771
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
771 points (82.2% liked)
Political Memes
1587 readers
4 users here now
Non political memes: [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not at all. She went too far right and a lot of people stayed home. Cuz one republican is as good as another. They both fuckin suck at literally everything. Except fucking up the economy. Republicans are great at that.
Campaigning with the daughter of a minor demon didn't help either
Major demon*
Compared to the Demons we’ve got now? Pretty fucking minor IMHO.
Nah, I'm not accepting that kind of Dick Cheney rehabilitation. That man is one of the most evil men to ever hold power in the US.
She promised to institute a tax on unrealized gains.
What constitutes "far right?"
Trump has concentration camps. Biden didn't. One assumes Kamala wouldn't. If you don't see a difference, it speaks to how privileged you are.
Biden built the camps Trump is using. Check yourself.
Uh... The ICE haven't been created out of thin air in January... You just ignored them before because it was a democrat in the adminstration.
Funding genocide in Palestine, running the ICE and deporting more immigrants than trump did in 2016 (look it up), maintaining the military industrial complex, increasing rates of homelessness and prices of healthcare and rent and tuition...
Under Biden ICE wasn't sending people to extraterritorial prisons without due process.
So, the existence of Ukraine, homelessness and high prices equal "Nazi?"
No, only Guantanamo operated that way. ICE was still a concentration camp though. Really grasping at straws aren't we?
Maintaining Nazi policy of genocide in Gaza (failed to mention that one I see), and of economic and police violence (1 in 4 black males above 30 years old have been through the prison system in the US) is Nazi, yes.
Have you ever considered the total failure of any politicians you support might have to do with your hyperbole?
Just accept you don't care about genocide as long as it's a democrat enacting it, we'll be over quicker
It would be a Likudnik enacting it.
And your insistence demonstrates my point.
It's incredible that blueMAGA think that denying the Democrats role in the Gaza genocide does anything other than show everyone that they're wilfully dishonest.
Who is everyone? Because the majority of Americans backed the candidate to the right of them on Israel.
Everyone who hasn't had their head buried in the sand the last year and a half.
So, do you just, not want to win any elections, ever?
Could you please read back through the previous comment and explain to me how your comment is supposed to follow from them
It demonstrates just how divorced you are from the reality of most American voters.
Ok. So you can't then.
That is the connection.
That's not a connection at all
Yes it is.
Again, go read back what was said. There's a reason you can't explain how what you said follows
I did. Your whole fucking argument is essentially that Democrats should embrace beliefs which are even less popular than the ones they already have and that will somehow lead them to win.
I am begging you to actually read the conversation that actually exists and respond to that, rather than the one you've made up in your head
What is your definition of "concentration camps"?
Migrant detention centers and prisons were a focus within the "build back better" set of legislature and the ICE raids and campus crackdowns I'm assuming you are referencing are a continuation of the Biden administration's crackdown from well over a year ago.
If you're just referencing Guantanamo bay as a migrant detention center then every president since 1974 has been guilty of concentration camps.
If you can appeal getting sent to it, it isn't a concentration camp.
By that definition the Nazi death camps weren't concentration camps, nor is anything Trump or Biden having done "concentration camps".
A 5 minute hearing within a detention center does allow for an appeal, and is used by those with enough wealth/privilege/etc. However I suspect that isn't what you meant, can you expand on that definition?
Edit: I realized there was also another interpretation which is that all jails, detention centers, police vehicles, etc. are concentration camps.
Trump is presently arguing that the courts cannot bring people back from El Salvador. Er go there is no appeal.
And I would like to see some evidence of courts getting people out of Nazi death camps.
Is the argument "getting sent to" or "getting returned from", 2nd argument is stronger but still a bad definition for the same reasons. The legal argument is that you can't de-deport someone and it's the responsibility of the other party to deport them back to the USA if they have been mistakenly deported. That being said maybe said laws and deportations in general are a fucked up concept to begin with?
It was an incredibly corrupt process (like most appeals processes are) but most famously it was the legal mechanism by which Oskar Schindler was able to protect his workers and expand his workforce.
I don't think it is intrinsically wrong to deport someone who has entered the country illegally and a supermajority of Americans agree with that.
With that being said I find the American approach to dealing with immigration self-defeating regardless of what the actual goal is.
There is a fundamental difference between the laws in occupied Poland and the United States. There were no judges or appeals processes. Just Party functionaries whose hands needed greasing.
Then you believe in a system where you can be sent to a place where there is no appeal process to return.
Agreed!
That's kind of like saying "There were no judges or appeals processes for prisons in 21st century America, there were only plea deals made by law firms whose hands needed greasing." It's not functionally wrong, but it is technically and legally laughable.
The appeal process within occupied Poland was that first you needed to appeal to your local Judenräte who would negotiate on your behalf to the German occupation authorities. Except most of the time the individual was left out of the process and it was simply negotiations between the Judenräte and the Occupation authority. They were explicitly setup as judges within a form of lower court to manage these sorts of things and one of their strongest forms of resistance was to aquire documentation (sometimes falsified) in order to get those already within the ghettos to be classified as "mischlinge" and allowed out of the ghetto.
They can appeal while detained. That is different from being picked up on the street and sent to another country, no courts, no lawyers, no nothing.
Why is it laughable? Jews and Poles had no rights. The ultimate goal was their extermination. Anything else was just for convenience or to keep from clogging the arteries of genocide by sending too many at once.
We're in a de facto vs. de jure argument.
Nazis in Poland; de facto I agree with you. De jure not so much. It was an apartheid system where (depending in when in the timeline) Jews, Poles and Blacks had a distinct set of rights that were routinely violated.
US legal system; de jure I agree with you. De facto not so much. The US has a looooong history of blatant rights violations and use of black sites (GTMO, Homan square, Camp Kościuszko etc.). The specific things your referencing is a relic from the Obama era (article from 2014 talking about legislation from 2012) .
My annoyance comes from the conflating of de facto vs de jure and then picking which one you focus on depending on what scenario best boosters your claim and not realizing de facto =/= de jure.
That's not to say it isn't fucked up, but that pining for the old days of law and order isn't what you think it is. 'return to status quo' is not a fix.
And do you have any actual reason I should believe that?
"Well, lots of people would have voted for her if she put on a keffiyeh and sang l'Internationale."
Why should I believe that? There is just no basis to believe there is some secret American socialist majority.
Wouldn't call it a majority. But it's a bloc that dems cannot win without. That bloc has also been lied to for literally our entire lives. Grown jaded. And won't vote for empty promises anymore.
Evidently we can't win with you because sway like reeds in the wind.
So they dodge the support of Progressives and lose because of it? Sounds like they need to support progressive policies. Like Obama did.
Name five policies Obama supported Biden did not.
Why 5? But sure I'll play your game.
Support for universal health care or medicare for all. Biden said he'd veto medicare for all if it came to his desk. Obama wanted it.
Two state solution, keeping Netenyahu on a leash, and sucking off AIPAC. Pretty different performances. Netenyahu and Obama hated each other, while Biden did whatever Netenyahu wanted, when he wanted, to whatever degree he wanted.
While we're at it, Biden acted in support of war crimes and violated the geneva conventions and Obama didnt. Seems like a solid policy difference.
Afghanistan. Obama trusted what his generals said about pulling out being bad for the region. Biden just wanted out.
Corporations and the rich as the dems almost sole focus under Biden while Obama ran on yes we can and hope for the people, and bread and butter issues. Biden didnt give a crap about the people. Obama centered his platform around youth. Biden targetted the elderly and the rich and lost the youth.
Biden called the far right racists his best friends and insisted on bipartisanship for bipartisanships sake, and Obama did not.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626
in the budget cliff showdowns Obama was all in favor of going over the fiscal cliff and letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, and Biden was not and went behind Obama back.
Obama pushed immigration policies which favored paths to citizenship for immigrants, where Biden locked the border down trump style.
Obama beleived in civil rights and was hailed as the best civil rights president since LBJ. Biden was a fascism fetishist who increased cop funding after defund+reallocate came to Washington, and who authored civil asset forfeiture laws which are blatantly unconstitutional.
Obama cut military spending and got pilloried for it. Biden increased it.
I wanted so much more from Obama and he turned out to be more conseravtive than I would have hoped, but Obama looks like Ghandi compared to Biden. And Biden looks more like Strom Thurmond and Donald Trumps love child.
1, Biden did not say that. He said he would veto anything that undermined the security of extent Medicare provisions.
Can you give me any examples of Obama "keeping Netanyahu on a leash?" It's rather difficult to compare the situation under Obama to under Biden, during which Israel saw the largest slaughter of it's civilians at the hands of Hamas. While Biden could and should have been more proactive in opposing Netanyahu, acting as though he could just say, "Stop" is ridiculous, especially when you can't point to how Obama actually did it.
Again, how, specifically?
Biden got the Afghanistan pull out dropped on him by Trump.
lol Biden invested trillions in helping hurt by COVID financially. All this proves is you have never actually read a bill he signed.
I defy you to find me one sitting member of Congress who supports school busing.
And yet Obama still signed a compromise fiscal bill.
Locking down the border and providing a legal pathway to citizenship are not mutually exclusive. Again showing how little actual research you've done into Biden's policies.
He increased police funding because that is what most people want. Treating it as being mutually exclusive with civil rights is ridiculous, especially when you can't point to anything Obama did to cut police funding.
Biden was President during challenges to NATO not seen since the end of the Cold War. Frankly, Obama's cuts reflect how unprepared he was to deal with Putin's moves in eastern Europe which were telegraphed even at that stage.
So, the only actual difference you can point to is military spending, which fails to account for the change in geopolitics. Busing doesn't count because it stopped being an issue before Obama was old enough to run for Congress.