609
Considering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from now
(sh.itjust.works)
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
609 points (94.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3541 readers
101 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good job to all of the fucks who stayed home because of Gaza, thinking that not voting and letting the GOP rise to power would actually help the situation.
Yeah, because Netanyahu's extreme right-wing policy was a problem with the US's left-wing party, right?
Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right. I get you but this was completely avoidable if the democrats were competent and not a big circlejerk for themselves. Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.
Gaza is a serious issue, the US is supporting a genocide. If you cant come out against that then why bother, there isnt much more important to a lot of people. I know Trump will be worse for the region, they do too but if you cant take a principled position that aligns with people you cant complain they didnt vote for you.
Ok, but
Bernie lost in the primaries, it’s our own fault (I voted for him…)
DNC primaries are a joke. look at this last primary. oh wait we didn't actually have a primary.
they intentionally waited until the "primary" was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.
i firmly believe if Democrats were not trying to game democracy this presidential cycle, DNC would have had a chance to beat Trump
If that was the case, they would have done it sooner. Kamala stepping in was definitely an unplanned, and unprecedented, move. It's a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.
i think it was perfectly timed
a) after the primary was informally settled
b) a couple weeks before the candidate was formally sworn in
sooner and there may have been a real primary contest. too risky. they did it with just enough time to sort of "zerg rush" Kamala into the primary without giving anyone time to mount a meaningful attempt at the primary
unprecedented, yes. it's the first time in US history since we've been using the primary system that a candidate got the party nomination without a single vote being cast for them
risky, also yes. but they (I think correctly) determined that Biden was a lost cause.
so it was either a) go with the guy you know you're gonna lose or b) go with someone you will probably lose with
b is the logical choice