Well, anyone who voted for Trump is part of the reason Trump was voted, independent of skin colour. And I think voting for Trump is beyond stupid, even if you are a staunch conservative. Why is that racism?
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
295 points (88.1% liked)
Political Memes
5453 readers
2733 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The US is so fundamentally racist there is an entire holiday dedicated to answering the question of whether or not Italians are real white people.
At first I was kind of annoyed that Columbus was the guy proving that Italians belong in the grouping, but you know what? Maybe he was the whitest dude to ever live, which explains all of the crimes against humanity.
53% of white women also voted for Trump in 2024. They also swung the vote in 2016.
But really, the DNC just fucked up, plain and simple. They're run by a quorum of dinosaurs all Group Thinking their soggy old brains to failure after failure.
No one is blaming minorities for the rise of Trump, they're pointing out that since Trump expanded his margins across all demographics, Kamala Harris' failure can't be easily explained away by racism or misogyny, and there must be a deeper frustration among many of the groups that make up the Democrats' coalition like black and Latino Americans. Also, I rarely hear Democrats make this point; they seem to mainly blame wokeness.
I think you need to read the news more, then. We've seen so many articles focusing on the Hispanic vote, for example. Which is a fine thing to write about, but we should always keep in mind the horrendous numbers of openly racist white folk.
And if you haven't seen Democrats trying to blame people, where were you last month? How many posts did we see blaming third party voters? How many posts did we see accusing everyone complaining about genocide as Russian plants? Democrats and Democrat supporters were desperately looking to deflect attention from themselves, both then and now.
Thanks, I read the news plenty. I've seen pundits spend lots of time examining the Latino departure from the party. I've seen liberals blame everyone to their left. I've seen Democrats pivot towards blaming wokeness (specifically, the centrist Democratic delegates at the DNC), except for Nancy Pelosi, who directly blames Biden. They seem desperate not to acknowledge minority groups voting for Trump, since it would mean acknowledging the unraveling of the Obama Coalition.
And what is "wokeness." "Wokeness" means to them the existence of queer people, women, and POC.
Also, I envy you for not seeing democrats blame minorities for the rise of Trump, I wish I could be so happily nieve.
Wokeness to them means, "progressive policy positions we believe will be a net loss with the electorate." This year, that will almost certainly mean abandoning trans people, since the bigoted, "she's for they/them," campaign Trump ran against Harris was very effective. It's similar to how the party was happy to capitalize off the energy of the 2020 BML protests, but once the phrase, "Defund the Police," started test poorly with the electorate, they began distancing themselves from the movement.
I haven't heard any Democrats blame minorities. I mean, sure, I've seen terminally online people say that Muslims and Latinos deserve what's about to happen, but the actual Democrats don't seem to want to even acknowledge the loss. They pretty much only have identity politics left for a platform; they've adopted conservative positions on fiscal policy, foreign policy, and border policy; all they can really do to differentiate themselves from Republicans is to not be openly hostile to minority groups. The fact that they are now losing these groups seems like something few of them want to acknowledge.
Ignoring the whole propagandized media thing again.
Or maybe the DNC refuses to speak to, let alone execute an agenda regarding the needs of the working class, election after election. Of course they'd be trounced after effectively revealing themselves as controlled opposition.
My forlorn hope is a massive repudiation of the Democratic establishment in the next round of primaries.
Armed revolution in the face of predator drones with hellfires and 5th generation multi-role fighter aircraft is a fools errand for suicidal rubes.
"So V, quiet life or blaze of glory hm?"
1812 overture intensifies
Yes I know, wrong V. I don't care.
Yo prefiero vivir con paz si posible.
Wouldn't we all, but needs must when the devil drives.
I kinda get what you mean, am I’m really weirded out by how obsessed the US is with ethnic groups, like “black vote”, “white vote” etc, because most countries don’t focus on race like that.
But data wise, Trump barely increased his vote share in white men over last election, but significantly increased in black men, so I think that’s why some data analysts are pointing it out as an interesting shift in the electorate. However to suggest it’s any ethnic group’s “fault” someone won is just stupid. And if you’re gonna do that, try gen-X white men living in the countryside.
That’s because most countries are far more ethnically homogenous than the US. The ones that aren’t show similar patterns. Look at India for example. Or Israel.
This is, of course, Ameri-centric horseshit. American voting is reported on as white, black, Latino and not-statisitcally-significant. Meanwhile they'll call other countries "ethnically homogenous" mostly because they don't know anything about any other countries or literally thousands of years of finding any reason to hate each other. Motherfucker I don't care if we're genetically identical I'll be dead and buried before I vote for a fucking Walloon/Protestant/Catholic/Silesian/Scouser/Galician/Lombard/Frisian (delete as appropriate). They haven't at any point all been thrown into a cage, deprived of their heritage and told "nah you're just black/mexican now". And it ignores that yes, global migration is global. Every colonial state has left people behind in its former colonies, and found themselves with former subjects as citizens too.
Wow, chill out! I was very careful to use the word more. I didn’t say other countries are ethnically homogenous in the absolute sense, just relative to the US. Take Japan for example. Yes, there are quite a lot of ethnic minorities in Japan (both indigenous and foreign) however well over 90% of the country identifies only as Japanese and nothing else. This is a very different picture from the US.
You can see a similar story many other countries but not all. India, for example, has many ethnic groups which are strongly distinguished by language, religion, and culture. It’s also the case that ethnicity plays a major role in the politics of India and that role has been increasing of late, not diminishing.
“I just got back from touring Ireland. It’s wild over there. It just goes to show that without blacks, Jews, or Mexicans, people will improvise!”
-Jimmie Walker
As an outsider, my guess is to construct and and cultivate the idea that minorities vote in a block. I mean, no one literally needs to be told that non white people all vote for the same person or anything. However, it only has to work just enough to make just enough white people vote down racial lines.
The moderate wing feels entitled to those votes.
And for whatever reason they keep doubling down on refusing to do voter outreach and listening to what Dem voters want. Current leadership will never back away from the strategy of:
What are ya gonna do, vote R?
Because it's obviously not working. As long as we allow the DNC to prioritize rewarding donor bundlers with leadership positions, it'll never change.
The only metric is bringing money in, so whoever pays the most gets to determine the party platform.
Which wouldn't suck so much if the DNC was the furthest right option. When that's how the furtherest left option acts, turnout will always be abysmal and even when we "win" we still lose and billionaires always win.
Because of citizens united, money decides election wins. So how do we win without donors?
They outspent and lost this time.
That doesn’t mean we can win without donors. Republicans had foreign bots and billionaires buying votes.
Ever hear the one about wrestling a pig in the mud?
Why are you avoiding the question?
There isn't a question in your previous comment.
And apparently you haven't heard the one.
You don't wrestle a pig in mud because it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it.
It will only drive up donorship to the Republicans and foster more lenient ~~bribery~~ donation policy from the Democrats going forward.
The Democrats need to actually submit themselves to overhauling campaign funding if they want to make any headway. But they want that money. They want it more than they want any of their alleged policy goals.
Because of citizens united, money decides election wins. So how do we win without donors?
This was the question that you are avoiding.
To overhaul campaign funding they need to win. For that to happen they need donors.
Also, just because a saying exists doesn’t make it right.
They didn't avoid it
They outspent and lost this time.
Is a refutation of the premise. If, as you say, donation money decides elections then the democrats, having gotten and spent more, should have won.
So, did money decide this election win?
Republicans spent money and won. So yes it does. I never said spending the most money guarantees a win. That’s a straw man argument you are trying to build.
Was your argument that "democrats have to spend some money"? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I'm just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with thought, you meant most money.
This was the original comment I responded to.
As long as we allow the DNC to prioritize rewarding donor bundlers with leadership positions, it'll never change.
My question was how do we win elections without donors?
I don't see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?
This is still feeling like a "more doners is more better" argument which they rejected with a "not this time" reply so no questions were avoided.
No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it's always a confession.
I don't see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?
Less donors means less chance of winning. Democrats just lost while spending the most. So take those odds of winning and reduce them.
This is still feeling like a "more doners is more better" argument which they rejected with a "not this time" reply so no questions were avoided.
Maybe you should stop bringing your feelings into it and look at it objectively. Citizens united was passed for a reason. It was part of a strategy to buy politicians. How do we win elections to change things without donation?
No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it's always a confession.
It’s always a confession? I’ve never spoken to you before. This seems like an emotional knee jerk response.
"every accusation a confession" is a common refrain to describe conservative behavior
Point 1: You accuse people of avoiding questions (they didn't), it's because you avoid questions. The question you avoided
I don't see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?
The question you asked of them was how to win without donors. Not less donors.
Would you like me to extend to you the courtesy you denied me when accusing me of building a strawman. That "without" is an extention of "fewer" the same way "most" is an extention of "more". But that would take admitting they did, in fact, answer your question. Would you like to admit that? If so I'm good, that was all I wanted to highlight to you in the first place.
Point 2: you accuse people of building strawmen, I didn't, it's because you build strawmen. See above.
Regarding the pivot from "money" to "donors": did democrats have less donors this election? I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge the counter example, look at it objectively.
Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn't work.
politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. - Oscar Ameringer
Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.
Was your argument that "democrats have to spend some money"? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I'm just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with, thought you meant most money.
Because of citizens united..
part interests me. Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
Edit to answer your question:
How do we win without doners?
They don't. But, because we've established they don't need the most money to win they can be more selective in their choices. Taking donations from oil companies at the cost of votes, bad plan. Taking donations from genocidal governments at the cost of votes, bad plan. Promise voters that you'll level wealth inequality at the cost of money, good plan. They don't need all the money.
Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
They were pretty limited because donors have a maximum donation amount, so once you're maxed that's it.
Unless you're a PAC then as long as you follow some rules, people can donate as much as they like to the PAC and the PAC can use that money to do basically everything a normal campaign organization would do...all legal because of citizens united.
The rules are poorly written and even more poorly enforced.
Coordinate with a candidate before they announce their candidacy?
Pass
Coordinate with an individual who is then hired as an advisor to the candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the children / spouse of an incumbent candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the candidate themselves through means that prevent detection?
Pass
Coordinate with a candidate explicitly in broad daylight while making no attempt to hide it and leave a paper trail, electronic records, notarized documents, and a plan to do so again in the future and market your services doing so to other candidates?
Candidate elected; you are at a sub 1% chance to be charged with a misdemeanor if investigated by the DoJ because the FEC can't be arsed
I answered the question in an edit for the sake of fairness. Tldr: they don't. The doners don't need to cost votes.
I don't see the relevance. So long as people aren't saying they spend no money, which they didn't, why bring it up? It still implies a "most money" argument to me.
Edit: I don't read usernames and it bites me everytime