You’re like the black knight from Monty python.
Edit: I welcome the pushback on this post. The message I meant to convey is that of two evils. Yelling at the losing candidate does nothing for Gaza. It alienates even people who care (but I’m not perfect). I apologize for the divisive nature of my post.
can this topic be negotiatable? like migrants and abortion, one party supports it, one party againsts it, let people choose which party to vote for
There are even voting systems which are perfectly representative (as a popular vote would be) and ensure all states get a voice (the goal of the electoral college).
Say, a bicameral system.
One chamber allocating each state a fixed number of voices, ensuring each state has a voice,
and a second chamber with mixed-member-proportional voting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU), which allows perfectly proportional majorities in this chamber while giving each district a representative (in the process also fixing gerrymandering).
In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II.
> In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II.
is there any other way to get this system besides a WW III?
That's another issue with the US system. If you've got only two choices, and one option is straight up "tear it all down", then the entire rest of the political spectrum has to be represented by the democratic party.
The only candidates in recent years that wanted to improve the situation were Obama, Romney, Bernie and now Walz.
I'd say register democrat, become active on the local level, and vote in primaries.
Meanwhile, while Palestinians are eating cats, we are free to refer to Monty Python all we like.
Just don't mention the war.
Biden provided the bombs and the diplomatic cover that allowed Israel to decimate Gaza's population, permanently damaging entire generations, reducing the most densely populated areas on Earth to smoking rubble, and explicitly supported Netanyahu's ethnic cleansing plans. He basically alley-ooped this scenario to Trump.
> You’re like the black knight from Monty python.
Sheer projection.
Democrats lost because they supported genocide [0], [1]. They tried to court Republican women instead of their own base, trotting out people like Dick fucking Cheney [2] (after removing any mention of stopping torturing people from their platform).
When over 30% of Biden 2020 voters told pollsters they felt so strongly about an arms embargo that it could affect their vote, and Harris responded by saying she would keep sending bombs "no matter what", she lost. The win could have been a landslide, and Dems chose to tell their base to eat shit instead.
0 - https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling
1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/opinion/kamala-harris-you...
2 - https://www.yahoo.com/news/dick-cheney-groundbreaking-endors...
Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide. Gaza voters weakened them further.
Nonsense. As can be plainly seen in the posted links, far fewer Democrat votes would have been lost by support for an arms embargo.
What would have been lost was the support of many Democrat funders - fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, Zionist billionaires, and a vast swathe of complicit corporate media. As in, the people perverting the party against the interests of their base.
> Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide.
Again, utter nonsense. Democrats voted against ceasefire four times at the UN; and made a mockery of domestic and international law by providing billions in arms to a regime that was likely to commit genocide.
And so it needs to be said: lack of money for Harris' campaign was not the issue. She outspent Trump, ffs.
> Gaza voters weakened them further.
That was a choice! Gaza voters would have strengthened them, if they had simply decided to stop arming a genocidal apartheid regime. That's what the polls I posted showed beyond doubt; and Dem elites knew all this months before the election.
This could have cost many seats in congress.
I acknowledge you might be completely right, but they were never gonna get the campaign and all of D congress to that position in the first place in a high stakes election.
If true, that would be just one of many reasons why they don't deserve our support.
The Democrats have repeatedly proven to be unable and unwilling to give anything more than token support to the existential crises of our time; be it forever wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, free speech, surveillance, torture, climate change, housing, healthcare, justice reform, election reform, etc etc.
By your logic above, all that would be justified.
Don't you get tired of being shepherded? Isn't the last 200 years of lesser evil voting [0] wearing kinda thin?
0 - https://pleasuretoburn.substack.fcom/p/lesser-evils-are-the-... - "Beginning in 1824, people made the “lesser evil” arguments in every single presidential election year I reviewed"
I think lesser evils are present in every election. By your logic, total surrender is the only outcome.
I appreciate you engaging, but agree to disagree I guess.
No, there are usually viable, non-genocidal third options - as there was in this election.
> By your logic, total surrender is the only outcome.
That's the very logical flaw which has you thinking that stumping for a genocide accomplice was 'the only option'. You're so close.