising to build it.
Part of this is bad campaigning, yes, but it’s also undeniable that they actively attempted to shift to the right in this election. They didn’t campaign on progressive economic policy because, if they did, they’d find themselves obliged to make good on at least some of those promises, which would piss off their donors. I mean remember the “nothing really comes to mind comment”? Talking about the wrong things is one thing, but when asked about the right things the Democrats gave very wrong answers.
My opinion is that Gaza was flattened under Biden’s watch, as he sold Bibi more and more weapons.
I will never look down on someone who voted or refused to vote because of thier conscience. Obviously for this specific question, that excludes people claiming to care about gaza, but still voting for trump. There was no illusion that trump was going to do anything positive for gaza.
I have a (conspiracy) theory that those “genocide Joe” and “killer Kamala” folk are astroturfing for MAGA.
Everything I don’t like is a psyop
It’s not wrong to say that the right/outside actors made the issue more pervasive, but let’s not exonerate the “adults in the room” who decided it was better policy to unflinchingly support war criminals and a slow motion genocide, instead of defusing the wedge issue and forcing Bibi’s hand. Israel is nothing without US political support and weapons. Recognize “who’s the fucking superpower” and act like it when your client state gets out of line in a way that’ll cost you domestically. China does it with North Korea all the time when they got testy. Russia routinely interferes with domestic politics of CSTO members.
Nor should we pretend that all criticism was astroturfing. Some of us wanted to drop Biden before “we beat Medicare” made him obviously unelectable. And called it that Harris was going to lose swing states like Michigan for maintaining Biden’s posture on Israel. If team blue is all I can realistically vote for, I’m going to call out shitty policy that loses elections and kills voter enthusiasm. It’s up to you to listen and understand that we need to do better
There was definitely a large amount of foreign influence pushing that narrative.
Yup that is a conspiracy theory and super not cool of you.
It’s mostly information warfare from the various social media. There have already been a few analyses showing that pro-Republican anti-Democrat sentiment was algorithmically pushed on tiktok, Facebook, X(obviously), Instagram, YouTube, etc. I do believe a lot of people even here on lemmy were Russian/Chinese just stoking the flames because a divided america is good for them.
I think there are significantly more “useful idiots” than actual state actors trying to sow division. Most of them probably had good intentions, they just refused to listen to reason.
It’s a funny and depressing situation that Lemmy users are so adamant that no one could possibly have a different perspective than them and if they do they must be Russian assets.
Despite those exact positions being reflected in real human American/western political voices–when it shows up in our special little space suddenly it’s spoooooky foreign astroturfing. I believe the kids call that behavior “cope.” XD
Oh there’s certainly real belief too but the “loudness” is certainly amplified beyond what it would usually be. A lot of those accounts have been entirely silent on the conflict since the election which is suspicious to me.
Can you cite a few of said accounts so I can take a look? For me, I still see a lot of pro-Palestine sentiment. But to me, it makes nothing but sense that after the election people stop talking about… the election, y’know? You’ll notice MAGA voices also stopped talking about the election too, haha.
I got better things to do than go back and find them. Just a trend I noticed. I still see pro Palestinian sentiment (which i agree with) but i don’t see the level of blame assignment Biden and Dems got. I see some outrage about like the golden pager but not about rereleasing 2ton bombs. For people who seemed so single-issue its odd.
I mean yeah why would anyone talk about the election anymore unless they’ve got some new take or perspective on why dems lost.
Can you cite a few of said accounts so I can take a look?
They won’t, it’s a talking point they were always going to deploy and has nothing to do with evidence. Of course, political discourse was always going to die down after the election, and there’s also several accounts they’re not seeing because they got banned (lol). BlueAnon isn’t based on reason.
All the .ml crap that is suddenly silent was often revealed to be pro-ccp accounts doing exactly that.
Source?
Go read old posts, I’m not here to spoon feed you out of your ignorance.
So that’s a no on giving a source on that claim like Republicans…
Why would I save links to ML clowns getting called out or shown to be shills? What an absurd thing to request. Source: Lemmy. Dig deeper on your own, it’s not my job.
Of course there’s absolutely evidence of pro-Republican, anti-Democrat manipulation. But find me evidence algorithm manipulation of pro-Palestine anti-Democrat sentiment. Otherwise you are doing some pretty hateful fearmongering.
The “everyone on here is a Russian bot” narrative here is so embarrassing. Get real.
I certainly didn’t say everyone just that they’re here and they enjoy stoking the flames. Propaganda is everywhere from all sides.
The “sides” are not even remotely the same
> Pretending we didn’t see it happen already
Allow me to remind you of Rally Forge’s “America Progress Now” and Jeff Ballabon’s “Jexodus” as two recent examples.
Cite a proven example of pro-Palestine manipulation, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, no.
Both examples you provided are trivial as they don’t interface with literal apartheid or genocide. This is a significant difference being overlooked, and without evidence, I have no reason to believe this conspiracy.
New “Leopards Ate My Face” dropped. In this fun twist, however, after seeing the Leopards Eating Faces party feed people’s faces to leopards multiple times, the user continues to give the party the benefit of the doubt when confronted with the likelyhood that it’s happening again.
So no example, got it. It’s fine for you to engage in fearmongering and unevidenced cynicism. I choose not to. My regards. Free Palestine.
It’s about to be free of Palestinians. GJ protest voters!
There’s a big difference between being realistic and fearmongering. For instance, if there was no history of domestic and foreign entities utilizing astroturfing to undermine democracy and people were saying it’s happening now, that’s fearmongering. Considering that there is, however, and that it seemed to work last time, it’s naive to assume that it wouldn’t happen again, especially when similar patterns of behavior emerge, including the presence of a new hot-button topic that can be utilized. That’s realism.
Okay so this may come across as crazy, but myself and many other people didn’t want to vote for a candidate that supported ethnic cleansing, even if they were on “our team”.
I get that; I do. But there was no better alternative. I’m all about changing our electoral system, but at the time of an election is not the time to do it. How is Trump better than Joe of Kamala?
A vote for Kamala is a vote for Kamala.
Any other vote or not voting is one less vote trump needs, and is a vote for trump. (Statistically it would have been a blue votes because they tend to be people that don’t align with conservative views that are pro Palestine)
They will never understand that.
Both are bad on Gaza, so it is irrelevant. One could be talked to and has some sense of empathy and could potentially be swayed, the other is going to destroy Gaza without remorse, ruin lise for the most vulnerable Americans, and make sure the US is a a part of the new Axis powers on the wrong side of the global power struggle. These people chose the second option.
He’s not, don’t get me wrong. But at the end of the day, Kamala Harris still supported genocide. If I voted for her, I’d have been voting for this fundamentally evil policy. Frankly, I’m not interested in doing that, and I stand by that.
By not voting for her, you enabled even worse for Gaza AND the dismantling of the US government and protections for many folks like transgender people and women. Great work.
And given the shitty system we have, any vote, or non-vote, that wasn’t for Kamala was a vote for trump (by way of it being one less vote he needed to win). Can’t walk into a chess tournament and start putting checkers on the board just because you don’t like chess…gotta change the game first or you just lose and get kicked out.
My crazy idea here is maybe the DNC should run candidates people actually like. There’s no way in hell if they ran a primary Kamala would have won the nomination given how unpopular she was as VP.
Find me one Kamala voter as excited for her candidacy as the average Trump voter was for him, and I’ll find you a dozen who were only supporting her because whe wasn’t the other guy. Same story with the Biden campaign in 2020 and Clinton before that.
They could have run a dead fish didnt matter for this election. “Boohoo, don’t like candidate” isnt a valid excuse this time. Sry, it’s the weakest argument outside “oUr PRoTEsT voTe DiDnT matatTer” (mathematically true I’d you ignore any that may have been swayed by their constant pushing of a single issue instead of of everything at risk).
What? Running a candidate people like is probably the most important thing in an election. And the DNC knew from polling that she was unpopular as a VP. Seriously what on earth are you talking about that having a candidate people like doesn’t matter.
I advocated for voting for Harris, and did so when the time came. I also don’t think this blame game gets us anywhere, and I’m already a little sick of talking about it.
I’m also done defending the Democratic Party as a whole. Individuals, yes, but not the party. I’m realizing through this that I have a certain reflexive need to correct misinformation about Democrats, but I’m clamping down on it.
We had a choice between voting in a system that allows us some power to dissent and have a voice versus… this. The frustrating thing is this situation was just as advertised in Project 25, and then some.
We did not have an ideal choice, but we still had one. Now, here we find ourselves.
From my perspective, as someone who didn’t have a vote in US politics and wanted you guys to vote to kick the can down the road until next time, but also understood the sentiment of those who didn’t bother, it wasn’t a belief that Trump would do any better so much as a loss in faith that the Democrats were who they claimed to be.
When hope dies, it might be replaced by despair, anger, and desperation, or it might be replaced by apathy.
And while that was going on, there was also propaganda going on where people were trying to push the idea that Trump would be any better. I don’t believe that there were a significant number of voters who voted for Trump or stayed home because they believed that to be true.
Right now, it looks like the main conflicts about this I’m seeing on this platform are those with hope trying to rally the troops, while those with anger are mainly upset at those with apathy.
I will never regret choosing to vote third party no matter what happens. I will not regret my vote even if Trump marches me personally into a gas chamber. The sooner you get that through your heads, the better. You will never be able to “scare me straight” by pointing to the Republicans, no matter what they do.
The reason things have gotten as bad as they are, to where we have to choose between genocide and genocide-lite, is because of a complete unwillingness to have a spine and draw a red line, out of fear of letting the other side win. We have sacrificed every single standard and principle in the name of that fear. This “common sense” strategy of unconditional support of the lesser evil is actually completely insane, and easily falls apart under scrutiny.
However, if you cannot be persuaded that we are correct, then it is better that you see us as stubborn and irrational. Because a stubborn and irrational person will only be persuaded by giving them what they want, and not by words or anything else. If you want to make sure the Democrats actually win next time, the best strategy is to pressure them into conceding to our demands. Which, if you think about that for 5 seconds, it makes our approach seem a lot less stupid and irrational, but what do I know, I’m stupid and irrational.
It must be easy to stand on high in judgement of others when you aren’t the one that stood to lose anything, because It’s the ones that have nothing to lose that always goes all in at the table.
Your lack of regret clearly illustrates that your decision was influenced by a colossal amount of entitlement.
The vote wasn’t between genocide and genocide lite. It was between genocide lite and genocide, plus additional genocides, some domestic, plus economic sabotage, plus the emergence of a new evangelical southern Baptist military regime.
I don’t think that narrowing the scope of the voting gap to just you is helpful, so I don’t want to use this as a moment to level scorn. I just want to be very clear that the premise you presented is wrong. Very wrong
You are stupid…for not realizing game theory is real. Your reasoning is flawed and you literally hurt yourself as a result.
Keep shooting yourself in the foot while Gaza is razed when you could have saved it by voting Harris.
You’re like the pokemon that hurt itself in its confusion.
You are stupid for thinking that you understand game theory without actually studying it. I fully understand your reasoning, but you haven’t grasped mine at all, because it’s a higher level, and because you don’t understand it you call it stupid.
You wanna talk game theory, let’s talk game theory. Two people are given $100 to split. One person makes an offer, the other choses to accept or deny - if they deny, nobody gets anything. What is the “game theory rational” outcome? The offer made is a $99-$1 split, which is accepted, because $1 is better than nothing.
What actually happens when this has been done irl? The result is offers less than about $30 get rejected, and so the offers tend to be more equitable. Chosing to take nothing may be less “rational” on the surface level, but by establishing it as a credible threat of denial, this “irrational” approach achieves a better outcome. Normally, if I played that game with someone, I’d probably just offer a 50-50 split, but if it was one of you, I’d only offer you a dollar, because I know you’d take it. Because literally your whole ideology is built around accepting shitty deals.
The reason that people are prone to the “irrational” strategy in that game is that the “rational” strategy is only rational within the confines of the game. In real life, the game doesn’t end there, and if you signal you’ll accept a $99-$1 split, that’s all you’ll ever get in the future.
Your reasoning is flawed and you hurt yourself as a result. Keep shooting yourself in the foot and hurting yourself in your own confusion.
And no, Kamala would not have “saved” Gaza, that would be laughable if it wasn’t such a harmful belief.
Reposting the explanation without the language they used towards me.
You wanna talk game theory, let’s talk game theory. Two people are given $100 to split. One person makes an offer, the other choses to accept or deny - if they deny, nobody gets anything. What is the “game theory rational” outcome? The offer made is a $99-$1 split, which is accepted, because $1 is better than nothing. What actually happens when this has been done irl? The result is offers less than about $30 get rejected, and so the offers tend to be more equitable. Chosing to take nothing may be less “rational” on the surface level, but by establishing it as a credible threat of denial, this “irrational” approach achieves a better outcome.
Normally, if I played that game with someone, I’d probably just offer a 50-50 split, but if it was one of you, I’d only offer you a dollar, because I know you’d take it. Because literally your whole ideology is built around accepting shitty deals, rejecting the deal would invalidate your entire belief system.
The reason that people are prone to the “irrational” strategy in that game is that the “rational” strategy is only rational within the confines of the game. In real life, the game doesn’t end there, and if you signal you’ll accept a $99-$1 split, that’s all you’ll ever get in the future.
Alternatively: we play the game but you don’t know we are playing. I offer you $1 which you take, thinking “wow this stranger gave me a dollar!”, while not realizing I was pocketing $99.
One side was played unknowingly, the other got rich and laughed.
It may also be that the libs simply don’t care about the same concerns and so from their perspective Kamala’s offering them a reasonable deal and not just $1. Like, I’ve seen plenty of posts talking about how Kamala would’ve be “great” and not just a lesser evil, they just pretend they care to try to convince people to fall in line.
It’s funny how they raged online shitting everywhere, but they are nowhere to be seen IRL
Looks like the tankie instances hace invaded with their downvotes. Lol. It was pleasant to see the conversation being at least somewhat rational for a while before they discovered this thread.
Trump wouldn’t be able to talk about “rebuilding” Gaza now if Biden/Harris hadn’t already helped demolish it
Honestly, the election was three months ago, and we have bigger fish to fry right now. My default assumption now is that anyone still trying to relitigate the Gaza voters is a Russian troll trying to sew division among the left.
Haha no hate I just think it’s funny you arrive at the same “Russian troll” conclusion as the people trying to relitigate the Gaza voters :P
Like anything, it’s probably a mix. There were plenty of actual Americans on the pro-Gaza side, and there were probably some Russian trolls as well. Now, there are some actual Americans trying to vent about the election. But it would also be naive to think a fair number of them aren’t Russian trolls. It’s not like the utility of manipulating an adversary nation’s political discourse ends after an election.
Since there’s no practical benefit to relitigating this old fight, however, it makes sense to just dismiss anyone bringing it up as a Russian bot. There’s nothing to be gained by reopening this old wound among the left, but there is plenty to lose.
Genuine question… see my third to most recent post. It’s rhetorically identical to content I posted before, during and after the election. Based on what you see there, do you think I am a paid or otherwise illegitimate troll?
I mean, people say the same thing about pro-Palestine posters. Logically, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
i don’t know what that means but thanks everyone for the downvotes i guess
This push to demonize the strawman protest voters is an ongoing propaganda campaign to cause poor people to infight.
This is a real propaganda campaign you have internalized.
you replied to me twice. i absolutely agree with your first sentence and i believe that the second sentence is applicable to other people—it’s possible you here just misunderstood my position due to my own inclarity
Only speculation, but I believe you are right. This only started 2 days ago after Trump’s Gaza comments. It’s disheartening how easily it is to sway online discourse. Jokes on them, this only motivates me.
It’s also possible to run thousands of parallel chatbots to atroturf sentiment these days.
They will even scour the internet automatically to insert themselves into any slightly relevant conversation
i hate the big d Democratic party. i dont like their platform, i don’t like their candidates. i voted for harris in2024. the time to make political statements and form a movement is now. do you know what you are supposed to do during election season? VOTE!
And In The next panel a Nazi is stabbing the marginalized person and the dem is saying you voted for this.
You guys always tell half the joke.
They didn’t vote for it though. They just didn’t vote to stop it.
It’s good to leave it open to interpretation, to keep people guessing.
