Summary
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich endorsed President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, stating it’s “time” to extend full Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.
This comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted his alignment with Trump on the “Iranian threat.”
Tensions in Gaza and Lebanon have escalated following recent Israeli airstrikes, with regional leaders gathering in Riyadh to address Israeli actions.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog is set to meet President Biden, though Biden’s influence on Israel may be limited following Trump’s win.
Why do so many “moderates” insist on acting like the politically engaged people they run into online are the same people who are were so politically disengaged this year that they just didn’t vote?
Like, could you please explain the thinking that someone wouldn’t vote and then keep spending free time talking about it?
It’s not just you, and you’re not the first one I asked.
But everyone else just down votes me for asking and never respond.
Well here’s a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.
I’m not going into the thinking behind it, but it’s certainly happening.
Being politically “engaged” on Lemmy doesn’t mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I’ve seen plenty of folks with a “democrats have to earn my vote” sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.
Did you link the wrong comment?
What you linked is just someone saying they can understand why someone who thinks both party’s won’t help, won’t be likely to vote.
I don’t read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won’t change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn’t vote.
So, the issue is you’re not understanding what people are saying…
You’re thinking they said something they didn’t and you’re getting upset about nothing.
Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?
If not, then you’re the one selectively interpreting this…
To avoid confusion because it seems likely:
A more indepth response:
What you linked:
They’re explicitly saying that the people whom didn’t vote, didn’t vote because both parties are too similar and won’t help. They’re saying those people need more than “not trump” to vote D.
I’m struggling to see where your confusion is coming from.
If this still doesn’t make sense, can you try asking for clarification in greater detail?
It just seems so obvious to me.
And this isn’t a new conversation, we’ve been having it since 2016, it’s been 8 years man… Hell, really 12 because we started seeing the drop in 2012 when we realized Obama wasn’t who he said in 08
What aren’t you getting about this?
Like, this is the bare bones basics of modern political history in America… Go back decades and the most likely response from a non voter about why they didn’t vote is “neither party will actually help”.
You never learned any of this stuff, like, ever?___
You’ll notice that’s different from
The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren’t affected by voting therefore they shouldn’t bother voting. IF you’re a wage earner THEN there’s no point in voting".
The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn’t see change being discouraged.
Like you said in your own post,
So this entire slog I’ve went thru to help you understand…
Is because when someone says:
You take that as a statement of fact and not their opinion because they didn’t say:
There is nothing I can do to help you here or with anything else you may have difficulty with in the future.
Probably for the same reason so many terminally online “politically engaged” people insist that they’re clearly morally and intellectually superior to everyone else despite the fact that all they do is whine about how the “lesser evil” (in just one of thousands of elections, no less) isn’t good enough for them.
Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn’t argue with you so much.
I think you’re confusing me for someone else
I voted D like I always do, so have most progressive on here from what I’ve seen them say.
What me, and them, have been saying is that Biden and Harris had our votes, but every indication show d they wouldn’t get enough to beat trump.
It’s fine to be upset about that, we are too. Probably more than any moderate, we’re literally losing more than you all, that’s why we care.
But what’s scary is this has all happened before. Moderates refuse to acknowledge they’re unpopular with Dem voters, and rather than reach out to progressives for help reaching non-votera…
You all just seemed obsessed with turning more Dem voters away from the party.
The change we need is better Dem candidates, how the absolute fuck will that happen if we’re not allowed to acknowledge we keep running shitty candidates?
Do you even remember how a fair and open primary is supposed to work?
How is one of those ever possible if no one is allowed to criticize the party’s favorite?
So your solution is less criticism of the party? No wonder the Dems never learn.