• Unsympathetic candidate from the depths of the establishment.
• Focusing on virtue signaling "how can you not want a women? And now she is asian and black too!" instead of real life improvements for the affected demographics. Especially after 8 years of Obama have shown that a black president doesn't mean much in that regard.
• Focusing on who they are not, instead of focusing who they are.
• Not opening up for a full primary, instead pushing the establishment candidate through.
• Not addressing peoples economic concerns and offering a progressive solution for that, instead sucking up to the billionaire donors
• Having a candidate that is currently involved in a war/genocide or advocating for more of it (Hillary)
• Establishing a culture of looking down on "stupid" or "backwards" rural and rust belt voters
• Sending contradictory in or mixed messages on various issues, depending on who they address/what the latest poll said to be important
• Sending a message of a sure election in their bubbles, demotivating some of their usual voters.
• Focusing on endorsements by high profile celebrities, further giving the image of a party of elites, rather than for the normal people.

Those were the bunch that came to my mind and what i remember seeing in various election streams.

And i voted for that consistently. I also demonstrated for that consistently. Sometimes being attacked by the state for it.

If your country wouldn't operate multiple military bases in my country, including storing some nuclear warheads here, operating huge lobby groups that captured large parts of my countries press as well as high ranking politicians like chancellors or foreign ministers you had a point. Economically we also have a lot of American investments. Heck the possible next chancellor is an asset of Blackrock. One of the leaders of the fascist party is an asset of Goldman Sachs and neoliberal think tanks.

But as Americans are influencing the fate of my country quite extensively, i will voice my opinion about what they should and shouldn't do. Which i think is a rather small influence compared to military, political and economic influence the US is exerting here.

Unfortunately they chose not to learn during the past 8 years.

They repeated most of the errors they did in 2016, while Trump just did Trump again. That is also why i say the blame lies with the party leaders. This was preventable with setting the right priorities.

"Harris could have won, if she took a clear anti-genocide stance"

"RuSSIAN ASSETTTSESETSE!!!"

Well i guess the 130ish Million people who voted for more genocide got what they wanted.

And we warned this would happen.

Because the pro Israel people had a safe vote with Trump. Harris trying not to take a strong stance, while further enabling the genocide tough, alienated people.

Now the silver lining is that Democrats have a chance to learn, that being against genocide is the only stance a supposedly progressive party can take. But they rather risked and chose to loose the election instead of being steadfast against genocide.

But you can already see here how people are blaming black and Arab voters. The white supremacy runs deep in both parties, so the idea that anything would have changed under Harris is laughable.

You are only proving it further. This kind of comments sounds just like MAGA voters. And that is part of the issue. How do you want to beat them politically, if you let them influence your political culture in their way?

"Ist Neville Amerika jetzt tot?"

"Nein Ma'am das ist ein Zombie. Der steht wieder auf."

-Coldmirror - Harry Potter und der geheime Pornokeller

Buckle to the top, kick to the bottom. And you wonder why the authoritarian politicians win...

Or it goes to show how much of a bubble we have here and how skewed the reporting in other countries is. So far there is absolutely no indication that it would be rigged and frankly the disconnect of the liberal online bubbles es emblematic for the disconnect of the Dem party from the people.

Oh yeah, blame the black and brown people for seeing genocide as a red line in who to vote for. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

What about the party that lost the election, quite possibly by choosing to enable a genocide further, as it deemed that more important than winning the election? What about the party, that chose to ignore the devastating effects of inflation on normal Americans, instead of providing a concise plan of revamping the economy, as that would anger its billionaire donors?

Why blame the people instead of the Democratic party leaders, who remained steadfast at the side of the elites, leaving the people to be peddled to by Trump?

Da muss man auch die Frage stellen, warum die Demokraten es nicht gewollt oder geschafft haben, die Menschen für sich zu begeistern? Warum musste wieder der maximal Establishment-Kandidat Biden aufgestellt und dann durch die maximal Establishment-Kandidatin Harris ersetzt werden? Das hat man doch 2016 schon mit Clinton vergeigt.

Warum musste man Israels Verbrechen weiter mit Waffen füttern, während die Amerikaner mehrheitlich einen Genozid in Gaza sehen?

Warum musste man damit angeben, dass man mehr Menschen deportiert als je zuvor? Das ist doch der selbe Scheiß, mit dem die "progressiven" Parteien in Deutschland der AfD weiter Aufwind geben.

Warum ist man bei Themen wie Fracking hin und hergefloppt, wie ein Laschet nach der Flut im Ahrtal?

Harris war nie eine Sympathieträgerin. Sie hat ihre politische Karriere als loyale Parteisoldatin gemacht. Und sie hat sich kaum aus dem Schatten von Biden rausbewegt und kein eigenes Profil aufgebaut.

Wohl eher Portier am Lieferanteneingang.

Dieses. Man hätte 2016 als klares Signal begreifen müssen, dass die EU nicht länger blind auf die USA vertrauen kann (wenn das jemals sinnvoll war). Nachdem Biden 2020 gewählt wurde, hat man sich gerade in Deutschland wieder ausgeruht.

Ich kann Macron politisch in so ziemlich nichts zustimmen, außer seinen Ambitionen für eine gemeinsame EU Verteidigungsstruktur. Leider hat die Ampel sich außenpolitisch wieder komplett unter die USA gestellt und die Ambitionen Macrons blockiert.

cum-ex wasnt an evasion scheme. They got tax returns for tax they never paid. It was a large scale robbery scheme. And Scholz blocked some of the money being returned and involved banks being prosecuted.

Also what started with burning books went to burning humans in short time.

If you were to protest the Iranian regime, you should use a flag of the current regime. Burning Quran to protest one specific Muslim country is like burning Torah to protest Israel. The symbol is specific to the entire religion and not some country or administration or so. So it is always an attack on the religion as a whole.

Also Islam and (afaik) Judaism don't have a central religious authority like the catholic church does. So attacking the religion to criticize a certain institution works even less.

I believe the US is a white supremacist empire, founded on a settler colonial genocide, which is part of why it now supports another settler colonial genocide.

There will be no change to that in the current political system. It requires a fundamental political change, probably revolution, but certainly the dismantling of the current political parties to change that.

Maybe Trump will speed up the genocide of Palestinians, but the Democrats are equally committed to it, as they have thrown away every chance to end it, while taking every chance to perpetuate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact. It can also mean an apathy towards such religious belief and refer to personal limitations rather than a worldview. Another definition is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

Aside from that, whether you accept and believe scientific discoveries remains a subjective choice. In social sciences like history or economics it often happens that two contradictory views are equally legitimate. And again the look in the past is valuable. Many scientists were ridiculed, sometimes even persecuted for their ideas to be outside the consensus of their time.

Assuming that what you consider the accepted truth because it is the accepted opinion of our day and age could proof equally fallible like the ancient Greeks and Romans ridiculing the now accepted germ theory, for which we have ample evidence thanks to the development of microscopes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#Greece_and_Rome

So your original ridicule is perfectly viable. It just not only applies to the statements of Tucker Carlson, who i probably despise equally as you do.