- cross-posted to:
- leopardsatemyface
- cross-posted to:
- leopardsatemyface
Summary
Key leaders of the “Abandon Harris” movement, which encouraged voters to oppose Kamala Harris due to U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza war, are now expressing unease about Trump’s incoming administration.
Many in the movement, including prominent Muslim leaders, voted for Trump hoping he would bring peace to the Middle East.
However, concerns are growing over his Cabinet picks, such as Mike Huckabee and Tulsi Gabbard, which some see as troubling for Muslim communities.
I see them everywhere still. Since she did lose, sounds like they were right about Kamala being a bad candidate.
Why are you guys still putting your head in the sand and determined to blame people on Lemmy, which is an extremely niche community, for the election results instead of helping boost the voices calling for the Democrats to give you guys better candidates.
You had 4 years to make a change, but you guys would rather just blame people that wants actual improvements and still doing so after you lost the election despite getting the candidate that you supported. It’s really funny to watch.
Removed by mod
Very clever and original comment. If only my country is not affected by the US, EU, Russia, and China’s fuck ups, I would have just let you guys destroyed yourselves and just laugh, but that would be stupid of me. Seeing you all trying so hard to give Trump a fighting chance instead of banding together to fight fascism is both funny and worrying.
I don’t agree with you, which means you’re a bad poster.
The downvotes I’m getting means a lot of people think this unironically.
It’s not a matter of downvotes. It is your own logic.
You didn’t convince me. Therefore, you ARE a bad poster - as a matter of fact, not opinion. Just like how, through Kamala’s failure to convince people that she was the better choice, that she was a bad candidate.
Do you see where you generate a problem by placing blame on the “convincer”?
A presidential candidate’s job is to convince people to vote for them. Neither a Lemmy commentor or a politician’s job is to make people vote for them. Therefore, me not convincing people doesn’t make me a bad commenter, nor Kamala a bad politician. She is a bad presidential candidate for the current political climate, though. On the other hand, she’s not as bad as Biden, that’s for sure.
Anyone aside from stephen01king can reply to this comment with their anecdotes as to when they’ve posted thoroughly documented arguments on forums with absolutely NO intention of convincing people of anything; because it “isn’t their job”.
Otto Wels was a bad candidate because the German electorate liked fascism more than a socialist. This isn’t an attempt to persuade, I am merely screaming into the void.
A commenter is supposed to further discussions, not to convince others of his position. Your logic means an echo chamber is the ultimate goal of commenting on Lemmy, which I disagree.
Like every single person who has ever claimed that downvotes proved their point, you are making an insupportable claim. There are at least two things I can point to in your comment that could provoke someone to downvote it, even if they agree with your other points.
I think many commenters here would argue that at least some of the people who campaigned against Harris in the run-up to the election were not acting in good faith; certainly the comment you replied to implies this. It would therefore be inaccurate, in their view, to say that they’re blaming “people that wants actual improvements”.
This kinda makes you sound like an asshole.
For the record, I agree that she was a bad candidate, and that the Democrats would have won the election if they offered real change, instead of rallying round the status quo as they so often have in my lifetime.
Yes, some of the people arguing against Kamala was doing it in bad faith. Did I also see people on lemmy.world broadly brushing all criticisms against Kamala as being done in bad faith? Yes, yes I did.
Did I see any effort on lemmy.world’s part to find out whether the people criticising Harris is doing so in good faith or not? I see very minimal effort, and many of them are only asking in bad faith with no apparent intention to accept any kind of explanation as for why people are not a Russian asset just because they don’t fall in line with the Democrats.
For example, the reply to the main comment did claim, while jokingly, that the half of Lemmy that was against Kamala resides in Moscow, its that kind of attitude that is pretty pervasive in the discourse on the run up to the election.
Bernie lost. Does your logic apply there too or only when it’s convenient for your argument?
He was a bad candidate to win the primary in a DNC that is focused more on pleasing the elites than the average voters, yes. But you forget one distinction, we can throw out the people in the DNC that created the situation in which Bernie becomes a bad candidate, but we can’t throw out American voters.
One reason the DNC is still ignoring what the average voter wants is because plenty of people prefer to attack those that wants to bring change rather than pressure the Democrats to change. Case in point, the people here on Lemmy.
I agree that Kamala was a “bad candidate” in that she wasn’t very electable, despite being an intelligent, eloquent, respectable leader.
It seems like the main concepts that sank her are simply that she’s not a white male, and sadly Trump seems to have this unshakable perception that he’s good with money despite all evidence to the contrary.
That said, I think there’s a lot of self reflection to be done amongst those on the left who sabotaged their own candidate. They were protesting about Palestine outside Harris’ rallies for goodness sake. I don’t think this specific demographic is responsible for losing the election, but they are idiots that need to consider their approach to societal change.
Edit: I replied to the wrong person, whoops. Now this would be a reason to qualify me as a bad commenter.