• edgemaster72@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, cuz the President can just come down there and wave some magic pixie dust around like a goddamn job fairy and fix things up 🙄

    • IMongoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      ??? They do it from the oval office desk. The more / less US manufacturing lever is in between the egg price and gas price lever.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Voter turnout among Democrats this year was 10 million lower than in 2020, while Republican turnout barely changed. Trump won the popular vote by about 3.5 million. TBF it’s unknown how many Democrats didn’t vote because they were purged off voter rolls, and how many simply refused to participate because Harris didn’t satisfy their moral purity standards. But based on the consistent failure by Republicans to win their election restricting lawsuits, my strong guess is that it’s those 10 million fuckheads who did this to us. Zero tolerance doesn’t work, folks, You don’t walk barefoot across broken glass because you didn’t like the choices of shoes.

  • Sp00kyB00k@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Maybe, even if they hate him. Know he is bad. The one takeway is that they liked Kamala even less. It is combination of desperation and despise. If the Dems don’t learn from this, they will repeat the same mistakes over and over. Pick someone likeable

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Shoulda ran Walz as prez from the get-go. Dude ticks all the masculinity boxes the right loves while being a real human being.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That was my first thought when I heard Walz speak: “Wow! Can this guy be president instead?”

        Now he has no hope of becoming president, because he’s connected to a historically losing campaign. The Democrats would never nominate him now.

      • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        She didn’t lose because she’s a woman. She lost because she’s an empty suit neoliberal promising more of the same to a nation desperate for change as the majority of us are one paycheck away from disaster.

        And before you have the knee jerk liberal response of bUt TrUmP iS wOrSe you’re missing the point. This election - and elections around the world this year - are referendums on the current establishment across parties and ideologies.

        Either learn that neoliberalism is a losing ideology and embrace leftist positions or lose to fascists over and over again.

        • teamevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ve said it before and I truly believe this, unfortunately sometime very soon lots of us are going to be LONGING for the days when we were able to live paycheck to paycheck.

          I’ll send you my left foot if regular folks benefit instead of the 1% during this presidency.

          • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m not saying I agree with trump voters. But democrats are completely incapable of self reflection and deserve losing this election as hard as they did after gaslighting the public about inflation and not doing a single fucking thing to stop these fascists. They had FOUR FUCKING YEARS to go after trump for J6 which is arguably the strongest case against him and they didn’t.

            They had decades to make roe v Wade law. They didn’t. They lose elections on purpose and then fundraise off the loss. They block progressives and leftists and protect their corporate donors over making any kind of popularly supported change. When did the senate parliamentarian ever matter until it came time to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour? I’ve paid close attention to politics since 9/11 and I never heard of them until then.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              The thing is that you’re paying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more attention to politics than the average joe six pack voter. The imagined reasons you have for why they voted the way they did are just that.

              • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Average joe six pack knows they’re one missed paycheck away from disaster and voting accordingly. After all, biden/Harris said the economy has never been better!

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The average joe six pack doesn’t even know they’re one missed paycheck away from disaster and they’re out there looking at new F-150s hoping to get an approval. 🤞

                  Also, I watched a lot of Harris interviews and crap, and she would always start her statement with “I know a lot of people aren’t feeling the progress we’ve made on the economy and that’s why we want to X”, but that was too nuanced for donkey brains.

                  She should’ve came out with a series of ads saying things like “I am running for president, the previous president is Joe Biden who stepped aside and will not be on this year’s ballot” and then talked about basic governmental structures in the country…preferably over a popular song.

                  Everything I’ve read from the people on this site is analysis that would apply if the electorate wasn’t full of complete idiots. However, it is.

                  Trump communicates on their level because he repeats obvious things over and over again and he is donkey brained just like them…that’s part of the reason why he’s their hero.

    • Kate-ay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      No matter who Democrats pick they will always be painted as unlikeable, losers, and evil by Republicans. If you think picking a “likeable” candidate is the trick then you too have fallen for the endless Republican framing trap.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Rrrrrriiiiiigggghhhhhtttt. There’s nothing wrong with Democrats, and if you think otherwise, then you’ve bought into Republican propaganda.

  • DharkStare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s such a an alien thought process that I don’t even know where I would begin with discussing politics with such a person.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You mean by hanging out with Liz Cheney and talking about a ‘lethal military’?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, this is the voter she pissed off Dem voters for…

        It didn’t work out well if you’ve already forgotten.

        If someone says trump is Hitler but they voted for him anyways…

        Then he was already going to vote for trump, and chasing his vote just led to losing traditional Dem voters with literally no gain.

        Moving to the right is political suicide, yet we keep doing it because that’s how you max donations. And that’s all the people running the party care about.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well if the right are the only ones who constantly vote then yes they well change their views. Doesn’t matter if 2/3 of the country are Democrats if they can’t be bothered to get off their asses and vote.

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, this is the voter she pissed off Dem voters for…

          Not sure why you said “no”, since you’re making the same point I was. This is who the party asked her to sway, and now the party is blaming her for not working hard enough to win the votes of complete fucking morons.

          I could have told you that ignoring these morons and running a campaign focused on the working class, social justice, and economic fairness would have gone 1000% farther than trying to win over fence-sitters during the most divided election in U.S. history. Not sure why the Democrats ignored this, I assume they have at least one competent advisor that said this…

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            They said “no” because to them, the most important thing is blaming Kamala for whatever happened in some way. They’re disagreeing with you because you didn’t do that, and trying to correct you on it.

            You blamed the voter, which was the right response. I would expand that to include blaming the obviously Russian-influenced campiagn, however it happened, that convinced this person that Ukraine was a hugely important issue in this campaign in this particular bizarre way.

            We can give some blame to Kamala for her messaging, sure. But the thing you didn’t do, that made them say “no,” was redirect the whole conversation into a conversation about how it’s all Kamala’s fault and nothing else.

          • hobovision@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think I interpreted it the same way the original commenter did, but I see now we’re all on the same page.

            Maybe instead of saying she was “supposed to” it would be more clear you meant her campaign was “trying to”.

        • mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          ok but… the Democrats in swing states (hell, any state) who said “I’m staying home because Kamala courts Republicans, even though I know Trump is Hitler” are absolutely as shitty as the people who voted for Trump

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            So?

            What matters is winning elections.

            Stomping our feet and saying they should do what we tell them isn’t fucking working.

            So if you want them to vote D so together we can stop Rs…

            Maybe we should try running a better candidate than we have been?

            Maybe no matter how much the wealthy insist on it, just being slightly better than trump isn’t enough.

            Maybe we should just run the best candidate we can, one that already agrees with Dem voters so we don’t have to ask millions of people to hold their nose?

            The excuse for running candidates further to the right then Dem voters has always been that it would magically win an election.

            It hasn’t, and it won’t.

            It’s a bad strategy and we’ve stuck with it for about a decade longer than we should have already.

            What logical reason can you give to stick with a plan that even when it works doesn’t get us as much as we need, and fails regularly?

            As a bonus, the more Dems move right, the more Republicans do.

            So every election Dem voters have their potential winnings reduced and potential loses increased…

            And people are really surprised why turnout was low?!

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well he speaks English, same as you. I guess you could always meet a conservative and then ask them questions sometime. Might be a mind blowing experience to talk to someone who disagrees with you, and actually listen.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Can you promise me there will be something other than lies or misinformation coming out of their mouths when I do so this time? Because based on my first hand experience over at least the past 8 years, those are the only two things I’m going to get.

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’ve met plenty of Tories and their ilk, but none of them would vote for someone they publicly think is basically Hitler.

        This bloke’s thought processes are so alien to us they I don’t think we’ll ever understand him, sadly.

      • A7thStone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I have listened, and there is nothing worth listening to. I have to listen, because there are all around me at work. It is continuous fear and ignorance. Not a single worthwhile thing. I’m done listening, especially since they won’t return the favour. I’m not going to meet hate in the middle.

  • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Maybe he just meant all the good qualities of Hitler. Like the ones he used to get away with his evil fucking mass murder for so long.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot…I call BS on Wolfson’s reasoning. The bastard is most likely a neo-Nazi shitbag and knew exactly what he wants out Putin’s Sock Puppet.

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I mean, yeah, this guy is wrong for thinking Trump will keep us out of wars, and the idea that you would vote for someone you think it like Hitler to stop new wars is both contradictory and morally reprehensible. But I’ve heard this take before (well, except the Hitler part, that’s bat-shit insane) and it might be worth reflecting why a lot of the electorate no longer sees the Democratic party as the anti-war party. That’s a big shift that’s occurred in my lifetime, and it’s worth examining.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      But I’ve heard this take before (well, except the Hitler part, that’s bat-shit insane) and it might be worth reflecting why a lot of the electorate no longer sees the Democratic party as the anti-war party. That’s a big shift that’s occurred in my lifetime, and it’s worth examining.

      Because they’re idiots?

      Every major war started in my lifetime (including the “war on drugs”) was started by Republicans.

      The Democratic party is the party of complacency, I’ll grant them that, and we were in wars for several administrations that Republicans started. So it’s hard for their donkey brains to remember when and why the wars started and when they ended. A lot of people think that Obama was in office when 9/11 happened. The country is full of idiots.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think you can’t approch it from a party line issue. People want to see it in fact as action for the candidates, and at least right now Biden dropped the ball on Isreal badly. He should have put harsh levers on Isreal to get them out of Gaza quickly, Ukraine is a more complicated problem, but the US should focus more on ending conflicts quickly rather than let them drag on forever. But that takes real policy and leadership.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Neither war is happening on US soil and the US and Israel have had an alliance – which will remained unchanged if not strengthened in the Trump-Vance administration – spanning decades. In addition, Congress allocates funds to send to other countries and the President executes the orders he is given. Biden could’ve vetoed the aid bills I suppose, but there is a good chance that they would’ve overridden his veto. He could’ve impounded the funds, but I’m not really sure how strictly-speaking legal that even is, and Democratic administrations face pressure from both sides to follow norms (i.e. I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden’s own party members would’ve impeached and removed him given just cause for doing so).

          But, as per usual, people like yourself expect the impossible (world peace) under Democratic administrations and yet many of them will turn around and think any war that Trump starts is fully justified and support it bigly until the next Democrat (if there is one) gets in there.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            In addition, Congress allocates funds to send to other countries and the President executes the orders he is given. Biden could’ve vetoed the aid bills I suppose

            Biden literally bypassed congress to send more aid than what they had approved multiple times.

            I hate the way liberals just shamelessly lie about this stuff, you don’t even have the excuse of the election anymore.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              The article you linked, did you even read it? That is approval of weapons sales, not sending them more money.

              Congress allocates funds in our government.

              I hate the way liberals just shamelessly lie about this stuff

              I hate the way label obsessed “leftists” don’t know basic shit about how the government works, and spend all of their time online talking out of their ass and name-calling.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                That is approval of weapons sales, not sending them more money.

                And that matters why? We shouldn’t be giving them aid or selling them weapons.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  That’s right, just accuse me of lying and post ap news articles that don’t disprove anything I said, and then when it turns out you were wrong…words no longer matter!

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Saying they’re the party of complacency isn’t really accurate. Obama may not have started any new wars (although there’s an argument to be made that his operations in Somalia represented a new, unsanctioned war front), but he didn’t get us out of Afghanistan, kept joint military operations going in Iraq, and created a massive, unaccountable robot assassination program that killed thousands of people, including U.S. citizens. That’s wasn’t an act of complacency, it was expansion.

        To me, the difference in Democrats’ and Republicans’ positions on military use can be best summerize by how Obama and Trump reported drone deaths. Obama reclassified every adult male in a target zone as an enemy combatant so that he could artificially lower the number of civilian casualties. Trump just stopped reporting the numbers. One is obviously better than the other, but I wouldn’t call either anti-war.

        But let’s say you’re right; the Democrats are mostly anti-war, but they’re too complacent with the status quo, and Trump voters are all idiots who can’t tell the difference. What are we gonna do about it? 51% of the electorate went to Trump. Are the Democrats going to stand up to the military industrial complex to make their anti-war stance so clear even an idiot could see it? Or are they just gonna lose forever?

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          But let’s say you’re right; the Democrats are mostly anti-war, but they’re too complacent with the status quo, and Trump voters are all idiots who can’t tell the difference. What are we gonna do about it? 51% of the electorate went to Trump. Are the Democrats going to stand up to the military industrial complex to make their anti-war stance so clear even an idiot could see it? Or are they just gonna lose forever?

          You’re predicating your false dichotomy on the idea that: (A) the electorate will vote consistently for pacifism and for pacifists, (B) the electorate tracks the policy positions of politicians. Neither of these things are true.

          This single issue did not decide this election, and it will not decide future ones (if we even have them) either.

          The electorate is vibes based and has been for some time now.

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Well, I would disagree with a lot of that. The average voter may not understand policy nuance, but it’s not just vibes based. Trump made a case for being anti-war. He won the first Republican primary in no small part by being the only person on stage to say that the Iraq War was a mistake. He promised to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and then set a withdrawal date (and then changed it several times, and eventually set it to after his term ended so that Biden would get all the bad optics). I think Trump is a manipulative liar, but his supporters have concrete examples of things he’s said and done that make them think he’s anti-war.

            The economy was the number one issue for voters, and I don’t think voters’ reaction was vibes based either. Democrats almost always improve working class conditions more than the Republicans, but look at what happened during the Biden administration; inflation went way up, the interest rates went way up, and what the best jobs market for workers in the last 40 years got nuked. People might not understand why that happened, but they know what happened.

            From where I’m sitting, the solution is to go so big that voters can’t misinterprete where you stand. Biden and Harris could have gone after the price gouging that was responsible for so much of the inflation during their administration, but instead, it was a footnote on the campaign. They could have come up with some kind of endgame for Ukraine other than, “send them as many weapons as they need indefinitely.” They should have taken a more confrontational stance with Netanyahu, since he was actively sabotaging the peace process while holding out for a Trump administration.

            But again, let’s just say I’m entirely wrong: voters are idiots, they understand nothing, and their decisions are based entirely on vibes, not reality. The question remains the same; what do we do? Because right now, the strategy seems to be offering them incremental, technocratic solutions, then insulting them when they don’t understand how they’re better than Republican lies. And it doesn’t seem to be working.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              The question remains the same; what do we do? Because right now, the strategy seems to be offering them incremental, technocratic solutions, then insulting them when they don’t understand how they’re better than Republican lies. And it doesn’t seem to be working.

              I’m not a political consultant, but one of the things – if it were me (which it isn’t) – would be to start talking to people in this country not as if they’re involved people with a lot of knowledge about how anything works, but rather on their (4th grade reading) level, and keep repeating simple messages. At least for your mainline politicians, it’s important to appear somewhat stupid, so that the American voters think you’re one of them.

              Bernie was actually very good at this IMO. I’m not sure his policies would’ve ever gotten anywhere – who knows? I would’ve loved to find out – but he was very good at repeating the same shit over and over again and speaking at a stupider level (most likely on purpose, because he’s not a stupid guy).

              • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yeah, I think that’s absolutely right, and I think that’s why he’s been so effective at winning over people who have gone to Trump. We can argue over whether or not the political class would ever let him have been the nominee, much less allowed hid agenda to pass, but I think his policies are very clear to everyone: higher minimum wages, higher taxes on billionaires, Medicare for everybody. People find that much easier to understand how that will improve their life tomorrow instead of a small business tax credit program.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  The small business tax credit program Harris spent so much time talking about seemed like exactly the wrong thing to be talking about to exactly the wrong people.

                  It would maybe work for people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (AKA nobody). Deeply nerd-brained capitalists that think “gee whiz, this market is not competitive, competition could be grown by creating small businesses for the giant corporations to compete with!”…it’s a completely bookish garbage policy competing for ad space in an environment where her opponent was talking about how Harris was for giving transgender, border-crossing, violent criminals “sex changes” for free with “your tax dollars”.

                  When I saw the “She’s for they/them, not for you” commercials airing on NFL broadcasts this year, I shuddered to myself and I got that bad 2016 feeling all over again.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      it might be worth reflecting why a lot of the electorate no longer sees the Democratic party as the anti-war party

      The only reflection I am able to accomplish is to look at the GOP and say “Worse, tho”.

      If you aren’t voting for the lesser evil, I have to assume you hate America and want it to fail. And that’s worse than genocide.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The only reflection I am able to accomplish is to look at the GOP and say “Worse, tho”.

        OK, but so far, that hasn’t been a very effective electoral strategy. I think we should try something else.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It doesn’t need to be effective, because the pendulum of politics always swings back in the end. Trump will become the next scapegoat of American politics just like he was back in 2018 and then 2020. If the economy tops itself (as is increasingly likely), they’ll be facing even bigger headwinds. Even if it doesn’t, inflation and sky high rents aren’t going away. Consumer debt isn’t getting any lighter. The Trump Admin isn’t going to be nice to people.

          That’s the electoral strategy at the end of the day. Just to keep being the Other Option and wait for people to come around. Wait as long as it takes. Maybe it’ll take twenty years, like in Arizona. Maybe forty years, like in Georgia. Maybe it’ll be over 60, like in Utah. Doesn’t matter. Just keep squatting on the Other Option until the day comes.

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            It seems like having policies that make people want to vote for Democrats would deliver more immediate and lasting results than allowing American conditions to continue deteriorating and hoping our opponents receive the blame.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        First off, that’s a ridiculous assumption. Not everyone subscribes to your ideology of lesser evilism, and the vast majority of people who correctly reject that ideology are not accelerationists.

        But secondly, just curious, if I was a German citizen who hated Nazi Germany and wanted it to fail, would that make me worse than the Nazis? The Nazis were just doing genocide, after all, but I committed what is apparently a far worse sin in your eyes, of insufficient patriotism.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not everyone subscribes to your ideology of lesser evilism

          If they don’t subscribe to my ideology, they must be a greater evil.

          if I was a German citizen who hated Nazi Germany and wanted it to fail, would that make me worse than the Nazis?

          It would make you a Communist Fifth Columnist Jew-Loving Traitor and earn you a ticket straight to the camps.

          The Nazis would absolutely say you were worse than them.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The Nazis would say it, sure. Would you agree with them? Because it sort of sounds like you’d agree with them.

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s because they aren’t. Clinton and Gore were 100% interventionist, and had no issues with preemptive war, some accused Clinton of starting a war to boost his popularity. Kerry was anti war historically, but pragmatic on Iraq, Hillary again with Bill not at all anti war–>

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Being “pragmatic on Iraq” turned off a lot of the left. Ralph Nader’s running mate, Peter Camejo, remarked at the time “Kerry isn’t Bush Lite. He’s Bush Smart! We do not need a smarter Bush!” Apparently the electorate agreed, because W. Bush went on to win a second term.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Hillary again with Bill not at all anti war–>

        Directly responsible for escalation in Libya, as Sec State, and the deaths of tens of thousands as a result.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Obama’s military adittude was ‘‘a Democrat can’t say no to the military’’ and allowed whatever the joint chiefs wanted, which is never going to be anti war. And Biden was the same. Harris clearly not anti war either. Trump says he is, and that’s more anti war than any Dem in my lifetime. Can he effectively govern for war reduction? No. He’s an idiot, and liar. But he’s selling it.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s like people really believe America entered WW2 to fight fascism becaus Americans are innately good…

    Large amounts of the country said the same shit this guy is. They wanted to either stay out of it or outright join the nazis.

    Especially the wealthy. Prescott Bush was believed to be part of the Business Plot that wanted to overthrow the US government in favor of fascism and doing the Axis powers.

    They didn’t succeed (mostly because of Pearl Harbor) but his son became head of the CIA, VP, and then president. One of his sons also became president, and almost another one.

    If we don’t remember what history was really like, we’re doomed to keep being surprised when the same shit keeps happening.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ya, CCCP started it all with Hitler, the USA was forced in to the war.

      Don’t forget.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ya, CCCP started it all with Hitler

        Whut?

        Is this an attempt at a joke or do you really believe that?

        It’s hard to tell these days when someone is just pretending

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Alright, let’s clear this up. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact wasn’t what brought the US into WWII. That pact was a non-aggression agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in August 1939, which allowed both powers to avoid fighting each other while they focused on expanding their influence in Europe. This agreement directly led to the invasion of Poland and the start of WWII in Europe, but it didn’t prompt US involvement.

            The US didn’t enter the war until December 1941, over two years later, after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. That was the actual catalyst. Up until then, despite plenty of pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi sentiments among the populace, the US had largely followed an isolationist policy, though they supported the Allies with programs like Lend-Lease to aid Britain. The US’s decision to go to war was mostly a response to Japanese aggression, and Germany’s declaration of war on the US shortly afterward sealed the deal for full US involvement in both the Pacific and European theaters.

            So yeah, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was important for starting the conflict in Europe, but it wasn’t why the US entered WWII.

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I didn’t say it brought USA into the war, I said it was what kicked off ww2 and it was the fault of the soviets + nazi germany.

              You are correct, but you misunderstood me, or I wasn’t clear enough.

              Edit: I was not clear enough, I edited my post. In my mind the two things were separate, I just didn’t have the writing skills.

              • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I didn’t say it brought USA into the war

                You literally did

                Ya, CCCP started it all with Hitler, the USA was forced in to the war.

                Now, perhaps this isn’t what you meant to say. It is, however, what you said

                • Valmond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s two things, separated by a comma. Like apples are green, I went to the doctor yesterday. Not very good writing I admit.

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              So splitting up poland and the baltics wasn’t what started ww2?

              Let’s hear your version.

                • Valmond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  So it’s time for insults.

                  Yeah the great Soviet Union started off WW2 with Nazi Germany, like it or not. I know they don’t teach that in some countries and call it “the great patriotic war” instead. Yo know, to muddy the waters.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s already more than any communist regime allowed, so lesser of two evils and all of that…

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s one of the many often attributed to Winston Churchill, though to my knowledge there’s no actual evidence of him actually saying it and his other writings go against the sentiment. I don’t know who actually did say it first

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        As others put, no, but it does remind me that Aristotle felt society should only be run by the most intelligent among us, hence the term Aristocracy.

        Of course, in practice people make up bullshit rules to determine who is most intelligent and that messes up the whole concept (e.g. Jim Crow tests and such). But it’s a nice fantasy if ever we could pull it off.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          If only Aristocracy actually meant society was run by the most intelligent among us. Instead, it means “society is run by me and my buddies.”

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Even if it was actually the most intelligent they would still have the power to hurt others for their own gain. In fact I imagine it would be far easier for them to justify to themselves by arguing merit.

          The problem is that no government can thrive as a force for good in the face of apathy, maliciousness, or a lack of duty.

          • taiyang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Pretty much, yes. Even if you put up requirements on a democracy to require basic civic understanding, you ultimately disenfranchise a group.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Exactly and many people have misguided understanding of duty to country and the benefits that come from it. In rural America you often see people who treat military service as absolutely vital to preservation of freedom, and gun ownership as critical to preventing tyranny, but don’t see that jury duty and consistently participating in the political process with an open mind for all people’s right to live as they feel is right for themselves as the absolute lynchpins of American freedom that they are.

              Protecting freedom isn’t glorious, it isn’t exciting. It’s hard mental and emotional labor that requires resisting demagoguery and bigotry even when you’re struggling. It requires understanding that giving the government unchecked power will eventually bite you in the ass, just as surely as refusing to prosecute leaders who commit crimes. It requires paying your damn taxes so the country doesn’t fall into disrepair. It involves paying the prices required of the freedoms you have.

              It annoys me how some people refuse to vote lest they be called to jury duty. Motherfucker, trial by a jury of your peers is a magnificent right you hold, and that’s the price of it. Also you hold a portion of a nuclear arsenal and can’t even be bothered to find out that that’s not how the government that holds them works, or to express your will on it regardless.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ya know… if I thought someone was literally Hitler, the last thing I’m gonna fucking do is help them literally have control of… everything.

    • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unless you want to bring about the end of the world. Seriously, that’s how at least some of these people think. They want to throw a monkey wrench in the works, because they think they’ll be the ones to survive the apocalypse.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Trump won’t bring about the apocalypse he’ll just bring about economic ruin. Which is a lot less fun than the apocalypse.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I want the end of the world too, but it’s because I don’t wanna survive the apocalypse, we are not the same.

        Haha… I’m depressed.

    • Klear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      But what if the country needed a change in leadership after recently being fucked up by this hitler guy, eh?