Everyone here missing the point...
Politics
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I want to build a broad-based coalition that marginalizes these fascists so we never again have to choose between a fascist and a genocide-enabler. But nah, let's just stay in our echo chambers and tear each other to shreds while society crumbles outside.
Just want to clarify I was referring to the comments and not your post. I will be right there with you.
I know I got that! I was just adding to the sentiment. If anything, I'm getting the sense that more here agree with us than disagree, and I find that heartening.
Got a link to the quoted article, by chance?
I don't use Xitter so all I can see is the single tweet and it's just an image, no attribution.
Found an article but it doesn't link to the source either.
https://zeteo.com/p/poll-harris-democrats-gaza-ceasefire-arms-embargo
There's this for methodology, at the end of the article:
Having trouble seeing those who (non-)voted for ending democracy, women's rights, and oppression of LGBTQ+ and non-christians as allies. Not enthusiastic about the candidate? I don't care. If they're going to do less harm, they're the only ethical choice. The basic numbers showed that one of two candidates would win. Ignoring that and the suffering that would be caused to vulnerable groups by one candidate for ideological purity is a hard thing to forgive.
Then get used to losing elections, I guess. You generally can't change a person's mind unless they already respect you.
And I can't respect those that are willing to selfishly sacrifice others for their own sense of moral purity, rather than pragmatically save as many as possible. Actions and choices speak louder than any philosophical statement and allowing fascism, all-out genocide of the Palestinian and Ukrainian peoples, and oppression of women and LGBTQ+ to win speaks loudly of one's character.
The people you want to blame aren't here in a politics community. Maybe a few posters here did a protest vote, probably in a safe state where it didn't matter, but most people here voted. The people who didn't vote (in numbers meaningful to winning) weren't sitting down to think about what the world would be like in each outcome and then saying "eh, it's fine either way", they were marginal voters who just didn't really think it was important because politicians either don't care about them or don't follow through on promises. They're just going to check out when you call them or the other politician names, because it's a tiring endeavor that they don't care about. You definitely have people in your life that say "they're not political" and check out as soon as politics is brought up. You're never going to reach those voters by expressing your disdain in a forum for politically engaged people, the only way to get to them is to actually motivate them to vote en masse with legit campaigns to inspire them that their lives will get better if they take this action.
Sorry but is there a source for this poll? I’m curious how this data was collected? (And am always skeptical of data cited in a toot without a source).
Edit: Just saw it is said to be YouGov survey from June with a small sample size, although no link is provided.