this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
377 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39142 readers
3951 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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

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


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The measure received 14 votes in favour, with the US the sole member to reject it. However, because the US is a permanent member of the council, it has the ability to veto any resolution brought forward

Unlike several previous resolutions regarding a ceasefire in Gaza, Wednesday's measure was brought forward by all 10 elected members of the Security Council.

The US has vetoed four previous attempts at calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, on most occasions being the lone vote against the measures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 days ago (3 children)

You do realize that there is more than one election? Like every four years there is an election. Treating every election like it is the only one and never looking past the immediate effects for the next year is what brought this mess in the first place.

This is also why this comparison is bad. You can not only loose at this election, but the next one and the one after that amd the one after that. In fact one could argue Americans have been loosong every election to the neoliberals since a few decades. And why? Because you never made a point of getting one party to stop being neoliberals.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

This election made me realize that political affiliation in the states for a lot of people is like being in a cult. Rather than accepting that your side has issues and needs a change, people just try to justify it by pointing how bad the other side can be worse. Like 90% of lemmy democrats don't get that I'm not motivated to vote for being waist-deep in shit vs chest-deep in shit. Yes, one is worse than another, but I prefer to vote so I don't have to be in shit at all. But all they will say back is hurr durr trump bad.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I feel like we need to normalize that demanding more from representatives is OK and necessary for a functioning democracy. The party needs to respond to the demands of those they are supposed to represent. This election made it clear that they only care about the demands of the donors and that needs to change

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

But given a fundamentally broken system such as FPTP, voting is going to do very little to fix the flaws. There is the winner and everyone else, and that everyone else may be the majority. So fi d a better tool for the job. This one clearly isn't working.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago

Yeah, FPTP is inherently undemocratic and naturally trends to a two-party system. Especially when both parties operate within neoliberalism, intentionally racheting American politics to the right at the behest of capital interests.

I'm all for approval or STAR voting, but I will support any ranked choice ballot measure as any are better than FPTP. Right now it's only possible to enact new voting systems at a local level

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Like 90% of lemmy democrats don’t get that I’m not motivated to vote for being waist-deep in shit vs chest-deep in shit. Yes, one is worse than another, but I prefer to vote so I don’t have to be in shit at all.

The reason people keep trying to say the same thing over and over is because your vote to "not be in shit at all" results in all of us being chest-deep. I want the Dems to change too but it isn't going to happen as a result of folks withholding their votes while we're in a two party system with FPTP voting. So since I would rather be knee deep than chest deep, I voted knee deep.

I'm not going to shame anyone for their voting choices, but let's not try to deny - not voting results in chest deep shit, not no shit, and we'll all get an object lesson in this every single day for about (at least) four years starting in January.

If you are going to proudly stand by your principled choice (which I support), at least be honest about the effects.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Like every four years there is an election.

So far.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You have this perspective that "we can show them" if we just let the Republicans win, but there's no evidence to support that. Every time the Republicans have won, the Democrats have moved to the right, not the left.

If you want a third party to emerge, you can advocate for that, but a truly leftist third party isn't possible if we lose all our limbs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

EVEN NOW they are blaming progressives, not her nonsensical attempt to woo Republicans while moving right so fast it left vapor trails behind her after announcing her candidacy.

I thought this was going to be a great article. The title made me think it was going to be all about getting tough with Republicans and actually fighting.

https://www.salon.com/2024/11/19/how-democrats-can-move-past-low-dominance-messaging/

SURELY, Salon of all places will rightly criticize her for deciding to run as a Republican. BUT NO:

Harris also failed to bear down on her hard-edged prosecutor-versus-felon narrative, which figured prominently during the early, effective stages of her campaign. Maybe she yielded to the far left, which admonished her for stigmatizing felons. That’s what she did in her bid for the Democratic nomination in 2019-2020, which helps explain why her first campaign folded before she could even get it off the ground.

YIELDED to the far left? With Cheneys on stage at the DNC, more talk about her glock than about climate, no movement on palestine, and not even a willingness to let a pro-Palestine speaker have 30 secs of podium time at the event?

In what fucking way did she "Yield" to the far left with a campaign very clearly and transparently designed to woo Republicans into voting Democrat?

M. Steven Fish is a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley.

I have to question your grip on reality, Professor Steven Fish of UC Berkeley, if you think what you saw in recent months was Kamala "yielding" a damn thing to the left.