Reminder that Jews for Hitler & the Log Cabin Republicans are things that exist or have existed.
I think I heard about the first one.
Were they the ones that thought he was joking and voted for him because they thought it would be funny?
"A possible reason why some German Jews supported Hitler may have been that they thought that his antisemitism was only for “stirring up the masses”.
The seemingly ironic fact that a Jewish association advocated loyalty to the Nazi programme gave rise to a contemporary joke about Naumann and his followers ending their meeting by giving the Nazi salute and shouting “Down With Us!”
It must of been that part that I was thinking about.
Herzl worked with him for sure.
They voted for him because they were promised tax cuts for ultra rich
I don’t think that’s true. From my understanding Von Naumann was motivated by a sense of nationalism, not privilege.
I think @LEDZepplin@lemmy.world was speaking allegorically. As in the promise of tax cuts for the rich is why people support Trump today.
Why discount the possibility of them speaking in racist characterisation? The discussion is about Jews for Hitler, hopefully you can see how even delivered metaphorically, it is kinda obvious cartoonish racism.
Also are you sure you understand the concept you’re trying to peddle?
Now that you mention it, I suppose that could be. And, no, I’m not sure I understand much of anything.
Same with Latinos for Trump which is a real group.
they don’t even have to be from trump.
so much of my extended family came over without papers, but managed to get them and now they want that trump wall built and want immigrants banned and the last election proves that it’s a common thread among all latinos.
most of the ones in rural texas and suburban florida like trump; every one else hates him and there’s no in between somehow; but hating on new immigrants is common everywhere.
“I got mine, fuck you,” they’re living the American Dream.
what’s reasoning for ladder pulling ._.
“If we can eliminate suffering why did I suffer?” A lot of people justify their trials and tribulations as well as a coping mechanism, but eliminating them dimmishing the copeing.
Pretty much. It’s the “kids have it so easy these days” resentment. The “I suffered, so they should too” mentality. People tell themselves that their suffering made them stronger because it helps them cope with the fact that their life fucking sucked for a while. Or they tell themselves that they were able to come out on top through sheer willpower, (even if there was a lot of luck/nepotism/etc involved too,) so anyone else should be able to as well.
It’s true. So much suffering is needless and pointless and rather than accept that and work to eliminate needless, pointless suffering for others, which is exactly what would make suffering meaningful, so many would make sure others suffer worse. It’s sick. We need healing but that doesn’t serve billionaires, or capitalism.
Empathy, and how it relates to fairness.
Consider the premise: “I had to suffer to get where I am today.” Disregarding nuance, there are two polarized takes when confronted with improvement of the situations:
- I suffered and so should the next guy.
- I don’t want anyone to suffer like I did.
We see a stark difference in outlook, but it’s hard to see a justification. My theory is that it has to do with fairness. Watch this:
- I suffered and so should the next guy, it’s only fair.
- I don’t want anyone to suffer like I did, what I experienced was unfair.
I think this is the thinking that explains everyone’s observations, while letting everyone maintain some degree of rationality. The trick is not about whether or not someone empathizes at all, but rather how they prioritize empathy with respect to their own suffering. From there one determines what is fair or unfair about past and future events.
The reasoning I heard is they left for a cultural reason, and they dont want culture they left that coming in.
I work with immigrants mostly on work visas, and they all seem to support stricter immigration controls. Look at Vivek Ramiswamy, his parents are immigrants and he’s hardcore about restricting immigration.
They’re just pulling the ladder up behind themselves…
That said, there are others, like Nikki Haley (I think her parents are immigrants too), who take a much more reasonable approach to make it easier to come legally and harder to come illegally. I don’t like her other policies, but it’s nice seeing a Republican from an immigrant family oppose Trump and his stupid border policies.
I yesterday read that one of the Koch Brothers endorses her run for presidency and wants her to prevent Trumps resurgence. Although I wouldn’t vote GOP (I favoured Bernie 2016) it seems she’s reasonable and the minor evil.
I’m from Europe so excuse me if I got smth wrong.
She’s way better than Trump, and perhaps the only Republican I’d consider voting for. I don’t like her policies, but she is rare in that she doesn’t like Trump and imo has the capability to steer the GOP away from MAGA nonsense.
However, I think her policies suck in general. So I’d be voting for her for two reasons: she opposes Trump and she is kinda reasonable about immigration.
I don’t think she has much of a chance this election (we’ll see), but she does feel like a return to the old GOP that I didn’t hate with the firey passion of a thousand suns.
I’ll probably vote third party because my state will vote for the GOP candidate regardless by at least 20%, but I’ll probably switch my affiliation to R to vote for her in the primaries.
Yeah it’s such a weird attitude because I bet they didn’t come over the border. The vast majority of illegal immigration into the United States comes from people overstaying their visas, I don’t see what a wall is going to do to stop that. Well I do see what a wall is going to do to stop that, nothing at all.
As they say a 30 ft wall can be beaten by 31 ft ladder, but equally you could just take the plane flying at 12,000 ft
I spoke with a dude from Ukraine the other day and my mind was blown. He was going on about immigrants and the wall. He actually said, “They want to destroy our culture.” I said to him, “Dude, with your accent there are people who immediately feel that way about you when they hear you speak.” It was like he didn’t even hear me. Then he went on about Muslims in Europe and said something like, “We can’t relate to those people and they don’t want to fit in, they want to take over. The Muslims are worse but they’re doing the same thing coming up here from down south.”
In his mind he was the good immigrant. All the other ones are bad.
I don’t know. The world is neat.
Latinos make sense though. Latinos are a diverse group with anyone from the old Spanish rancher to the immigrant Venezuelan to the anti-communist Cuban. They are employed in many sectors of the economy especially in the southwest US such as natural gas, oil and energy. Some Latino families are first and second generation, but many are much farther removed such as the families where the border moved over them. Catholicism is dominant in Latin America.
There are a number of factors that drive latinos towards conservative politics
“Leopards ate my face” exclaimed the Face-Eating Leopard supporter.
“I never thought the face eating leopards would eat my face!”
I love that sub Reddit
We have it on Lemmy as well! :D
Ooo i never knew
More moron than oxy
Moron on Oxy
Or, as the Germans would say, Moron ohne Oksi
Meat elects meat grinder.
deleted by creator
The Republican party is ultimately in service to big corporations, and thus will always be anti-union, which is why there is so much anti-union propaganda and ‘right-to-work’ in Republican controlled areas.
It’s important to acknowledge the reasons why working class people are voting Republican. It’s not productive to just assume they’re stupid. The Democratic party has increasingly moved away from being the party of the middle class, and they have built their messaging around academic social ideologies that a lot of working Americans don’t like, don’t agree with, or don’t understand. We (as in we liberals) understand that the Republican party is fully committed to the benefit of the wealthy, but they’ve done an outstanding job with messaging for the middle class. The Democrats are realizing pretty late in the game that you can’t just assume unlimited support from the middle class because their policies might benefit them. The Democrats need to tell the people why voting Democrat is good for the middle class, and they’ve completely ignored that necessity for years now. Trump only lost to razor thin margins in 2020 because the Democrats were too busy pushing an agenda that doesn’t resonate with a lot of middle class citizens.
It’s not productive to just assume they’re stupid.
Stupid, no. But they are ignorant, sometimes willfully, but many times life gave them little opportunity to be educated. A lack of education is ultimately the reason for their beliefs, and their ideology now mistrusts the very tools they could use to educate themselves. In its place is religion, gut feelings, and tradition.
An uneducated human is, tragically, very easy to manipulate.
The Democratic party has increasingly moved away from being the party of the middle class, and they have built their messaging around academic social ideologies that a lot of working Americans don’t like, don’t agree with, or don’t understand.
Realize that the goalposts (or overton window) here will always shift. No matter how much or how little the Democratic Party partakes in ‘academic idealogies’, the Republicans will always demonize them to the extreme, and try their very best to rile up their voting base into a fervor. This all started when the religious right began to take over the Republican Party in the Reagan years, and we are now experiencing the outcome of that.
And at this point, no amount of pandering will make them abandon the very literal cult of Trump. They currently suffer from the same cognitive dissonance that genuine prophecy cults do.
Saying all that, Democrats have lost the trust of so many people because they, in general, are still very corporate-friendly and easily bought by lobbiests, preventing truly meaningful and radically positive change from happening. For every DSA Democrat like Bernie and AOC, there’s a hoard of neo-liberal Democrats that sow mistrust amongst the middle and lower classes.
And at this point, no amount of pandering will make them abandon the very literal cult of Trump.
You made a lot of good points that I completely agree with, but I wasn’t talking about the Qult. I’m referring to the disaffected Democrats across 206 counties that had supported Obama in 2008 and 2012, which were heavily concentrated in the Midwestern states that propelled him to an Electoral College victory. Trump flipped those 206 counties. That’s a lot of loss for a single party, and given their prior support of Obama, I think it’s fair to assume they’re not drinking the Kool aid. They’re dissatisfied with the Democratic party and voicing that dissatisfaction through the only meaningful method available to them, voting for the other guy. I personally don’t understand how anyone, anywhere, could ever support trump, but here we are. It’s dangerous to ignore these events.
You make excellent and important points throughout. It’s important for people to understand that criticizing the Democrats or their policy does not mean you support Republicans. Too many people see something critical said about Dems and just jump onto assuming that they are pro Republican.
Republicans are beyond saving, but that doesn’t mean Democrats don’t have to fight for votes and lean back into issues that matter to the middle class.
Didn’t we get polls from a lot of those areas, where they admitted voting because they were afraid of illegal immigrants getting their jobs and because Hillary’s job plan involved change and they just wanted to keep doing what they were doing?
I’m sorry, but I really can’t fault Hillary for saying she wanted to take coal miners out of the mines and give them safe and better-paying jobs. But she lost votes for it.
Even Sanders and OC continue to disappoint. I can’t think of a single Democrat actually on our side.
Bernie has disappointed me slightly in some areas, but overall he’s been pretty solid.
AOC has me slightly worried that she’s starting to vote along her party lines to create political alliances (She voted No on allowing the rail workers to strike, while Bernie voted Yes) but overall, she’s been okay too. I liked her green new deal.
I think that Sanders is the only politician that I actually like. He also seems to genuinely want to help the American people. He has been pushing the same messages for 50+ years, and has been arrested before for marching with the people, so I feel like he’s legit. He’s also not crazy wealthy like a lot of his colleagues, which tells me that he’s more focused on his duties than he is on getting rich.
I think he truly does have a good heart, and I would absolutely vote for him over anyone else.
There was recently a story running around that he used some of his campaign funds to fund his step son through the Sanders Foundation, but it’s hard to find non-right wing sources on it, besides maybe this one from the Atlantic. It’s not a huge amount of money in the grand theme of things, but it’s potentially a small tarnish on his otherwise fairly spotless record.
I don’t think that was a party-line thing for AOC. It was an incredibly complex issue because many of the Rail Unions were locked in strike from inter-union agreements. Sure they were wililng to continue, but it had become a giant morass of red tape.
In fact, if you read the bill, it did not ban striking, despite Congress having the express power to do so if they choose in this situation. The Unions retained the ability to strike, and the bill expressly allowed them to come to a superceding agreement should they do so. All it did was bind terms that were largely acceptable and had already been agreed upon by many of the unions. Did it take ammo away from unions? YES, because several unions perfectly happy with the agreed-upon terms were no longer willing to strike.
I have absolutely come to understand the folks who felt the government should stay out of business and Union negotations. I continue to see them a lot like Republicans, but I understand the nuances of it all. As a Demsoc myself, however, I feel there is sufficient justification for someone like AOC to believe that a Yes vote on the bill (not quite a "No on allowing the rail workers to strike) was the right choice.
Sometimes our congressmen will vote differently than we wish. Sometimes it doesn’t make them sellouts to do so.
EDIT: To be clear, I understand that there were very specific issues that some unions wanted resolution on, related to Overwork and “no PTO” being used to avoid hiring more people. There should be regulations to handle that, and I do wish the "enforced agreement’ Had provided more than it did.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that in detail. I think you make a good point, and I wasn’t aware that the unions were still allowed to strike even with a No vote. In that case, my fears for AOC ‘selling out’ have lessened.
Honestly, I’ve gone back and forth at least 5 times on my opinion of that vote. Each time, I find myself feeling strongly about the side I agree with, only to find some details that shift me to the other side.
The ultimate outcome for me is to realize that both sides have potentially compelling reasons that are not “sellout”.
It’s actually weird. By my breed of Democratic Socialism, I see Labor Unions as a band-aid for underregulated capitalism. It was a struggle for me for a while to see why other Demsocs have put so much weight into the “let the labor unions have freedom to strike without intervention” side. Some demsocs and other progressive types were doubling down that even if Democrats agreed to force ALL the demands of the unions it was a failure… but isn’t it what most of us want for the government to guarantee wages and work quality to protect workers?
I mean, isn’t the one thing we don’t wanna do just embracing Neoliberalism and being “pro-regulation” about it?
But then I flip-flopped because I wes convinced for a while there was a threat of force against labor. Only after reading the bill a few times and reading some legal analyses did I come to my current position.
It’s not productive to just assume they’re stupid.
It’s a useful enough shorthand when discussing them as a group.
Democratic party has increasingly moved away from being the party of the middle class, and they have built their messaging around academic social ideologies that a lot of working Americans don’t like, don’t agree with, or don’t understand.
Neoliberals have created managed democracies the world over and these ideologies are the crumbs we get in exchange for making rich people richer.
What good is a Democratic party that doesn’t even offer that? Their entire platform would be functionally “better to have corporations writing laws than fascist bigots writing laws”, all to gain 12 votes from boomers who don’t went to acknowledge their grandchilds pronouns.
The Democrats need to tell the people why voting Democrat is good for the middle class, and they’ve completely ignored that necessity for years now.
Even assuming they wanted to, where are they going to do that? On a multi-million dollar, for-profit news network that has sworn themselves to their shareholders? Chinese owned TikTok? Elon’s revolutionary new social network that’s just Twitter with slurs?
America is in a very very deep hole politically and “Republicans vs Republicans Lite” isn’t remotely close to good enough.
Republicans vs Republicans Lite" isn’t remotely close to good enough.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Republicians are neoliberals and push neoliberalism because when it fails, it makes rich people even richer.
They pursue this with a psychopathic greed, showing open contempt for anyone crushed by their machine, because those people are either poor, middle-class or born too late to ever hold them accountable.
This is why they’re happy to share their bed with neo-nazis and idiots – it gives them the votes, power and distractions they need to keep their snouts in the trough.
The only thing they won’t tolerate is a threat to profits.
The Democrats are also neoliberals and push neoliberalism because when it fails, it makes rich people even richer.
They pursue neoliberlism with a vague air of guilt. When it comes to rewarding rich people for being rich, they’ll just do the same things with a practised frown.
Rather than pandering to fascists, they pander to progressives. This is where we get our crumbs. The healthcare system is still dogshit, but Obamacare forces slightly fewer people to eat it. Gay people can get married because it doesn’t impact the profits of anyone. Their climate policy is still going to kill us all, but it will do it a few years later.
The only thing they won’t tolerate is also a threat to profits. They’re fine with all their “progress” being watered down, repealed or simply never implemented.
But someone like Bernie Sanders having a shot at president? Just watch the left-wing politicians and media outlets effortlessly slip into bipartisanship they just can’t seem to find when citizens desperately need it.
So what are we left with if we say “Oh it’s okay, I don’t need crumbs if it’s going to make a reactionary upset, a state they’re always in”?
deleted by creator
Or what? You’ll shoot me over the internet? Sorry to break your delicate little heart, but this is yet another problem you can’t solve with your guns.
I’m no more afraid of you than the far-right is, no matter how big a tantrum you throw.
The moment I get bored of watching you demean youself in public by following me around, I can click “block” and never hear of you again, because you’ll never do anything except LARP.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The Democratic party has increasingly moved away from being the party of the middle class, and they have built their messaging around academic social ideologies that a lot of working Americans don’t like
Damn straight, the Democrats keep moving to the right. The American left doesn’t have a party anymore, and they’re pissed. But you didn’t explain why that would result in people voting for Trump, who is part of the problem.
Coal labor went Trump in 2016 because Hillary said “I’ll pay to retrain you in something that won’t kill you” and Trump said “I’ll put you back in the coal mine”. They wanted the latter.
Unfortunately, it’s actually important to understand (not assume, but actually accept) that they are stupid and find a way to win their vote anyway. They want to work a Black Lung job because they’re afraid to get free education to do another job they’re not sure they can handle. So how do you win their vote without actually promising to put them right back where they came? Extra points - they are “too proud” for direct government assistance as well.
I think someone who’s in a union or interested in the idea of unions could be convinced why Trump isnt gonna help. Unless this sign is in California.
Pretending democrats are better when they have been working overtime to crush unions is just disgusting. The crushing of unions is a bi-partisan issue. This is only the “latest” example; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/railroad-strike-house-vote-bill-congress-senate/
Idk why this comment is downvoted.
Both parties suck very bad when it comes to unions, and while Republicans suck a little bit more, this shouldn’t take attention away from Democrats doing same thing, but softer ™
The very system is designed to make you choose between shit and manure.
