The measure received 14 votes in favour, with the US the sole member to reject it. However, because the US is a permanent member of the council, it has the ability to veto any resolution brought forward
Unlike several previous resolutions regarding a ceasefire in Gaza, Wednesday’s measure was brought forward by all 10 elected members of the Security Council.
The US has vetoed four previous attempts at calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, on most occasions being the lone vote against the measures.
Shows he and the Democratic leaders never intended to end the genicide. Just another sign the democrats no longer support anyone but the oligarchy. Yes the Republicans are worse by alot but people that are anti genicide, anti oligarchy, anti fascism, anti authoritarianism, etc don’t have a party to vote for. Only the level of oppression they will see in the next 4 years.
Imagine a person having to choose between losing 2 of their limbs or losing all 4 limbs.
Democrats are basically the ones wanting to cut off 2 of your limbs
Republicans want to cut off all your limbs.
Thats what is is. I mean I voted against the party that wants to cut off 4 of my limbs, but I’m just sad that there isn’t a party (that can actually win elections) that is saying “we don’t cut off any of your limbs”.
Removed by mod
First-Past-The-Post 😓
Just get rid of electoral college and use Rnaked-Choice for single-winner positions + Proportional Representation in legislature
Genocide would end overnight
Removed by mod
Me: why orphan crushing machine?
You: because other orphan crushing machine driven by Nazies.
Me: but why don’t we destroy orphan crushing machine?
You: because orphan crushing machine go burrrrrrrrr
Me:…
Come back when there is an option that actually destroys the orphan crushing machines. Otherwise your just pouring more fuel into it and making it work faster.
As long as you keep voting limb cutters, they have no motivation to stop cutting limbs. Not voting for limb cutters is the only way to make non limb cutting get on the ballot
“I would only have the time to save 2 of the 4 childrens in the burning house so I might as well not save any of the children.”
Now imagine next election one person is threatening to kill 4 children and the other team 6. Well obviously we should save 4! Then next election, we have to kill 6, so we don’t vote for the person killing 8. And so on. That’s how we got in this predicament.
The people who want to kill 0 children literally do not show up to primaries.
That’s how we get candidates that want to kill 2 children in every election.
harris had never gotten even thousand votes in the primaries where 10 million people vote. she only got to become vp by sucking up to superpacs who didn’t want a progressive like warren as vp
and since 2016 dnc uses primaries more for just pissing on its members.
the problem is not the voters but dnc which today is run by lobbyists.
Removed by mod
That is a valid position if you intend to use that time to make it so that children don’t need to burn every election.
“Two limbs is just as bad as 4 limbs, so I choose 4 limbs!”
Not for nothing, but where is this two limb option? All I see is four limb options except one is grinning and clapping the other is just wearing a false look of commiseration.
You do realize that there is more than one election? Like every four years there is an election. Treating every election like it is the only one and never looking past the immediate effects for the next year is what brought this mess in the first place.
This is also why this comparison is bad. You can not only loose at this election, but the next one and the one after that amd the one after that. In fact one could argue Americans have been loosong every election to the neoliberals since a few decades. And why? Because you never made a point of getting one party to stop being neoliberals.
So far.
This election made me realize that political affiliation in the states for a lot of people is like being in a cult. Rather than accepting that your side has issues and needs a change, people just try to justify it by pointing how bad the other side can be worse. Like 90% of lemmy democrats don’t get that I’m not motivated to vote for being waist-deep in shit vs chest-deep in shit. Yes, one is worse than another, but I prefer to vote so I don’t have to be in shit at all. But all they will say back is hurr durr trump bad.
The reason people keep trying to say the same thing over and over is because your vote to “not be in shit at all” results in all of us being chest-deep. I want the Dems to change too but it isn’t going to happen as a result of folks withholding their votes while we’re in a two party system with FPTP voting. So since I would rather be knee deep than chest deep, I voted knee deep.
I’m not going to shame anyone for their voting choices, but let’s not try to deny - not voting results in chest deep shit, not no shit, and we’ll all get an object lesson in this every single day for about (at least) four years starting in January.
If you are going to proudly stand by your principled choice (which I support), at least be honest about the effects.
I feel like we need to normalize that demanding more from representatives is OK and necessary for a functioning democracy. The party needs to respond to the demands of those they are supposed to represent. This election made it clear that they only care about the demands of the donors and that needs to change
You have this perspective that “we can show them” if we just let the Republicans win, but there’s no evidence to support that. Every time the Republicans have won, the Democrats have moved to the right, not the left.
If you want a third party to emerge, you can advocate for that, but a truly leftist third party isn’t possible if we lose all our limbs.
EVEN NOW they are blaming progressives, not her nonsensical attempt to woo Republicans while moving right so fast it left vapor trails behind her after announcing her candidacy.
I thought this was going to be a great article. The title made me think it was going to be all about getting tough with Republicans and actually fighting.
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/19/how-democrats-can-move-past-low-dominance-messaging/
SURELY, Salon of all places will rightly criticize her for deciding to run as a Republican. BUT NO:
YIELDED to the far left? With Cheneys on stage at the DNC, more talk about her glock than about climate, no movement on palestine, and not even a willingness to let a pro-Palestine speaker have 30 secs of podium time at the event?
In what fucking way did she “Yield” to the far left with a campaign very clearly and transparently designed to woo Republicans into voting Democrat?
I have to question your grip on reality, Professor Steven Fish of UC Berkeley, if you think what you saw in recent months was Kamala “yielding” a damn thing to the left.