You're viewing a single thread.
It's funny (funny in the sense that I have an uncomfortable chance of not fucking surviving the next four years) that so many self-proclaimed leftists have a strategy that boils down to "Let the fascists win and then complain about it".
Including a bunch here who have also seemingly deleted months worth of their comments as cover.
Don't worry, they'll have fresh accounts with which to repeat the same points as before, just with an added dash of "I don't believe anyone ever ACTUALLY held those opinions you're criticizing (that I deleted on my previous account)"
Funny that so many centrists have a strategy that boils down down to, "ignore leftists and then complain when they don't vote for us."
Sorry, here I thought self-proclaimed leftists might have some interest in preventing fascism, but as many leftists on here have repeatedly and joyfully assured me, they don't give a single solitary fuck about the oppressed or the working class if Their Guy(tm) isn't the one preventing fascism. Not unlike the Thalmann bootlicking that goes on on some corners about Lemmy about how right he was to hand the country over to Hitler, rather than risk cooperating with the dreaded SHITLIBS.
Red fascists have nothing to distinguish them but a coat of paint.
EDIT: They go on for a half-a-dozen comments or so denying that they're saying that leftists didn't turn out because they weren't enthused, and then go right back around and admit that leftists didn't turn out against fascism because they weren't enthused, but that's just life and we should deal with it.
Apparently, expecting antifascism out of leftists is above pjwestin's standards for us.
Cool story, bro. Do you think that the twelve million fewer people who voted for Harris were all Lemmy Marxist? Or maybe they were just people who didn't like her total lack of a working class message, endorsement of the Gaza genocide, or attempts to woo, "moderate," conservatives instead of her base.
The Democrats thought that they could ignore leftists and focus on moderates, gambling on the looming fascism being enough to get the left to show up anyway to bail them out. Turns out that was a bad fucking bet, and they created a huge enthusiasm gap that cost them the election. Maybe try blaming the party that spent $1.6 billion on this shit strategy than a handful of protest votes.
Edit: For the record, Pug's edit is a lie. Pug's argument is, "You're saying progressives let fascism win because they didnāt like Harris, and she wouldn't pander to them." To which I keep replying, "No, I'm saying campaigns don't have good turnout with groups they don't campaign for, and Harris chose to campaign for moderates, not progressives." To which Pug keeps replying, "So you agree with me!" Also, he calls me an apologist for fascist enablers a few times.
Obviously, we're not saying the same thing. His framing is an attempt to blame leftist groups for the Harris loss, while mine places the blame squarely on the decisions of the Harris campaign (since getting votes was literally their whole job). You're welcome to go through the thread and make up your own minds, but it's probably not worth your time to read the whole thing. It certainly wasn't worth mine to write it.
"12 million fewer people who voted for Harris"?!?
Um, no... Trump won by (vote counts as of today Dec 3) 2,424,153 votes. I don't know where you get the idea that Harris lost by 12 million! At first I thought maybe it was a typo but you've repeated that number in other posts. Don't just make shit up if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqnemxwvx/president/
Harris got 12 million votes less than Biden got in the previous election. I guess that wasn't clear given the context.
OK, so if you are comparing those numbers, the answer is 81.2m for Biden in 2020 - 74.7m for Harris in 2024, which is 6.5 million votes fewer, not 12 million.
You were citing only her votes counted in the first 24 hours or so compared to Biden's total after all votes counted.
Oh, well, that's completely different then. Did she win?
If you looked at the argument they're having, it's about how much of a difference leftists made in the election by refusing to vote for her, so the number is relevant for the points they were making. OTOH my point was that, it doesn't matter how many votes each candidate got in 2020 compared to 2024. What mattered was how many votes each one got in 2024, where the difference was 2.4 million (1.6%).
Cool story, bro. Do you think that the twelve million fewer people who voted for Harris were all Lemmy Marxist?
Funny that so many centrists have a strategy that boils down down to, āignore leftists and then complain when they donāt vote for us.ā
This you?
Or maybe they were just people who didnāt like her total lack of a working class message, endorsement of the Gaza genocide, or attempts to woo, āmoderate,ā conservatives instead of her base.
The Democrats thought that they could ignore leftists and focus on moderates, gambling on the looming fascism being enough to get the left to show up anyway to bail them out. Turns out that was a bad fucking bet, and they created a huge enthusiasm gap that cost them the election. Maybe try blaming the party that spent $1.6 billion on this shit strategy than a handful of protest votes.
God, it's so predictable that you lot invariably engage in kettle logic on the subject.
Which is it? Was the leftist vote insignificant and cannot possibly be blamed for letting the country fall into fascism; or was the lack of the left vote what crashed the Dem candidate and thus why all policy decisions should be handed over to
the morons who preferred fascism to liberalsthe all-important voting bloc?Any other fascist apologia you feel the urge to engage in here, or are we done?
Oh wow, great point!, Pug! What a brilliant fucking comment! Except I'm talking about progressives in general, while you're bitching about a few hundred, "red facists," on an obscure website.
Most of those
12 million(apparently 6.5 million less than Biden, when the counting was done) were working class folks that wanted to hear a progressive message about how the government was actually gonna do something to help them, and everytime I see your account, you're bitching about a handful of obstinate communists. After seeing you do it so many times, it really just seems like you're looking for an excuse to punch left.Oh wow, great point!, Pug! What a brilliant fucking comment! Except Iām talking about progressives in general, while youāre bitching about a few hundred, āred facists,ā on an obscure website.
So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal? As a progressive, I doubt that.
Most of those 12 million were working class folks that wanted to hear a progressive message about how the government was actually gonna do something to help them,
What a convenient and totally unsupported claim.
and everytime I see your account, youāre bitching about a handful of obstinate communists. After seeing you do it so many times, it really just seems like youāre looking for an excuse to punch left.
"Why is PugJesus complaining about people on Lemmy while he's on Lemmy??? Especially here, under a post about the kind of idiots who blame liberals for everything even as they hand them loss after loss???? I just don't understand"
Keep mulling over it, maybe you'll figure it out. Eventually.
So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal?
No, it's that centrists decided that losing to facism was preferable to winning with progressivism.
As a progressive, I doubt that.
As a progressive, I doubt that.
No, itās that centrists decided that losing to facism was preferable to winning with progressivism.
Your argument is that progressives chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism, because the Dem wasn't progressive enough for them.
Please, inform me as to how that argument implies something other than "progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal"
As a progressive, I doubt that.
Of course, no one who is threatened by the approach of literal fucking fascism in this country is a TRUE progressive.
Your argument is that progressives chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism, because the Dem wasn't progressive enough for them.
No, it's that it created an insurmountable enthusiasm gap. I thought that was clear because those were the words I used, but I guess not. Democrats thought they could just keep talking about project 2025 and it would be motivating enough for people to go out and vote for a candidate and platform they didn't care about. As I said, that was a bad fucking bet.
Of course, no one who is threatened by the approach of literal fucking fascism in this country is a TRUE progressive.
No, but someone who exclusively punches left doesn't strike me as being particularly left.
No, itās that it created an insurmountable enthusiasm gap.
Yes, you're saying progressives stayed home because voting for a moderate Dem against fascism wasn't EXCITING enough for them.
So literally what I accused you of saying, thanks for agreeing with me.
No, but someone who exclusively punches left doesnāt strike me as being particularly left.
I'm sorry, I'll stop attacking the people who, like you, are making apologia for letting fascism take over one of the most powerful countries in the world because they weren't 'enthused' enough.
I'll be sure to be properly contrite for shaming you when I'm in line for the death camps.
You know people can just read the comments themselves right. Dont need your edit biasing things.
Have you considered that the vote between democrats and republicans is really about whether we will abuse foreigners for our wealth or abuse our own people? Which one is the noble one to vote for again? The one that won't harm you right?
Noble?
Why are you making this about what's noble?
And are you really suggesting that, if given the choice between their own survival and the survival of people on the other side of the planet, rational voters should pick the latter?
And are you really suggesting that, if given the choice between their own survival and the survival of people on the other side of the planet, rational voters should pick the latter?
Of course not.
They're suggesting that between the choices of
-
Americans minorities not being killed + the death of people on the other side of the planet
-
American minorities being killed + the death of people on the other side of the planet
The only noble thing to do is ensure that the second choice is chosen. As many innocent people, and especially minorities, should die as possible - that's the only moral choice, after all!
No, they really are picking the latter. They just responded to me. They think self-preservation is not the rational choice for someone to make.
-
Yes, you are responsible for your own nation at least. Shouldnt be messing with other countries people to begin with. Ideally America would stop being so fucking greedy altogether.
Jumping in front of the trolley does not solve the trolley problem.
it does, actually.
I'm sure theres a point in your reply somewhere.
Have you considered that the vote between democrats and republicans is really about whether we will abuse foreigners for our wealth or abuse our own people? Which one is the noble one to vote for again? The one that wonāt harm you right?
Funny enough, I predicted that the point du jour would change from "Genocide is bad!" to "It's only fair that Americans get genocided too"
My point is America currently and historically does not care about people, it cares about money and power. Where you take it from is the choice.
If the democrats won we would still be an awful country just in a slightly different way.
My point is America currently and historically does not care about people, it cares about money and power. Where you take it from is the choice.
Not really, since Republicans are still killing people overseas. But you don't care about that - you just want as many minorities to be killed as possible.
Maybe, they did claim they would back out of all that stuff. Probably not true because noone gives away power, but the democrats weren't going to either.
Maybe, they did claim they would back out of all that stuff. Probably
What stuff did they say they were going to back out of? The genocide they explicitly said they want to intensify?
They said they wanted it over quickly. As opposed to biden who wants to broaden and expand the fighting so the west can take more power and wealth from that area.
They both sound like a fucking nightmare honestly. Americas been fucked for a long time, its why Trump getting elected changes almost nothing. The people who aren't safe after he gets elected weren't safe to begin with.
Its still good advice to go to a blue state/city if you are worried for your safety, just like it was before.
Every "I won't vote for Kamela because she's almost as bad as Trump on Palestine", signed our death warrant.
honestly I think Joe Biden withdrawing after the primaries is the biggest nail in the coffin. The primary elections are worth like 10 billion in free media coverage. The second biggest is probably Kamala campaigning with Liz Cheney who has like 15% approval and dropped her poll numbers every time. Distant 3rd is maybe Gaza.
Yes, but they weren't the majority who fucked us.
It's just more striking when some of the people fucking us are self-proclaimed leftists who are supposed to be on our side.
It's a big list
The "Yeah Trump wants to rape women and kill queers, but burger costs more and that's somehow Biden's fault!" names are on there too.
Lot of people want us dead for very stupid reason.
How many "leftists" do you think exist in the US? Like, is this more or less than 1% of the electorate? 5%? This has the same energy as The Onion's "still too early to tell which minority to blame for the election". Maybe the Dems just actually suck ass.