It’s a convenient wedge issue because although no one disagrees, and Harris is the clear choice, people are very upset about it. That allows the topic to steer people away from reason and into raw emotion. That in turn allows the conversation to become a way to subvert the topic into a general negative sentiment that plants itself association with Harris.

It’s a good manipulation tactic, and you can observe that any dissent turns into a pithy back and forth quickly. That’s going to leave it in the conversation for good. Because we’ll get upset every time it comes up.

It’s a very cynical, awful thing to do. To take the genocide of a helpless people and only serve it when convenient as a wedge issue. But it works, so here we are, talking about them but only when people want to take pot shots at specific politicians.

Indexable content is a good idea objectively, but Lemmy will never “be Reddit”. Sometimes something is just lost.

If you’re implying that they were deliberately sown doubts, I very much agree. I’m not saying a bunch of folks didn’t get duped. I think it was very much to blame on agents provocateur.

What I’m saying is that the acrimony can’t be waved away, not then and not now. It has to be taken seriously even if it was the result of manipulation. Saying “nah you got suckered” gets exactly the kind of lukewarm response it deserves.

I have heard stuff like this so often, and I feel like it’s as silly and callous to say now as it was 8 years ago. The part of the Democrat base that chose time and time again to keep denigrating “Bernie Bros” absolutely own the consequences of their behavior at the time.

In a moment where part of the coalition has doubts, historic precedent isn’t relevant. What is relevant is the work to answer those doubts and that did not happen. Instead the infighting continued and the doubts were ignored. Smug headline after smug headline told potential Hillary voters to shut up and fall in line. But Democrats don’t really fall in line like that.

It doesn’t really matter if other primaries went the same way, because other primaries have also produced failed coalitions. Some are examples of success, some failure. You learn from both. In 2016 we saw infighting and discord dissolve enthusiasm, a crucial part of what gets Democrats to the polls. It’s my feeling that ignoring that is a bad idea.

Yeah I’m reaching with the mail thing. Only because I’ve seen decent results with it. But, not great - Oregon is still just 62% turnout or so and I don’t think they’re sporting better than average young vote numbers.

Republicans definitely don’t realize the only thing holding Democrats together right now is just how totally awful they’re being. A “third way” style move from Republicans where they move to the left would devastate the political landscape. But it would cost them the maniacs and they might not survive the breakup

I agree that it’s a stupid reason not to even try, yeah. But unfortunately it bears out, like it’s one of the reasons why Bernie didn’t do well in the 2016 primaries. His support in younger demographics was striking, but their primary vote attendance was not.

I think the problem is voter suppression, though, and not the voters fault. Making it harder to vote hits younger people directly. Making it easier to do via mail would probably change that dynamic completely.

For anyone seeking broader context, this article was written and published about Wisconsin before a rally which, by all accounts, had a ridiculous showing of young voters.

It also sits buried somewhere far past the election front page, which, a day later, is full of similar stories about record upping voter attendance. Here’s a link https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-presidential-election

Young voters are a notoriously hard demographic, and they don’t pay off to court, not usually. They almost never seem to actually turn up to vote. That’s always going to be a tough problem to solve.

But this article is digging, it really is. And it’s in bad faith.

Maybe, but if so, why not keep talking about it and make them keep answering for it? If you want someone on their back foot then you have to keep them there.

You don’t say.

I gotta tell ya, “is planning on increasing corporate taxes” seems like the right direction to me. So, yes.

It sounds like your wife is in deep grief. MS is torment, and she might be processing that grief for the rest of her life. She may not have space for a romance at all. That may never change. Sometimes, MS doesn’t let you get “back to normal”.

It is deeply crucial that you get everyone to counseling now, and not just individually but in spouse and group sessions. As much as you can afford. You have already started a new dynamic and grieving your old one is natural. But you can still support each other and it’s important to do the work and figure out what that looks like.

Partnerships can be loving and supportive and caring and not romantic. Sometimes it’s a phase that comes back to romance, sometimes not. But you need to be ready to relearn a lot of things and that starts with counseling.

Edit: And oh my gosh, I should have led with this - I’m so sorry y’all are going through this. It’s incredibly hard and I hope you get the help you need.

Losing your sense of self in response to criticism is one mark of a man who’s been failed by his upbringing. Mistakes aren’t flaws if you learn from them, and so an identity can only become fragile if it is too brittle to endure change.

You ever seen Clerks? This poster reminds me of the Chewlies gum salesperson.

In this case it’s because he’s obsessed with Lord of the Rings and no deeper than that.

Right. Like what are we supposed to miss? The taxes they don’t pay? The money they’ve stolen? Who cares?

I mean “job creators” is such bunk. They harvest worker’s lives for personal gain. There’d be a rough transition period if they vanished but well… we’re used to it.

They have this vain idea that the world would grind to a halt without them, but they’re parasites. I’m sure we’d flourish.

I love your post!

I agree, it’s very cut and dry what’s going on with this topic. I haven’t seen a single person yet chime in about Gaza who followed up with a sincere conversation about it, though. Just jabs, snark, and mud slinging.

I think the kindest interpretation is that they’re not thinking it through and they don’t want to. The least kind is that they’re insincere and looking for any way to start an argument.

Yeah, voting is something that gets completely recharacterized when you think about it through the lens of harm reduction vs ideal broadcasting. (And, bluntly, for anyone reading this who might disagree: Since votes are private, they don’t cast ideals anyway.)

No one is bent out of shape about local politicians from small parties. It’s the small party voters getting bent out of shape about the presidency never magically going to people who won’t first put in the work to build out proper coalitions.

I think it’s more that you really wanted to vent about this vote withholding thing? And you’re looking for ways to bring it up. I mean just bring it up, right? Why make it like you’re responding to someone you’re not really even talking to?