It depends on the criticism, how it's framed, how dominant it is in the discourse, and how democrats chose to respond. The economy is the biggest issue and it's what dominated mainstream discourse. It's a valid concern for the average voter because it's tough out there. Of course "the economy" means different things to different people. For the rich, the stock market and GDP are among the things that matter. For the poor, cost of groceries and rent are among the things that matter. Democrats decided the best way to respond would be to point to the stock market and GDP.
Oh right, sending bill clinton (not sure how he hasn't been cancelled into oblivion yet, by the way) to defend this policy in the key state of Michigan where a large number of anti-genocide protesters are. Regardless of what you think of the policy, you'd have to admit it's an incredibly stupid strategy to do this. Instead the democratic party would like us all to believe that it's the voters who are to blame instead of democrats, who have/had the power to do things, not doing anything to get votes (i.e. the main job of a politician).
You're free to bury your head in the sand and continue to mock stupid voters, but it's never going to change things when the people with actual power do not want to change things.
Some days at work I've got only half-hour gaps between meetings. I don't care how adept people are at taking meetings, no one is going to get proper thinking work done in those gaps. If it was repetitive work, sure, you could get back into the groove of things, but even that takes some wind up time. Even worse if you're in-office and expected to attend the meetings in-person.
Our political system has false dichotomies throughout it by the nature of the two-party system and you're exhibiting a prime example of it. Pointing out that Harris should listen to voters is not campaigning against her. Also, Harris continuing the rhetoric of Biden, the guy who went out of his way to send billions of dollars in weapons to israel while they're committing genocide is not saving Gaza.
I've never told anyone to not vote for the democrats and I've pointed out multiple times that I vote for democrats straight down the ballot every time and vote in every primary, so your entire response is moot. Sorry you had to type all those words directed at an argument I wasn't making at all.
Ned Flanders' parents are essentially the democratic party personified. You're trying to wash their hands of blame because "Have fun dealing with the Republicans on this now!" but democrats did absolutely nothing to court voters during the election. On the economy, the biggest issue of the election, they lectured people who were struggling to afford necessities with "well ackshully the stock market and GDP" which has nothing to do with the average American's finances. Even now democrats use "egg prices" as a shorthand to mock people who cannot afford groceries and who might've voted republican.
It's literally "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" as a platform. All they can do is point at republicans, like you are doing now, and shriek about how bad things are going to get while they allow it to happen. Remember how they shrieked about how bad trump was and how much we have to defeat trump during the 2020 election? They went on and on about how many illegal things trump did and then when they got into office, they put in the milquetoast merrick garland as attorney general who did NOTHING for four years. Now we have trump again.
You can't just dismiss this as "that's in the past" because democrats will continue being spineless losers until the end of time because that is their role in this puppet show that the rich put on for us to make us think we have a choice in the matter with this sham of a "democracy".
Sure, Bernie can repeatedly talk about going after the oligarchs/the 1%, striving for free healthcare, and so on, but democrats know that he is not going to achieve his goals. Tlaib, in speaking about israel, was speaking on an issue where more direct action could easily be taken and so "centrists" felt threatened. Similarly, Bernie received the most opposition from the democratic party when he ran in the 2016 and 2020 primaries.
Of course democrats are better than republicans (an extremely low bar to clear), but they're not the huge battleship you frame them as. They do not fight for us unless it's on issues that do not threaten the interests of the ultrawealthy. This is why they will endlessly talk about reproductive and LGBT rights, but even then democrats will still let those rights stay in a precarious position so that they can keep using them as talking points. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15abortion.html
But even as Mr. Obama has delighted abortion rights advocates, he has dialed back some earlier ambitions. In 2007, he promised Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which effectively codifies Roe v. Wade. Now he says the bill is “not my highest legislative priority,” as he put it at a recent news conference.
Where were they two decades ago? Oh yeah, passing the Patriot Act to trample on our rights and authorizing the Iraq War to kill hundreds of thousands abroad. Now they uphold Bush as a shining example of a good republican. Honestly, with all the shit the US has been doing to the world over the decades, maybe it eating itself is not actually a crisis.
and depending on where they hang out on the internet, figurative myopia too!
But yeah, staring at a close distance for long periods of time tends to lead to nearsightedness in general. However, I've got myopia but not as bad as my siblings who spent less time in front of the screen growing up. Genetics plays a role too, among other factors.
The Biden administration has paused one shipment of the 2,000-pound bomb, citing concern over the impact it could have in densely populated areas in Gaza, but U.S. officials insist that all other arms deliveries continue as normal.
Wow, pausing a single shipment when israel already had more than enough to level all of Palestine. That really made a difference!
Hi, I'm still here to point out biden was supplying israel with billions in support as they committed genocide all the way until JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. How's that for deafening silence?
By the way, think about what impression you give off when you spongebob text the word genocide. If it helps, try doing that with The Holocaust and think about how that looks.
Biden decided it was more important to send billions in weapons to israel as they committed genocide than to listen to protestors, so much so that he thought it was worth losing their votes over it. Harris continued with the same rhetoric. You're ignoring over a year of things getting worse and worse in Palestine while insisting that somehow the democrats ignoring voters during an election when they need the votes are somehow going to make things better when they don't need the votes. You're admonishing people protesting against genocide in order to defend a party that has authorized billions in weapons to israel as they're committing genocide, with Biden even bypassing congress to do so. Think about it.
If you only let fascists make use of power then only fascists will have power. Either way, Biden had the legal justification to pursue it in the courts, even without the supreme court decision, but the useless AG did basically nothing the whole time.
hark @ hark @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 2,260Joined 2 yr. ago
It depends on the criticism, how it's framed, how dominant it is in the discourse, and how democrats chose to respond. The economy is the biggest issue and it's what dominated mainstream discourse. It's a valid concern for the average voter because it's tough out there. Of course "the economy" means different things to different people. For the rich, the stock market and GDP are among the things that matter. For the poor, cost of groceries and rent are among the things that matter. Democrats decided the best way to respond would be to point to the stock market and GDP.
Criticizing a policy of sending billions of dollars in weapons to a country committing genocide is always the correct thing to do. Let's see how democrats responded: https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-justifies-mass-killings-000813500.html
Oh right, sending bill clinton (not sure how he hasn't been cancelled into oblivion yet, by the way) to defend this policy in the key state of Michigan where a large number of anti-genocide protesters are. Regardless of what you think of the policy, you'd have to admit it's an incredibly stupid strategy to do this. Instead the democratic party would like us all to believe that it's the voters who are to blame instead of democrats, who have/had the power to do things, not doing anything to get votes (i.e. the main job of a politician).
You're free to bury your head in the sand and continue to mock stupid voters, but it's never going to change things when the people with actual power do not want to change things.