And that's why Kamala's stance on Palestine never bothered me.

[hawlsera@lemm.ee]

Did, did you not read the original post that started this converation?

[finder585@lemmy.world]

Unfortunately, some people are more willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian than seek realistic solutions.

[ubergeek@lemmy.today]

What's worst? Forced relo or outright slaughter?

It's both genocide...

[ubergeek@lemmy.today]

A realistic solution could have been had over a year ago, if we stopped blocking the UN, and stopped shipping them the tools to genocide...

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

Because most people weren't arguing about Gaza and it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

With the benefit of hindsight, the only way she could have won would have been to address the high cost of living. "The economy" was the highest ranked issue and people voted for the guy who lied about eggs.

[peregrin5@lemm.ee]

Why did she let Trump take office?

She didn't let Trump take office. You and those like you let Trump take office.

[peregrin5@lemm.ee]

It's cute you think the Trump administration is going to prevent outright slaughter.

[doorbook@lemmy.world]

Lol she literally ignore Michigan voters, they attack heavy handed youth protester, then ignore people who saying economy is fucked. She did let trump take office.

[doorbook@lemmy.world]

These comment are absolutely insane. It is like, yes lets cook this genocide on slow heat for a few years while enjoying our life in the US. Blaming anyone who took stand, and continue to take stand, instead of blaming themselves.

If Gaza was actually a reason for democrat losing, why people didnt protest who they did it to the point where it was clear to them it will make a difference. And if they did, why blaming people instead of the party that didnt want their votes?

On top of that as you and everyone mention it is economy proven by data, but they want to blame people whos families bombed by american made weapon! Like wtf is wrong with these people!

[ubergeek@lemmy.today]

I never thought he would. I just never actually thought Harris would, either.

[ubergeek@lemmy.today]

She didn't?

Last I checked, she peaceably handed power over to him...

[ubergeek@lemmy.today]

Because most people weren’t arguing about Gaza and it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

Well, I know it wasn't the sole cause for her loss.

With the benefit of hindsight, the only way she could have won would have been to address the high cost of living.

No hindsight needed! EVERYONE was telling her campaign this, and they ignored it, in favor of "data driven strategy", where they A/B tested the hell out of everything for a theoretical "typical voter".

“The economy” was the highest ranked issue and people voted for the guy who lied about eggs.

Yes, because Harris wasn't believing anything to be an issue, while homelessness is spiking, costs of living are spiking, costs for housing are spiking... Harris demanded people believe her, over their own growling stomachs.

So, yes, her loss was multipartite, and had little to do with voters who couldn't be arsed to vote for someone who has no connection to reality, and loves engaging in genocide.

[averageworldist@endlesstalk.org]

Gaza was fucked under either presidential option and we all knew that

The USA is a genocidal regime and everybody who participated in their election, giving their democratic legitimacy to this kind of state is sharing guilt for the same crime.

At least if nobody had voted, we could threat them for what they are - a dictatorship, and isolate them on the international scene. But nooo, you people were too afraid of having to actually fight back against fascism.