this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
466 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2786 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Many Democrats, especially women, expressed disillusionment and frustration online, viewing the result as a reflection of deep-seated misogyny in the U.S.

Harris supporters highlighted anger that a “felony convicted, twice-impeached” Trump prevailed over a female candidate.

Comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss resurfaced, with many attributing Trump’s win to targeted appeals to young men, including appearances with influencers like Joe Rogan.

The election outcome has intensified concerns over growing right-wing radicalization among young men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue 22 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It's really beyond time for this sort of disinformation to fuck off.

Harris lost because she's a neoliberal, full stop. Scapegoating it as sexism means you learned fucking nothing and will only keep losing.

[–] TrickDacy 37 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you think sexism wasn't a significant part of this, I don't know what to tell you. Of course it was. Biden wasn't better than her in any way and he won against Trump. Despite the fact that practically no one was excited to vote for him. It's baffling you're even questioning this.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Biden wasn't better, Trump's issues were just more in the forefront of people's minds. They asked themselves "do I want more of this" and said no. Since then there have been rose colored glasses that make people think he was good for the economy and they've forgotten the chaos. And now the "do I want more of this" question is moving against the Democrats and a candidate that was reticent to truly separate herself from "this".

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Anyone who wasn't fully aware that Trump is the worst candidate ever... Is ~~to~~ too(damnit) dumb to have made it to a polling station.

They all wanted a rapist in the White House.

[–] baronvonj 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is to dumb to have made it to a polling station

I agree with you, but can't pass up calling out the irony here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

It's funny, but my phone being shit to type on isn't ironic.

[–] TrickDacy 3 points 1 month ago

Not really what happened. Trump kept basically the same voters. As has been pointed out 5000 times, this election was lost because millions of Democratic voters stayed home. One of the primary reasons, which is slapping us in the face, is her gender. There simply isn't a world where sexism exists where this wouldn't have played a not-small role.

[–] grue 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Whether sexism was an important part of it or not isn't the point.

The point is that if we allow that statement to pass unchallenged, it will take over the narrative, none of the necessary reforms will happen, and the world will continue to get worse.

[–] TrickDacy -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right we can only talk about one thing. Fair.

[–] grue 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We can talk about the one thing that's important, or we can talk about mostly-irrelevant bullshit that not only fails to solve the problem, but actively works against solving it by serving as a distraction. I mean, if you just fucking love failure and losing for some reason, I guess you could do the latter, but why?

[–] TrickDacy -3 points 1 month ago
[–] ChonkyOwlbear 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Any sane adult should have beat Trump. He won because 72 million Americans want fascism.

[–] GreenKnight23 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

no, he won because 20 million Americans played chicken in Americas only car and we fucking lost.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I kinda think the 73 million who voted R might be the bigger problem here.

[–] GreenKnight23 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

they are a problem, but terrible people will be terrible and nothing will change that.

20 million voters figuratively said, "no, fuck you we want nothing to do with this system." even though they are literally a part of the system.

it's like negotiating with a toddler. ˢᵐᵃˡˡ world view with BIG ambitions.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Half of the reason government exists is to stop terrible people from being terrible. Religion is supposed to reign in the terrible people too, American Evangelicalism just creates terrible people.

[–] GreenKnight23 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

yeah.... Government exists to control the society. They say the government is the will of the people, but that's been a lie historically for many, many, many years.

Religion is the antithesis of government. Religion is meant to control the will of the people. to direct it and hone it to a fine point.

Historically, if you look at the impact that religion had on systems of government, you can see that there's definitely a negative impact where one becomes weaker.

The point being, both systems of government and religion are tools in which to control the fate of man. The reason why American Evangelicalism creates terrible people is because there are terrible people leading American Evangelicals.

And the reason why the American system of government supports terrible people is because it was modified to support terrible people. The same terrible people leading American evangelicals.

If we had any hope in making impactful change, it would have started with education.

Now, my fear is it's too late for education. And what comes next will be horrific.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 2 points 1 month ago

I think we definitely are in agreement here. My one quibble is I don't know that religion is the antithesis of government so much as a more primitive form of government. The earliest religions were a form of law enforcement in world without police or judicial systems.

If it's just you and someone else alone in the wilderness, why shouldn't you just kill them and take their stuff? There are no consequences. Religion adds the consequences. "God will punish you. You'll burn in Hell/Hades/Tartarus." Why shouldn't I steal? "It's a sin." Why shouldn't I sleep with my neighbors wife? "It's bad karma." It's all just laws enforced by a mythological father figure instead of a real guy with a gun.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Once all the smart, wealthy, moral, and ethical people flee the US that can flee the US do flee the US I'll finally be able to get a job!

[–] PolydoreSmith 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Completely agree, but I’ve been seeing so many similar sentiments on Lemmy since the election. Today I saw someone comment, almost word for word, that there was no problem with Kamala’s campaign - the issue was simply that Americans are too stupid. Someone else on a totally different post commented that this election proves the Dems could run Jesus Christ himself and half the country would still reject him. And those are just two examples. This is one of more unhinged meltdowns I’ve ever seen.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dems could run Jesus Christ himself and half the country would still reject him

I mean, that is undeniably true, but we've known that for a lot longer than two days.

[–] emax_gomax 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I get the anger from dems against those who didn't vote but honestly that's more on the democratic party for not putting forward a candidate that earned those votes than anything else. Neither candidate is "entitled" to votes, just because the other candidate is abhorrent. I do think things will get considerably worse now and that'll hopefully teach those who didn't vote that yes that can happen and they should vote but the decision not to isn't on the electorate, it's the party that felt like they deserved votes they didn't earn.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Dem party has no obligation to court voters that won't show up. Dems should not even bother with that segment ever again. This is why Dems were trying to convert more centrist republicans that do know how to show up and vote.

[–] emax_gomax 2 points 1 month ago

That's stupid. People won't show up tp vote for a party that doesn't represent their values and the dems aren't just entitled to votes because trump is the opponent. You can't win an election on just "the other guy is worse". You need policies that galvanise your voter base and actually makes a difference in their lives so they don't feel voting for either party is a waste of time. Objectively trump is worse but it's on the dems to convince the voters of that and they failed horribly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sure, go ask the average turnip voter if her neoliberal stances were why they voted for the rapist, 34 time convicted felon who cages children, is literally traded on the stock market and has nothing but praise for dictators, in fact who expressed his desire to be one multiple times on the campaign trail.

You folks are so desperate to not blame the majority of people who chose to either vote for that, or were at least comfortable with him as their leader.