this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
1133 points (98.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

5765 readers
2035 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I mean, yeah, this guy is wrong for thinking Trump will keep us out of wars, and the idea that you would vote for someone you think it like Hitler to stop new wars is both contradictory and morally reprehensible. But I've heard this take before (well, except the Hitler part, that's bat-shit insane) and it might be worth reflecting why a lot of the electorate no longer sees the Democratic party as the anti-war party. That's a big shift that's occurred in my lifetime, and it's worth examining.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

It's because they aren't. Clinton and Gore were 100% interventionist, and had no issues with preemptive war, some accused Clinton of starting a war to boost his popularity. Kerry was anti war historically, but pragmatic on Iraq, Hillary again with Bill not at all anti war-->

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 minutes ago

Being "pragmatic on Iraq" turned off a lot of the left. Ralph Nader's running mate, Peter Camejo, remarked at the time "Kerry isn't Bush Lite. He's Bush Smart! We do not need a smarter Bush!" Apparently the electorate agreed, because W. Bush went on to win a second term.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago

Obama's military adittude was ''a Democrat can't say no to the military'' and allowed whatever the joint chiefs wanted, which is never going to be anti war. And Biden was the same. Harris clearly not anti war either. Trump says he is, and that's more anti war than any Dem in my lifetime. Can he effectively govern for war reduction? No. He's an idiot, and liar. But he's selling it.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

But I’ve heard this take before (well, except the Hitler part, that’s bat-shit insane) and it might be worth reflecting why a lot of the electorate no longer sees the Democratic party as the anti-war party. That’s a big shift that’s occurred in my lifetime, and it’s worth examining.

Because they're idiots?

Every major war started in my lifetime (including the "war on drugs") was started by Republicans.

The Democratic party is the party of complacency, I'll grant them that, and we were in wars for several administrations that Republicans started. So it's hard for their donkey brains to remember when and why the wars started and when they ended. A lot of people think that Obama was in office when 9/11 happened. The country is full of idiots.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

Saying they're the party of complacency isn't really accurate. Obama may not have started any new wars (although there's an argument to be made that his operations in Somalia represented a new, unsanctioned war front), but he didn't get us out of Afghanistan, kept joint military operations going in Iraq, and created a massive, unaccountable robot assassination program that killed thousands of people, including U.S. citizens. That's wasn't an act of complacency, it was expansion.

To me, the difference in Democrats' and Republicans' positions on military use can be best summerize by how Obama and Trump reported drone deaths. Obama reclassified every adult male in a target zone as an enemy combatant so that he could artificially lower the number of civilian casualties. Trump just stopped reporting the numbers. One is obviously better than the other, but I wouldn't call either anti-war.

But let's say you're right; the Democrats are mostly anti-war, but they're too complacent with the status quo, and Trump voters are all idiots who can't tell the difference. What are we gonna do about it? 51% of the electorate went to Trump. Are the Democrats going to stand up to the military industrial complex to make their anti-war stance so clear even an idiot could see it? Or are they just gonna lose forever?

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 3 points 57 minutes ago (1 children)

I think you can't approch it from a party line issue. People want to see it in fact as action for the candidates, and at least right now Biden dropped the ball on Isreal badly. He should have put harsh levers on Isreal to get them out of Gaza quickly, Ukraine is a more complicated problem, but the US should focus more on ending conflicts quickly rather than let them drag on forever. But that takes real policy and leadership.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago) (1 children)

Neither war is happening on US soil (or between the US and any country involved) and the US and Israel have had an alliance -- which will remained unchanged if not strengthened in the Trump-Vance administration -- spanning decades. In addition, Congress allocates funds to send to other countries and the President executes the orders he is given. Biden could've vetoed the aid bills I suppose, but there is a good chance that they would've overridden his veto. He could've impounded the funds, but I'm not really sure how strictly-speaking legal that even is, and Democratic administrations face pressure from both sides to follow norms (i.e. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden's own party members would've impeached and removed him given just cause for doing so).

But, as per usual, people like yourself expect the impossible (world peace) under Democratic administrations and yet many of them will turn around and think any war that Trump starts is fully justified and support it bigly until the next Democrat (if there is one) gets in there.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 34 minutes ago (1 children)

In addition, Congress allocates funds to send to other countries and the President executes the orders he is given. Biden could’ve vetoed the aid bills I suppose

Biden literally bypassed congress to send more aid than what they had approved multiple times.

I hate the way liberals just shamelessly lie about this stuff, you don't even have the excuse of the election anymore.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 15 minutes ago)

The article you linked, did you even read it? That is approval of weapons sales, not sending them more money.

Congress allocates funds in our government.

I hate the way liberals just shamelessly lie about this stuff

I hate the way label obsessed "leftists" don't know basic shit about how the government works, and spend all of their time online talking out of their ass and name-calling.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Jesus fucking Christ

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 hours ago

Done went from being the guy we'd kill if we had a time machine to the guy we voted for in less than a decade. Pretty impressive trick.

[–] Sp00kyB00k@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Maybe, even if they hate him. Know he is bad. The one takeway is that they liked Kamala even less. It is combination of desperation and despise. If the Dems don't learn from this, they will repeat the same mistakes over and over. Pick someone likeable

[–] edg@lemmy.world 11 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

No matter who Democrats pick they will always be painted as unlikeable, losers, and evil by Republicans. If you think picking a "likeable" candidate is the trick then you too have fallen for the endless Republican framing trap.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 minutes ago

Rrrrrriiiiiigggghhhhhtttt. There's nothing wrong with Democrats, and if you think otherwise, then you've bought into Republican propaganda.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 2 points 33 minutes ago (1 children)

Shoulda ran Walz as prez from the get-go. Dude ticks all the masculinity boxes the right loves while being a real human being.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 minutes ago

That was my first thought when I heard Walz speak: "Wow! Can this guy be president instead?"

Now he has no hope of becoming president, because he's connected to a historically losing campaign. The Democrats would never nominate him now.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)
[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

She didn’t lose because she’s a woman. She lost because she’s an empty suit neoliberal promising more of the same to a nation desperate for change as the majority of us are one paycheck away from disaster.

And before you have the knee jerk liberal response of bUt TrUmP iS wOrSe you’re missing the point. This election - and elections around the world this year - are referendums on the current establishment across parties and ideologies.

Either learn that neoliberalism is a losing ideology and embrace leftist positions or lose to fascists over and over again.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I've said it before and I truly believe this, unfortunately sometime very soon lots of us are going to be LONGING for the days when we were able to live paycheck to paycheck.

I'll send you my left foot if regular folks benefit instead of the 1% during this presidency.

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I’m not saying I agree with trump voters. But democrats are completely incapable of self reflection and deserve losing this election as hard as they did after gaslighting the public about inflation and not doing a single fucking thing to stop these fascists. They had FOUR FUCKING YEARS to go after trump for J6 which is arguably the strongest case against him and they didn’t.

They had decades to make roe v Wade law. They didn’t. They lose elections on purpose and then fundraise off the loss. They block progressives and leftists and protect their corporate donors over making any kind of popularly supported change. When did the senate parliamentarian ever matter until it came time to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour? I’ve paid close attention to politics since 9/11 and I never heard of them until then.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The thing is that you're paying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more attention to politics than the average joe six pack voter. The imagined reasons you have for why they voted the way they did are just that.

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 1 points 48 minutes ago (1 children)

Average joe six pack knows they’re one missed paycheck away from disaster and voting accordingly. After all, biden/Harris said the economy has never been better!

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 38 minutes ago (1 children)

The average joe six pack doesn't even know they're one missed paycheck away from disaster and they're out there looking at new F-150s hoping to get an approval. 🤞

Also, I watched a lot of Harris interviews and crap, and she would always start her statement with "I know a lot of people aren't feeling the progress we've made on the economy and that's why we want to X", but that was too nuanced for donkey brains.

She should've came out with a series of ads saying things like "I am running for president, the previous president is Joe Biden who stepped aside and will not be on this year's ballot" and then talked about basic governmental structures in the country...preferably over a popular song.

Everything I've read from the people on this site is analysis that would apply if the electorate wasn't full of complete idiots. However, it is.

Trump communicates on their level because he repeats obvious things over and over again and he is donkey brained just like them...that's part of the reason why he's their hero.

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago (1 children)

You’re not wrong. Problem is the dems don’t care, they’re just gonna fundraise off this. It’s hard to take their “he’s the next hitler!!!” bleating seriously when they’re just gonna hand over power like it’s not a real threat. Weimar Republic vibes.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago) (1 children)

They absolutely will. Even today, they're sending out fundraising emails for recounts or whatever. The emails start with things like "I know you're upset and things didn't go the way we wanted" and then launch into "SEND US $5, $10". It's really pretty ridiculous.

All I can hope for is that he isn't actually as authoritarian as everyone and everything seems to indicate. We'll see I guess.

They do the same thing when they talk about climate change. It makes everyone think it's just politics as usual. I think it's part of the reason people see them as so unauthentic...because they have to be lying in some way otherwise they wouldn't be behaving the way they are.

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 2 points 20 minutes ago

Because they are lying. They really don’t care. All they care about is $

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

always has been

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe he just meant all the good qualities of Hitler. Like the ones he used to get away with his evil fucking mass murder for so long.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago

Say what you will about that Hitler guy - but at least he did do a good thing or two, like killing Hitler!

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 14 points 14 hours ago

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...I call BS on Wolfson's reasoning. The bastard is most likely a neo-Nazi shitbag and knew exactly what he wants out Putin's Sock Puppet.

[–] flango@lemmy.eco.br 18 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 2 points 9 hours ago

Right slavery is pretty much ≥ genocide

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago

Jackass and proud of it

load more comments
view more: next ›