5 ms·

That's not why they got this. In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on. And they'll get wars and the s

by coldtea 7mo ago

That's not why they got this. In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on. And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too. Just like they got wars under Obama. No matter who they vote, the bastards always win.

phlipski 7mo ago
They voted for a proven con-man because they hated the idea of a black woman being president. US Racism - still going strong after 250 years...
- gedy 7mo ago
  There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party here with their dysfunctional internal infighting with just being down to racism.
  - bdangubic 7mo ago
    you should familirize yourself with Kamala Harris before saying she is not a leader - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris While Democratic Party could have picked another candidate, to appease comments like this (I heard this too many times by a lot of very, very smart people so I am not demeaning your comment/opinion in any way) that other candidate would have been a white male
    - gedy 7mo ago
      My point is that she was a poor candidate both times, and OP blaming this all on racism gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves. Obama would have beat Trump handily (a hypothetical), and not lost due to racism.
      - bdangubic 7mo ago
        0% chance Obama would have beat DJT in 2024, 0!
      - rendall 7mo ago
        > gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Sadly, they just shuffled aparatchniks around instead of cleaning house. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was put on the House Appropriations committee after stepping down from DNC chair. Donna Brazile was rewarded with the DNC chairmanship after slipping CNN town hall questions in advance to HRC. I suspect that the self-reflection to fix themselves is just not in the DNC DNA, sadly. America runs better when both parties are effective. Currently, neither are.
        locknitpicker 7mo ago
        > I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Trump's admin is overtly sexist, and Russian interference in the 2024 elections is extensive and well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2024_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... You need to take a hard look at yourself and iron out all that cognitive dissonance.
        rendall 7mo ago
        I talked about DNC governance and accountability after the 2016 primary, not denying that Russia conducts influence operations or that sexism exists in politics. Pointing to Russian interference in 2024 does not answer whether the DNC cleaned house after 2016, and it does not change the fact that Wasserman Schultz landed on Appropriations and Brazile became interim DNC chair. Weird that you would divert main factual points into non-sequiturs and then accuse me of cognitive dissonance. If you are free of cognitive dissonance, you can now address the points I made, not ones I did not.
      - pfannkuchen 7mo ago
  - mindslight 7mo ago
    Milquetoast uninspiring leader should still beat someone who outright hates everything about our country, divides rather than leads, and plans to sell our institutions for scrap value while putting the proceeds in his own pocket. Although I think the people blaming it on racism are hopeful. The real answer is that it struck a chord with people who do not want women in leadership positions. I remember reading an article when Harris was nominated, about how it was set up to be a "historic moment". Indeed, it was.
    - fakedang 7mo ago
      It was historic in the sense that there were no primaries, and that she was chosen by an embittered Biden to precisely result in this outcome.
      - mindslight 7mo ago
        I hadn't heard that motive specifically, care to send any links that substantiate it? (to be clear, the article was of course using "historic" in the sense of the DEI groupthink - since there's no way Trump could win then won't it be super historic to have a Black woman president) (and disclaimer: criticism of DEI virtue signalling is in no way an endorsement of Maggot vice signalling)
        fakedang 7mo ago
        https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy-kamala-harris-2024 https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy... This was not a move by Biden to position Kamala for a loss, but he certainly did not want Pelosi and the Democratic establishment to gloat on a win. Which is why he immediately endorsed Kamala for the presidency, right after announcing he was stepping down from the race. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fSK2AR594 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fSK2AR594 Pelosi suggested there should have been an open primary after Biden dropped out. But Biden's endorsement ensured that they could not backtrack from Harris.
      - red-iron-pine 7mo ago
  - locknitpicker 7mo ago
    > There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party (...) As a non-USian this blend of opinion just reeks of blame-shifting. You guys have a two-party system. One proposed a candidate that continued Biden's administration. The other was this hot mess. You guys picked this hot mess over Biden's regime. If you looked at Trump and somehow decided a second Trump administration was better than a continuation of Biden's administration, the blame lays square on you. Not on Kamala. Not on the democratic party. Not on DEI. Nothing. Own your mistakes. Do better.
    - JohnnyLarue 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - nozzlegear 7mo ago
      > non-USian We prefer to be called Americans, which is also the correct demonym; it derives from United States of America, and isn't used by any other country in English. If you can call someone from South Africa a "South African" instead of an "SAian," then the same logic applies to make someone from the United States an "American."
      - ndsipa_pomu 7mo ago
        However, Canada and Mexico are also in the North American continent, so "North American" also refers to Canadians and Mexicans, and that's specifying which part of the Americas we're talking about. The term "American" can equally apply to someone living in Brazil or Peru (or at least "South American"). To my mind, it always strikes me as hubris for the USA to pretend to be the whole American continent.
        nozzlegear 7mo ago
        [dead]
- chistev 7mo ago
  But they had voted for a black man a few elections ago?
- JohnnyLarue 7mo ago
  [dead]
- dominotw 7mo ago
  I voted for kamala but i didnt find her appealing at all. i could never get a read on her, it was so strange.
- red-iron-pine 7mo ago
  if racism is the main driver then why did Hilary lose?
  - 20after4 7mo ago
    Because the misogyny is even more pervasive.
    - coldtea 7mo ago
      Must be good to have an answer putting others down for everything without ever considering their perspective
- reducesuffering 7mo ago
  To be fair, we also ended up with a proven con-man because Southern Democrats don't approve of gays enough to win the primary for Buttigieg and we ended up with Biden only 1 term.
- coldtea 7mo ago
  >They voted for a proven con-man because they hated the idea of a black woman being president. US Racism - still going strong after 250 years... Same US that put a black man in the house for two terms? Maybe they just hated the idea of a shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist being president...
  - halJordan 7mo ago
    In fact no. It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them. It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one
    - coldtea 7mo ago
      >It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them It's even more well documented that Kamala is a "shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist", that even her own Party heads dismissed as inadequate decoration until Biden's faculties went even more downhill. >It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one Which makes sense, since, native americans aside, it was such demographics that first populated and established the US, the overwhelming majority of the rest came later. But it's irrelevant as an argument to what we're discussing.
cosmicgadget 7mo ago
Why on earth would anyone vote based on a Trump campaign promise?
ryan_lane 7mo ago
This both sides thing is stupid. Though there's always some form of military actions under either Democrats or Republicans, Republicans consistently start unilateral (and illegal) wars that leave us in massive quagmires, leave power imbalances in the middle east, and destabilize things considerably.
- Hasslequest 7mo ago
  Trump won on anti-war talking points. His owners had other ideas.
  - tokai 7mo ago
    Anyone that believed that should be locked in a psycward
libertine 7mo ago
They voted to "stick it to the libs" because of how much podcasts made them feel upset. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.
GJim 7mo ago
> And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too Eh? Are you seriously comparing the disaster that is Mango Mussolini to the likes of (practically any) former president of the USA? My friend, if all candidates are crap, you vote for the one that will do least harm. And then look at reforming a political system which leaves voters with such a poor choice.
Lapel2742 7mo ago
> In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on. In fact they voted for a convicted felon and rapist that lies to everyone as soon as he opens his mouth. A serial bankrupt that stole money from a charity. That was all on the table and yet his voters said loud and clear: That guy, that criminal, that one full of hate and anger, who lies and does about everything if it is in his self interest, that's the guy that represents us best. e: "No more wars" didn't seem to be their main issue. Just imagine, Trump won the war after a week of bombing. The Iran regime is toppled and a US-friendly dictator is installed. Are really sure his voters would not celebrate the war and great general Trump?
deeg 7mo ago
I'm sorry but this is silly. I didn't vote for Obama either time but there is no comparison between Trump and Obama. Nothing Obama did had the negative impact like Trump's attack on Iran.

by coldtea 7mo ago

phlipski 7mo ago

They voted for a proven con-man because they hated the idea of a black woman being president. US Racism - still going strong after 250 years...

gedy 7mo ago
There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party here with their dysfunctional internal infighting with just being down to racism.
- bdangubic 7mo ago
  you should familirize yourself with Kamala Harris before saying she is not a leader - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris While Democratic Party could have picked another candidate, to appease comments like this (I heard this too many times by a lot of very, very smart people so I am not demeaning your comment/opinion in any way) that other candidate would have been a white male
  - gedy 7mo ago
    My point is that she was a poor candidate both times, and OP blaming this all on racism gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves. Obama would have beat Trump handily (a hypothetical), and not lost due to racism.
    - bdangubic 7mo ago
      0% chance Obama would have beat DJT in 2024, 0!
    - rendall 7mo ago
      > gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Sadly, they just shuffled aparatchniks around instead of cleaning house. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was put on the House Appropriations committee after stepping down from DNC chair. Donna Brazile was rewarded with the DNC chairmanship after slipping CNN town hall questions in advance to HRC. I suspect that the self-reflection to fix themselves is just not in the DNC DNA, sadly. America runs better when both parties are effective. Currently, neither are.
      - locknitpicker 7mo ago
        > I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Trump's admin is overtly sexist, and Russian interference in the 2024 elections is extensive and well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2024_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... You need to take a hard look at yourself and iron out all that cognitive dissonance.
        rendall 7mo ago
        I talked about DNC governance and accountability after the 2016 primary, not denying that Russia conducts influence operations or that sexism exists in politics. Pointing to Russian interference in 2024 does not answer whether the DNC cleaned house after 2016, and it does not change the fact that Wasserman Schultz landed on Appropriations and Brazile became interim DNC chair. Weird that you would divert main factual points into non-sequiturs and then accuse me of cognitive dissonance. If you are free of cognitive dissonance, you can now address the points I made, not ones I did not.
    - pfannkuchen 7mo ago
- mindslight 7mo ago
  Milquetoast uninspiring leader should still beat someone who outright hates everything about our country, divides rather than leads, and plans to sell our institutions for scrap value while putting the proceeds in his own pocket. Although I think the people blaming it on racism are hopeful. The real answer is that it struck a chord with people who do not want women in leadership positions. I remember reading an article when Harris was nominated, about how it was set up to be a "historic moment". Indeed, it was.
  - fakedang 7mo ago
    It was historic in the sense that there were no primaries, and that she was chosen by an embittered Biden to precisely result in this outcome.
    - mindslight 7mo ago
      I hadn't heard that motive specifically, care to send any links that substantiate it? (to be clear, the article was of course using "historic" in the sense of the DEI groupthink - since there's no way Trump could win then won't it be super historic to have a Black woman president) (and disclaimer: criticism of DEI virtue signalling is in no way an endorsement of Maggot vice signalling)
      - fakedang 7mo ago
        https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy-kamala-harris-2024 https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy... This was not a move by Biden to position Kamala for a loss, but he certainly did not want Pelosi and the Democratic establishment to gloat on a win. Which is why he immediately endorsed Kamala for the presidency, right after announcing he was stepping down from the race. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fSK2AR594 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fSK2AR594 Pelosi suggested there should have been an open primary after Biden dropped out. But Biden's endorsement ensured that they could not backtrack from Harris.
    - red-iron-pine 7mo ago
- locknitpicker 7mo ago
  > There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party (...) As a non-USian this blend of opinion just reeks of blame-shifting. You guys have a two-party system. One proposed a candidate that continued Biden's administration. The other was this hot mess. You guys picked this hot mess over Biden's regime. If you looked at Trump and somehow decided a second Trump administration was better than a continuation of Biden's administration, the blame lays square on you. Not on Kamala. Not on the democratic party. Not on DEI. Nothing. Own your mistakes. Do better.
  - JohnnyLarue 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - nozzlegear 7mo ago
    > non-USian We prefer to be called Americans, which is also the correct demonym; it derives from United States of America, and isn't used by any other country in English. If you can call someone from South Africa a "South African" instead of an "SAian," then the same logic applies to make someone from the United States an "American."
    - ndsipa_pomu 7mo ago
      However, Canada and Mexico are also in the North American continent, so "North American" also refers to Canadians and Mexicans, and that's specifying which part of the Americas we're talking about. The term "American" can equally apply to someone living in Brazil or Peru (or at least "South American"). To my mind, it always strikes me as hubris for the USA to pretend to be the whole American continent.
      - nozzlegear 7mo ago
        [dead]
chistev 7mo ago
But they had voted for a black man a few elections ago?
JohnnyLarue 7mo ago
[dead]
dominotw 7mo ago
I voted for kamala but i didnt find her appealing at all. i could never get a read on her, it was so strange.
red-iron-pine 7mo ago
if racism is the main driver then why did Hilary lose?
- 20after4 7mo ago
  Because the misogyny is even more pervasive.
  - coldtea 7mo ago
    Must be good to have an answer putting others down for everything without ever considering their perspective
reducesuffering 7mo ago
To be fair, we also ended up with a proven con-man because Southern Democrats don't approve of gays enough to win the primary for Buttigieg and we ended up with Biden only 1 term.
coldtea 7mo ago
>They voted for a proven con-man because they hated the idea of a black woman being president. US Racism - still going strong after 250 years... Same US that put a black man in the house for two terms? Maybe they just hated the idea of a shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist being president...
- halJordan 7mo ago
  In fact no. It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them. It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one
  - coldtea 7mo ago
    >It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them It's even more well documented that Kamala is a "shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist", that even her own Party heads dismissed as inadequate decoration until Biden's faculties went even more downhill. >It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one Which makes sense, since, native americans aside, it was such demographics that first populated and established the US, the overwhelming majority of the rest came later. But it's irrelevant as an argument to what we're discussing.

cosmicgadget 7mo ago

Why on earth would anyone vote based on a Trump campaign promise?

ryan_lane 7mo ago

This both sides thing is stupid. Though there's always some form of military actions under either Democrats or Republicans, Republicans consistently start unilateral (and illegal) wars that leave us in massive quagmires, leave power imbalances in the middle east, and destabilize things considerably.

Hasslequest 7mo ago
Trump won on anti-war talking points. His owners had other ideas.
- tokai 7mo ago
  Anyone that believed that should be locked in a psycward

libertine 7mo ago

They voted to "stick it to the libs" because of how much podcasts made them feel upset. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.

GJim 7mo ago

> And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too Eh? Are you seriously comparing the disaster that is Mango Mussolini to the likes of (practically any) former president of the USA? My friend, if all candidates are crap, you vote for the one that will do least harm. And then look at reforming a political system which leaves voters with such a poor choice.

Lapel2742 7mo ago

> In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on. In fact they voted for a convicted felon and rapist that lies to everyone as soon as he opens his mouth. A serial bankrupt that stole money from a charity. That was all on the table and yet his voters said loud and clear: That guy, that criminal, that one full of hate and anger, who lies and does about everything if it is in his self interest, that's the guy that represents us best. e: "No more wars" didn't seem to be their main issue. Just imagine, Trump won the war after a week of bombing. The Iran regime is toppled and a US-friendly dictator is installed. Are really sure his voters would not celebrate the war and great general Trump?

deeg 7mo ago

I'm sorry but this is silly. I didn't vote for Obama either time but there is no comparison between Trump and Obama. Nothing Obama did had the negative impact like Trump's attack on Iran.