And you want to criticize the voters instead of the politicians.
My guy you are posting under an article which I posted, which is criticizing the politicians. Sounds great.
When I am king, anyone who start filling in both sides of the argument by telling the person they're arguing, what it is that that person is arguing, will be sent straight to the Internet Reeducation Camps.
Not at all wrong, no, I am joining in that complaining. I'm just pointing out the conspicuous lack of much corresponding effort by the same people to talk up Mamdani himself.
It seems kinda weird that making sure Kamala Harris lost the election, to teach the Democrats a lesson about genocide, doesn't come alongside making sure that Mamdani wins the election, to teach the Democrats a lesson about genocide. Right? If they were who they claimed to be then you would think that the people who cared a lot about the first thing and talked about it a lot would also now be talking about the second one a lot, right?
I mean honestly, US presidents killing random people and families the world over for literally no reason is nothing new. On the scale of Trump stuff, this is pretty minor, as sad as that is to say.
Yeah. In any country with a sane Overton window, it would be a normal conservative paper. But for some reason in the American spectrum it's this wildly liberal thing.
Here's one example:
You can see him relentlessly criticizing Biden, ostensibly to "push Biden to fight harder," or "push the Dems to CHANGE." or "holding Biden accountable," and a nonstop stream about how he's super helping when he agitates for people not to vote for Democrats.
Then there's this:
This is a person who posts thousands of comments about politics, who cares deeply about leftist causes, and really wants to make leftist progress with the election...
Someone on Reddit asked one of their editors during an AMA why they covered Biden's flaws in such eager and abundant detail, and gave Trump a free pass on so much heinous nonsense. His answer was more or less that Trump was popular and Biden wasn't, so their coverage needed to reflect that.
They had multiple columnists who were sort of "Non-death-camp Republicans," I remember one of them was a black guy. The whole thing was fuckin' stupid from the jump, although they did sort of return to a more reality leaning once Trump won and it became a little bit clearer how bad it could get.
Lemmy: "Let's push the Democrats to the left by refusing to vote for Kamala Harris, basically threaten to end the world unless our demands are met"
Lemmy when Mamdani starts successfully pushing the Democrats left: "I am suddenly motivated to spend a lot of energy whining about how bad the Democrats are"
This you?
Hope it was worth it, you clowns. They're definitely coming for you, too, even AJ and the "good ones."
It's not for them. It's for the rest of the crowd. The next time one of them thinks, "Well maybe I should turn this terrified child over to the ICE officers who showed up at my workplace asking about them," they'll remember all those wild cheers at the end, and the man shaking his withered finger and speaking. It's like water cutting a pathway through the rocks.
What's wild is how wrong everyone else was at the time. It's sort of easy to be anti-Israel (for example) at this point, now. It's common, you see it at the Emmys, you see mainstream news reports about Israel starving Gaza, there's still a debate about it (for some fuckin' reason) but it's not like you only ever hear one side. At the time he was doing most of his work, he was the only one. He was like some kind of crazy subversive, he was very much infamous in American academia because he was constantly being "anti-American," he was accusing the US and Israel of committing terrorism, he was just in his own wild left field location, and he was the only one. There were a couple others, Howard Zinn and whatnot, but he was the only one who was known in any real capacity.
Russian generals: Hey, so we're behind in terms of tactics, intelligence, morale, and we're constantly short on manpower. We've been fighting this thing for years now, and the distance we've penetrated into Ukraine is shorter in a lot of places than some of the longer footraces. And the more Western countries take this whole thing seriously, the more of their functionally infinite economic resources they're going to devote to making sure we keep losing. We have figured out one good thing we can do, though: Cheap drone munitions including a lot of decoys, just spamming to overwhelm the defenses, since a lot of Western defenses are organized around single-shot ordnance that costs a ton of money. If we can launch 30 drones that each cost $15k, and it costs $3 million to shoot down each one and there aren't even all that many of those $3 million missiles in the launcher, we can overwhelm the defenses and get some bombing done.
It doesn't help too much with the war, but we can at least kill some civilians, which everyone knows is always productive. So: The plan is to make sure the West's focus is elsewhere so they don't start committing lots of energy and resources to us as an issue, and attack Ukraine focusing on cheap ordnance so that what resources they do commit are going to be as disadvantaged as possible.
Putin: Or, hear me out here,
Rumsfeld more or less bragged about it too, a lot of that crowd did. We haven't had a serial killer in the White House for a few years, so it's an adjustment back (and of course Trump is such an overtly vicious person that it'll have a new flavor now), but this stuff is not new for Republicans.
(Actually Biden and Bush Sr. are the only two presidents since Carter that I can remember that weren't fans of blowing up random people directly with US forces for no reason. In Afghanistan they did an airstrike on a wedding.)