Uncommitted movement leader reminds senile Democrats why they lost.

Everyone always loses with Drump. Always have, always will.

DNC successfully elected the best guy for genocide. They still collected a fair bit of money. Is that a loss?

Harris campaign: why aren't you embracing our flavor of fascism, the flavor of warhawks like Cheney and genocide?

That is what the right wants you to do. Find anyone to blame but them.

There was a huge propaganda campaign started specifically to get the centrists and undecideds to stay home.

Every election is going to be a repeat of this. Facebook, TV, YouTube, anyone who can push content is going to forever say both sides are bad. And people will listen to them no matter how educated they are because propaganda works.

Watch for it because they'll probably do it again: A conflict that America is only peripherally responsible for and cannot stop, being pushed as the number one issue in the next elections.

The people who say Kamala ignored their issue? You vote down ticket for democrats and push those people to support your issue. This in turn pressures the president to support your issue.

The democrats definitely will not help. They'll produce 6 unlikeable candidates and say, "well.. These are the only people who could possibly be our president. Also the primary is pointless because of superdelegates and split voting so we'll just go ahead and pick this one before 50% of the nation has even voted."

Shit.. Sorry, I can't stay on topic because I'm impossibly cynical at this point. I'm still voting democrat because I refuse to sit out or actively support fascism, but I'm heartbroken over the situation we're in.

It is starting to come out that the Democrats blatantly censored voter concerns for the genocide during the campaign. And lied about them not existing.

A Harris organizer who worked on youth turnout said that senior campaign officials gave them an order: When they sent out mass volunteer or fundraising emails and people replied by asking about Gaza, they were told to mark it as “no response.” The result? They seldom ended up engaging with voters on that issue.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/uncommitted-leaders-stand-2024-strategy-trump-floats-gaza-takeover-rcna190782

if the Democrats were a real party they would either purge themselves of Zionists or purge themselves of anti-Zionists.

Nope. They should instead purge themselves of all identity politics to the maximum extent possible and focus on the real problem of wealth inequality, like Bernie Sanders says.

"Leftists?" None of us are infighting as far as I know. Did you mean "Liberals?"

The fact that their candidates can openly taunt their own supposed constituency about having only one alternative to their own candidacy should be more than enough to elucidate how the Democrat establishment sees itself.

--A candidate doesn't need to be particularly competent to play the role of the controlled opposition.

I don't think it's incompetence. After-all they have successful defended the corporate duopoly for at least 50 years, probably longer. Sure there are some upstarts, but the machinations of the party ensure those people never get to actually threaten the status quo. Plus they make good sound-bytes so that the democrats can talk about how they are "fighting," in unspecific ways.

Iron law of institutions. The entire point of the Democratic party is to fundraise and secure sinecure jobs for its members. Winning elections is a convenient side bonus. So they basically ran on Trump's first term platform and full support of Israel, since it is more important than winning the election. That's what the arms manufacturers, and other donors want.

I believe they are competent at doing exactly what they have been doing. The system is working to benefit some people. :-(

I mean, it kinda has been for a while.

I wouldn't think it'd take much to dunk on the current republican party.

All they demanded was basically a lip service and they didn't get even that

They successfully got Biden to step down

But then they were stupid enoufht to replace him with another genocidal politician

DNC loyalists keep saying this, and it continues to be pure cope. The Biden admin did not begrudgingly support the genocide (or, as you euphemistically put it "fail to condemn") because of some realpolitik consideration - though it would still be unforgivable if they had - they actively supported it because it was an administration filled with rabid Zionists at the highest level, and they enthusiastically agree with Israel. The fact that they couched it in vague, non-committal platitudes rather than being blunt about their fanatical zionism WAS the concession to realpolitik. Notice that Bill Clinton - who is at a point in his life where he doesn't care that much about political appearances - spoke on behalf of the Harris campaign, he didn't bother to sugar coat their complete agreement with the most extremist brand of fascist Zionism.

The actual example of the amoral voter placating position is what Trump ended up taking: still ultimately supporting the overall settler colonial project of Israel, but forcibly pulling on the leash of the more viscerally bloodthirsty elements like Netanyahu, and making them keep the carnage at the more publicly acceptable levels they were at pre October 7th.

I have seen a lot of people blame "the voters" or people who didn't vote or whatever, and that is often to a degree which implicitly absolves the DNC for their role in alternating them. Can't really have it both ways.

Just like on Reddit, they mostly shit on the voters, which is disgusting imo

Lol, to have not seen people defending the DNC on .world you would have had to have your eyes scrunched closed the past year. Why lie about something like that?

Edit: even in your own comment history you frequently defend the DNC, including their genocide.

Go over to the Midwest instance and be annoyed

Pro genocide comments like this don't surprise me anymore. I urge you to post more like this during the upcoming elections to remind people what the Democratic Party and its base really are. Voters might be scared into voting for the Democrats again.

THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES

That's not how democracy works...

Being restricted to two candidates is just like a one-party state with an extra choice for shits and giggles.

People vote with their conscience on whatever candidate they feel represents them. And it's THEIR business.

Anything else is NOT democracy. Nobody is entitled to your vote. That's the one power you have.

No you can force a political party to abide by your wishes by showing you are willing to not vote for them.

What lesson can the Democratic party learn from this?

Sounds like US democracy with the US voting system is deeply flawed and the only moral action is to no longer engage with it. Otherwise you are expected to choose between different approaches to an ongoing genocide.

The elections over champ, you can stop screeching the same thing over and over again. Unless you're already gearing up to lose the next election too.

Or, you pick neither. That's also an option.

Angsty, disaffected, adolescent me in the 1990's believed that repeated rounds of "least-worst" would lead to, well, it's here. He wasn't proved wrong.

Voting isn’t some bargain between a thousand voting groups and one candidate.

That's literally what it was intended to be. Political party conventions once were real, high-stakes meetings to hash out a platform that appealed to as many interests as possible.

Wasn't there like 6 parties?

Instead of uniting against Trump, let's fracture the left by yelling at each other for voting the wrong way! Even though that has never worked in the history of ever!

Ask the campus protestors arrested during the Biden administration about their felony charges and then tell me about how activists have to worry about being jailed now.

Cool that people making a principled stand to engage with a political party to encourage a change in policy are at fault for the leaders of that political party refusing to change policy, despite being told at multiple levels, for a multitude of reasons, including electorally, why that policy was bad.

Liberals hate democracy. Expecting to engage with a political party to affect change? Ew, just tick the box with a D next to it regardless of what they do or say. Don't you know trying to engage with a party that doesn't listen to its base or membership might lead to bad PR and might hurt them in an election? How could you be so inconsiderate? Your role is just to sit down and do nothing and accept whatever they say is true on MSNBC.

I bet during the election you said "it's to late to change anything, just vote democrat"

This is the magical time when we get to change things supposedly, so we will be having these discussions with or without you.

Then have the Democrats shut up about voting Democrat whenever someone posts about Palestine. Democrats do not get to start a blame war and then pretend to be the victim

If the DNC is planning to make the same mistakes, this will continue to be relevant. Given that Minority Leader Jefferies went to a Silicone Valley donor event last week and told attendees they would take the House in 2026 by, "reaching toward the center," this kind of shit will be relevant for years to come.

The Democrats in Washington failed us, and they won't admit it or retire. So of course we are going to target them... Otherwise, they'll try the same thing in 2 years and get the same result.

I'm afraid you don't see any of the depth in politics. Different people have different goals, and we actually need to openly discuss their goals if we're going to work together in the future.

"Damn, you're all still talking about that Hitler guy? That was decades ago!"

The dividers are Democrats trying to blame their loss on people who refused to support their genocide.

They want to learn nothing from the election and have turned their propaganda to justify their loss into overdrive.

People who support genocidal democrats aren’t the left nor were they ever the left. They’re milquetoast liberals happy that at least trump is protecting their 401ks.

Why should the left work with liberals, who propped up the genocide and refused to work with the Left?

What we need is electoral reform so more then two political parties can run for office with no spoiler effect.

And after the behavior of democrats in the last election and after, I no longer want to unify with them. Blue MAGA

Didn't the Biden administration vote against the two state solution at the UN after claiming to support it?

So Harris said the same thing as Biden said... while Biden and Harris were complicit in genocide. And this changes anything about the post... How exactly?

Did Harris say no bombs? Did Harris draw red lines? Did Harris to concede any of the demands in the post you are trying to strawman?

Actions speak louder than words.

The only difference between the republicans and democrats, is that one is better at lying.

The White House routinely makes mutually exclusive statements about its desire to “end the war,” while saying Hamas could “have no role in postwar Gaza.” Yet no mainstream reporter, editor, or opinion writer bothers to reconcile this contradiction. This calculated vagueness is central to why Israel is permitted to continue bombing and killing at will for an indefinite amount of time. How can US officials simultaneously push for an “immediate, lasting ceasefire” while, at the same time, saying the other warring party must be completely defeated before they can support a lasting ceasefire?

This isn’t a call for a ceasefire—it’s a call for, in Netanyahu’s phrasing, “total victory.” The pairing of these two mutually exclusive phrases can only mean one thing: In common usage from the White House and its friendly media, “pushing for a ceasefire” means “continuing to bomb and besiege Gaza while reiterating terms of surrender.”

One linguistic trick that permitted this contradiction to go unchallenged is the sleight-of-hand in what the White House means by “ceasefire.” In some contexts, it means the term as it has been used by the Israelis, namely by Netanyahu: a temporary pause in fighting to facilitate hostage exchanges, followed by a continuation of the military campaign whose goal, ostensibly, is to “eliminate Hamas.” But this is explicitly not an effort to “end the war” as Netanyahu made clear repeatedly throughout the conflict.

The White House’s demand to “end the war,” increasingly popular since the summer of 2024, is just a reiteration of surrender terms. The State Department banned its staff from even using the word “ceasefire” for the first few months of the conflict. But in late February 2024, on the eve of a Michigan primary that was embarrassing then-candidate Biden, the White House, as we noted in The Nation at the time, pivoted to embracing the term. But the Biden administration changed its definition to mean (1) hostage negotiations, but with a firm commitment to continue the “war” once Israeli hostages were freed, and (2) a reiteration of surrender demands, sometimes using both definitions simultaneously.

The concepts of “ceasefire” and “push to the end the war” became, like the “peace process,” a ill-defined, open-ended process for process’s sake that US officials could point to in order to frame themselves not as participants in an brutal, largely one-sided siege and bombing campaign but a third party desperately trying—but perpetually failing—to achieve “peace.”

How the US Media Helped the Biden Administration Distance Itself From the Horrors of Gaza | White House–curated stories of performative outrage and feigned helplessness provided cover for an administration arming death on an industrial scale.

Several attendees at the November meeting — officials who help lead the State Department’s efforts to promote racial equity, religious freedom and other high-minded principles of democracy — said the United States’ international credibility had been severely damaged by Biden’s unstinting support of Israel. If there was ever a time to hold Israel accountable, one ambassador at the meeting told Tom Sullivan, the State Department’s counselor and a senior policy adviser to Blinken, it was now.

But the decision had already been made. Sullivan said the deadline would likely pass without action and Biden would continue sending shipments of bombs uninterrupted, according to two people who were in the meeting.

Those in the room deflated. “Don’t our law, policy and morals demand it?” an attendee told me later, reflecting on the decision to once again capitulate. “What is the rationale of this approach? There is no explanation they can articulate.”

Soon after, when the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken made it official and said that Israelis had begun implementing most of the steps he had laid out in his letter — all thanks to the pressure the U.S. had applied.

That choice was immediately called into question. On Nov. 14, a U.N. committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, was “consistent with genocide.” Amnesty International went further and concluded a genocide was underway. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations. (The U.S. and Israeli governments have rejected the genocide determination as well as the warrants.)

A Year of Empty Threats and a “Smokescreen” Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza

Absolutely wild the apologia for Democrats doing genocide you guys will do to avoid holding Democratic politicians and campaigners to account for their own decisions on policy and how they campaign.

Her words are meaningless when her actions are genocide

As ever, blueMAGA shitlibs care more about what politicians say than what they actually do. Because decorum is more important than the lives of hundreds of thousands of foreigners.

Are you lost?

The fact that you read "she called for a two state solution" as anything but her endorsing genocide makes you appear to be a fucking moron.

This assessment of you is only reinforced by one of your links literally saying "She dodged the question on Palestinian deaths" in its URL

Of course I don't really think you're an idiot. I think you're a nazi. You don't give a flying fuck except for the fact that refusing to back down on this subject cost you the election. And because you're nothing but a fucking nazi, you will literally say fucking anything. You will insist that the person who refused to budge an inch from Biden's "zero conditions for unlimited support" position was actually the opposite. You're only upset that people got upset at you. You are a nazi.

talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words and the biden administration only talked.

She was calling for a ceasefire for at least 6 months. As VP.

And the money and the weapons kept flowing.

So you can see the problem .