For some of the people here who are going to yell out “but liberalism is bad and should die anyway!”
I’ve posted several comments in this thread, but I’ll do one top level comment now, not directed at anyone in particular.
Liberal in this instance means socially progressive. Illiberalism as Orban called it, was about stopping the “liberal gay agenda”. This is from American politics, where conservatives have started calling all progressives liberals. It has caught on in at least some Eastern European countries because our far-right leaders love mimicking the American far right Republican party. Putin is also spreading this shit, I’ve got a link somewhere to one of his quotes about liberalism destroying nations through “multiculturalism” or whatever. Essentially “liberals import the blacks and they destroy everything”.
Illiberalism in this instance doesn’t mean getting rid of the market economy or electoral system (necessarily). It means being bigoted.
He’s not actually very liberal from what I’m reading. He’s pro EU and not a Putin puppet but other than that his policies aren’t all that different from Orban’s. He was even in Fidesz until a few years ago.
I wonder if there will be much improvement for the LGBTQ community there.
But at least the Ukrainian payments stalemate is broken.
If I were to Americanize it: This is essentially if Ted Cruz, or better yet Chris Christie, beat Donald Trump in the general election. Undeniably a good thing as it’d mean no more Trump and it’s kinda humilating for him.
But it means… yeah. One of them at the helm.
Someone on Bluesky said it was like if the Dems had lost to Trump 4 times and then ran Mit Romney and won by a historic landslide
That’s a better comparison, actually. Mitt very publicly doesn’t like Trump, but voted with him like 80% of the time.
I’m really happy that Hungarians got their wannabe president-for-life kicked out peacefully. :)
Regarding Russia - Putin’s popularity is in a clear downward dive, but a dive from very high altitude (he has built a formidable propaganda machinery and brainwashed people severely) so it will take time. His regime currently has almost full control of Internet use in Russia, so the only channels which can operate freely are VPN tunnels to services hosted abroad (Telegram being most popular). I hope self-organizing mesh networks will also offer a challenge in cities, but that remains to be seen.
Sadly, unlike Orban, Putin has also rebuilt the system so that he can order arbitrary violence (e.g. poisonings). As a result, most likely in Russia, when time comes, it will be bloody. But there’s a positive thing about Putin: he’s old and might just die one day (or touch the wrong door handle without gloves, if others near him decide he’s too old), opening an avenue for peaceful change.
Trump will be kicked out, I’m 95% sure of that. But Americans will have to rethink the role and authority of the president quite soon after that. And I mean limiting it.
Trump will be kicked out, I’m 95% sure of that.
I’m not worried about that, I’m actually more worried about who replaces him when it swings back right. He proved that Hitler adjacent is fine and that overton window isn’t going back left. We’re so far right we could fit two more parties to the left and just be a little progressive.
When Putin goes it will be another 1990s scramble for power and the Russian people will follow whomever is the biggest thug who makes them feel a sense of pride and stability, which is precisely how Putin came to power.
People forget that before Putin Russia was in economic collapse throughout the 90s. And that all of Russian history the central government been authoritarian and corrupt af
This is an incredibly racist framing. Russia literally had the first successful socialist revolution in history, which brought about immense levels of democratization and rights compared to the tsarist regime before it. People originally elected Putin precisely because a stronger Russia with a stronger state was the only thing that proved capable of putting a brake to the neoliberal chaos and destruction instituted after the illegal dissolution of communism. Putin is popular not because he’s positive, but because people are deathly afraid of suffering the 90s again and Putin platforms himself as the solution (when in reality he’s just another filthy capitalist).
Trump will be kicked out, I’m 95% sure of that. But Americans will have to rethink the role and authority of the president quite soon after that. And I mean limiting it.
Vote Libertarian?
Oh no, please no…
We’re not going to make it, are we?Yeah, unfortunately they seem to be the only party who would actually do that. And even though I have some sympathy towards small-l-libertarianism, too many of the capital-l-libertarians are batshit crazy, dumb or both.
Wouldn’t that require actual elections? Russia does not have that.
liberalism must be defeated, international proletariat must rise up against this sick ideology.
Or, lets just do a post-scarcity economy.
Why do you want some old ass ideology like communism when we can just do fuckin Star Trek?
Yes, death to LGBT folks and other minorities. Here, have a white cloak.
Contemporary communists are feminists and pro-LGBTQ. Source: I’m one of them.
Which means in modern political parlance you’re not just a communist, but also a liberal. Especially in Eastern Europe.
No, you don’t get to choose the words I describe myself with. Socially progressive is not synonymous with liberal, it’s kinda the opposite actually.
Okay, but that’s what the word means now. Socially progressive and liberal are almost synonyms for years now, and the amount of people this has spread to is increasing.
Outside of your own narrow circle, you say you’re against liberalism, and people will think you’re going to be joining the KKK or something. So you can go on and say that you’re anti-liberal, but to an increasingly big amount of people that means you’re a bigot.
Something something dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive.
I’ll link another comment I just made, which highlights this. There’s articles quoting three bigoted Eastern-European politicians (including the one this article is about) talking about how liberals and their gay agenda are ruining the world.
The usage of the word liberal has thus shifted. As the likes of Putin, Orban, Trump, etc, use the word liberal to describe someone they perceive as “woke”, “SJW”, whatever, basically just non-bigoted people, the people being described as such have largely adopted that label as their own. Largely, the word “liberal” where I live now means you’re accepting of other people, and your economic stance usually may be anywhere from center to left - as liberalism now carries the connotation of being a progressive, empathetic person, usually most people who call themselves liberals are pro taxation, social safety nets, etc.
This is why, and I’ve said this in a few other comments now, I propose that the original word “liberalism” for the most part should be replaced with “neoliberalism”, “capitalism”, or “marketism” to reduce confusion. Not a single one of those could in any way be confused for progressivism at least.
death to LGBT
One of the best LGBT rights in the world is in cuba (a communist country) and that happened democratically without any electoralism bullshit so keep your bs to yourself, I guess.
Cuba is on the other side of the world. Liberalism in Eastern Europe generally means tolerance for others. Not being a bigot.
The word “liberalism” in Europe is generally used to refer to economic liberalism, not social progressivism.
Yeah exactly. Liberals here are right wing capitalists. And often conservative.
They are kinda the same as the liberals in the US but that’s because US doesn’t really know any real left wing. So it’s right wing democrats or extreme-right republicans.
That makes liberalism seem somehow progressive but it isn’t really.
Haven’t heard it used for economic liberalism in over a decade, but I’m also not from western Europe.
and liberalism in other parts of world means western imperialism, capitalist enforcement, pro rich anti evironmentalism.
Sure, but this article isn’t talking about other parts of the world?
It’s about Orban, Putin and not just Trump but MAGA in general. That’s 3 countries where if you say you hate liberals, you’ll get high fives from neonazis, skinheads and so on.
Here’s Putin bashing ‘liberalism’ - he’s talking about multiculturalism and LGBT
Here’s Orban saying liberals are aiming for hegemony of opinion, stigmatizing conservatives and Christians - this almost always means “We’re not allowed to hate people for being different”.
Closer to home for me, former head of our very own mini-nazi party:
Mart Helme saying that liberals are establishing homototalitarianism
Relevant bit:
Helme said the extensively discussed interview with Deutsche Welle turned into an attack. “Attempts are made in Estonia to establish homototalitarianism, where, by appealing to the Constitution, attempts are made to make it clear to us that we must not speak or have an opinion on certain issues. That there are certain subjects and groups of people that have been declared untouchable by liberals and that cannot be criticized. By the way, the list of topics is expanding quickly,” he said.
Last one is not too relevant for Hungary in particular, but his son, the new leader of the party, cried about Orban losing, as he’s a wannabe member of the same Trump-Orban-Putin alliance. Basically a useful idiot for them. I brought this one up purely to show that this usage of the word “liberal” is now common.
Sure, if you collapse capitalism, neoliberalism, and western foreign policy into just ‘liberalism’
I can’t see shit oudda this thing!
Is Liberalism good?
Which liberalism?
Liberalism in the classic sense I’ll leave to you to decide.
Liberalism in this instance almost certainly has little to do with the market economy and is instead the catch-all term conservatives use for being socially progressive.
Orban himself claimed he was building an “illliberal regime” and that was almost entirely about the “gay agenda” and the liberal “attack on Christian values”. Putin also more or less said liberalism means letting in black people who destroy your country. So this is likely what the article is referring to.
There’s certainly good things about it
is freedom bad?
Depends on the freedom.
- American freedom to use and abuse anyone under you in the capitalist hierarchy. Bad.
- Freedom to get cared for at any hospital of your own choosing without having to sell your kidney? Not bad.
- Freedom to masturbate to incest porn? Not bad. (Looking at you UK)
- Freedom to kill people as long as you’re operating a multiple ton heavy vehicle with practically 0 consequenses. Bad.
In this instance we’re talking about the freedom to be a sexual or racial minority. Orban was notoriously against that, much like Putin and Trump. The narrative usually is that liberal policies (allowing LGBT and minorities to exist peacefully) result in LGBT and minorities taking over every aspect of life, so the average person will be forced to be gay or trans and their daughters will have to take black husbands or whatever.
In Eastern European politics, liberal doesn’t mean economic liberal generally, at least not for the last decade or so. It literally means not being a hateful bigot.
Which is why I’m finding it funny that there’s a tankie (not you, Tolc) going on in this thread about how all forms of liberalism are bad.
The narrative usually is that liberal policies (allowing LGBT and minorities to exist peacefully) result in LGBT and minorities taking over every aspect of life, so the average person will be forced to be gay or trans and their daughters will have to take black husbands or whatever.
Which never actually happened like ever. We just want to be who we are. There’s no movement to make everyone gay, that’s insane to even think that.
Same as the republicans getting their knickers in a knot over trans athletes. Which are few and far between and aren’t actually that successful because HRT makes you a lot weaker if you are MtF. It’s just an imaginary issue.
Same as the toilet thing they get all worked up about. The men molesting women are cis men.
Which never actually happened like ever. We just want to be who we are. There’s no movement to make everyone gay, that’s insane to even think that.
Hey I’m not saying I believe that narrative! I’ve got LGBT friends too.
I’m just saying that this is the picture they want to paint of “liberalism”, and as such, the word “liberal” has changed meaning quite a bit. To most people near me it no longer has anything to do with liberal economics, it’s about being socially progressive.
And I’m kicking up a fuss (not at you, but in general in this thread) because the article is clearly talking about repressing different people when it says “illiberalism” - because that’s literally what Orban and Putin use that term for - and people are saying liberalism is bad and it should die - meaning either liberal economics, or liberal democracy (lots of anti-election types here who prefer single party rule)
Same as the republicans getting their knickers in a knot over trans athletes. Which are few and far between and aren’t actually that successful because HRT makes you a lot weaker if you are MtF. It’s just an imaginary issue.
Hmm well I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here. I’m sorta opposed to trans people of either variety playing in women’s sports on a competitive level (playing for fun is entirely different and nobody should give any fucks about who plays with who). FtM gives you testosterone which is a huge advantage and I don’t think a single FtM person wants to play in a women’s league anyway. MtF does make you a lot weaker like you said, but then who is regulating the estrogen intake to make sure you’re weaker enough that you’re a woman? Who defines the estrogen or testostrone levels of a woman? If someone REALLY wanted to be malicious, they could take like half of their prescribed estrogen and retain more strength I reckon. Would have a similar effect compared to a cis woman taking test. It’s just a can of worms that’s not worth opening, it’s too difficult to regulate properly to ensure complete fairness. I could see there being separate MtF leagues with regulation about test and/or estrogen levels if there’s enough demand though.
But also, the fury about trans athletes beating up cis women in combat sports was, if I remember correctly, actually cis women who were born with slightly higher T and thus manlier features. MtF women in sports are basically a non-issue already.
Same as the toilet thing they get all worked up about. The men molesting women are cis men.
I’ve literally never heard of it happening either (trans women molesting cis women, that is). I suppose it’s not technically impossible, but I don’t see anyone going through HRT just to get into the women’s bathroom. That person would have to have serious mental issues to the point that being trans is the least of anyone’s worries there.
In this instance we’re talking about the freedom to be a sexual or racial minority. Orban was notoriously against that, much like Putin
You could say this about almost any Eastern Europe government. Also, this Hungarian party doesn’t precisely advertise itself as super LGBTQ friendly, they advertise themselves as apolitical centrists, which tends to maintain status quo. I’d gladly be proven wrong, though!
You could say this about almost any Eastern Europe government.
All Eastern European right wing parties for sure. Not all are in power right now though.
Also, this Hungarian party doesn’t precisely advertise itself as super LGBTQ friendly, they advertise themselves as apolitical centrists, which tends to maintain status quo
Possible. Going off the vibes of what Magyar has said and the fact that it’s a huge party that consists of people of fairly different political opinions, I’d say that it’s entirely likely that they at least won’t take any further steps to take away people’s rights.
I’d gladly be proven wrong, though!
I wouldn’t hold my breath, but it would be lovely.
I see this as a chance for normalization in Hungarian society more than anything. Right now the options were “Orban gets majority” or “Orban loses”. Orban lost. If Magyar goes through with his promises, the electoral system in Hungary might see some reform and perhaps in the next election, or the one after that, there will be more hope for more liberal (or progressive if you disagree with me on the change in the usage of the term liberal that plagues this part of the world, which we’ve sorta imported from the US) parties.
But only time will tell.
Edit: Have read comments elsewhere that he’s actually moderately pro LGBT rights, but has maintained radio silence on the issue for political reasons. I could see that being wise in Hungary, as it seems there’s a sizable anti-LGBT population and a sizable apathetic population, but not a huge pro-LGBT population apparently?
Sounds like you should run for office under those talking points. Good luck.
You seem to have a problem with my comment?
No.
Read: State and Revolution by Vladmir Ilyich Lenin
Why the reluctance to call a fascist a fascist?
Because the whole world is fascist and the leaders of fascism don’t like to be called it, so no mainstream media or news will call it such.
Also it can be confusing for some people. For instance, in WWII the fascist USA helped Russia defeat the fascist Nazi doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Most operate like Fascism = Bad instead of Fascism = Corporatism.
Altlantic has, diacussed here by the author
Oh boy does that headline have nothing to do with the article. The article does a good job of explaining all the hard work Magyar did, but it is a bit silly to suggest that it is a temple for what could be done in Russia. For example, it does not lay out how a candidate can avoid all the tripping hazard windowsills that litter the Russian halls of power.
indeed, Belarus and Russia either do what Ukraine did at Madain,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
or they endure and to be fair Belarusians did have a go.
Maidan was a color revolution sponsored by the US, though, the Nuland leaked audios essentially confirm this. Haven’t you asked yourself why it seems that mass protests only ever change governments in countries neighboring Russia, but this never happens in mass protests in the US (occupy wall street movement), Spain (15-M movement), France (gilets jeunes)…?
Amateur political scientists making arguments that a certain kind of political is inevitable is something of a pastime. Apathy begets apathy.
Tim Snyder’s “The Road to Unfreedom” actually talk a lot about how apathy first destroyed Russia, and is currently destroying the US.
Boy is this lively. I certainly have my concerns as Magyar is former Fidez and of a Minister Portfolio and by all accounts is very much a conservative politician.
But as far as EU policy is concerned his win is likely to finally get Hungry to be in line with the rest of Erouope.
Also remember Trump sent Vance over to try and election campaign against him so that tells you how the people of Hungry feel about that.
All and all consider this winning a battle but the war continues
We are living in a world where both the US and Russia support the same piece of shit. What the fuck
US and Russia were always aggreeing on basically the same thing. They might disagree on who is going to be the leader of the fascist world, but they very much aggree that the world should be fascist and have a leader.
So, while I’m not too knowledgeable about politics in Hungary, this may or may not be relevant…
In Canada we used to have the progressive conservative party, and the reform party. The reform party was the religious / right wing nut jobs, and the PC’s were, well I’m not really sure what i was too young to follow it to closely, but they weren’t like the reform party. How progressive they were though I don’t really know, it could have just been a name… The reform party would be closer to MAGA than what the PC’s were.
The right wing parties were losing elections though to the Liberals, so Harper managed to bring both the PCs and the Reform together under 1 party, with their sometimes very wildly different views. As much as he was damaging to Canada, Harper was an excellent politician and he managed to keep control of these 2 factions within the party as Prime Minister for almost 10 years.
Once Trudeau came into power after people had had enough of Harper, these two factions in the federal conservatives have been in a sense fighting each other. We had Erin O’Toole as one of their leaders, and he was trying to be more middle on some topics, and the nut job part of the faction threw him out.
I’m saying all this to say… Maybe, just maybe, Magyar has thrown out the bad seeds in the party. Yes, it’s still going to be a conservative government, but maybe we can get back to what politics was like before the crazy right wing nut jobs infiltrated all the conservative parties around the world and made things much worse.
I would love to see our conservative parties here throw out the bad seeds. We just had a merger of right leaning, and nut job parties like this in BC, but we narrowly shut them out in the last election, and watching what has happened within that party since, has been a gongshow.
Conservative is fine. Being Putin’s lapdog is not.
How is conservative fine? All EU conservative parties support Israel which is actively committing genocide.
someone mentioned hes mostly center right.
Look, fuck Orban, but y’all aren’t even waiting to see how Magyar pans out, before hailing a new era. Fascism and anti-fascism aren’t just like a Zeitgeist or something. They require concrete actions. Not understanding this means that elections will just keep bringing you back to fascism.
The concrete actions in question, historically, are mass worker movements, both communist and anarchist (the former more historically successful).
It’s beyond me that any modern democracy would even allow someone be PM/President for 16 years in the first place, and then allow them to run again. For all that’s fucked with America rn, that one they’ve done right (for now).
It’s beyond me that any modern democracy would even allow someone be PM/President for 16 years
I actually see it backwards. The proof that bourgeois western democracy is utter shit is that every 4, at most 8 years, the party in government gets hate-voted out of there. If people were actually content with the parties elected, I’d expect to see long periods of dominance by one or two similar parties, followed by some tumbling until the correct one is found again, etc. Having constantly changing parties and candidates kinda proves that everyone fucking hates anything that touches the government, not very democratic IMO.
How is denying the right of the people to reelect whoever they want to office more democratic than fulfilling their right? Claiming democracy restricting such liberty is somehow more democratic is impressive mental gymnastics. Even with modern democracy the guiding philosophy is to restrict government to promote & protect individual liberty, not undermine liberty of the people.
Well, only for the presidency. The zombies in congress are entirely unaffected.
Does he mean fascism?
Magyar? No.
Protest-non-voters won’t believe this one simple trick.
The Democrat Party in the US is not anti-Fascism as their support for Zionism and plenty of other Fascist ideologie abroad as well as their unwillingness to stand fast against Trump shows.
The situation in the US is akin to a decades long one-two tactic being played by two of the same team (team Oligarch) on their way to score for them and against everybody else, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with anything in Europe, except for what’s going on in Britain.
B-b-both sides same!
No, the good cop is clearly different from the bad cop to anyone who has eyes.
PArTY A GoOd oNLy DOeS gOOd, pARty B evIL OnLY dOEs bAd.
(Switch A and B around for the other group of tribalist simpletons)
Nu uh, both sides same!
Sorry I forget genocide and mass imprisonment is okay if it might give you benefits.
Yet another one who doesn’t understand primaries or getting better candidates on the ballot of a major party. Not believing this one simple trick: confirmed.
Reality is not all rainbows & butterflies. Systems operate according to rules we don’t control no matter how much we stubbornly refuse to accept them until we work the system to change it. Denying the system exists doesn’t change it.
Fact: the US voting system (plurality voting) lacks the sincere favorite criterion[1]. Fact: that means strategy exists to optimize outcomes, and not following it with protest(-non)-voting can functionally help elect the candidate you like least, directly backfire, and cause worse real-world outcomes for your own values. Fact: that means lesser-evil voting is necessary in close, high-stakes races to minimize losses.
Voting in a way that backfires has real-world consequences. Denying it is like denying the consequences of pulling the trigger when a loaded gun is aimed at your nuts. If you have to vote for the only viable candidate who will realistically refrain from pulling the trigger & don’t (in a cute little protest), then you’re still getting nuts blown off. Protest(-non)-voting to blast your nuts off every time doesn’t lead anywhere.
There are viable ways to reform the system: lobby legislation with enough organization & support, elect your candidates to other offices (local, congressional, etc) to build popular support, get your candidate to run as a major party in national partisan races, vote lesser-evil in national partisan elections until your candidate is on the ballot as a major party.
Anything else is blasting yourself in the nuts. Worse, it’s blasting off your neighbors’ nuts & ovaries, too. Your neighbors don’t want to vote lesser-evil either, but they’re not stupid enough to pretend that other moves won’t blast off their nuts.
It’s straightforward mathematics: plurality voting violates independence of irrelevant alternatives, majority loser criterion, independence of clones.
↩︎There is, therefore, a simple way to affect the outcome of a plurality election in your favour without having to convince anyone else to support you. If you introduce a clone of an opponent then the vote for your opponent may split between your opponent and their clone, meaning that you require fewer votes to win. In practice, this fact is well known and some people in British elections do not vote for their preferred candidate because they do not want to split the vote against the party they dislike.
Well if you don’t vote, you just get all those things (and worse) happening anyway.
Or you know organize outside of electorlism or if you must vote for someone opposed to genocide at the very least.
Do both. DO BOTH. One does not preclude the other. In fact by building the best future you can with your vote you leave space to do the other.
Organize to do what outside of electorlism?
Asking because I’m genuinely curious what you feel is more affective than voting in how we can each contribute to avoiding genocide.
Within legal means of course. Because I’m certainly in support of deposing fascists and oligarchs.
Taking Orban as evidence, this can certainly be achieved through voting in even the most rigged of elections.
Orban was replaced by another far right racist imperialist just one m ore friendly to NATO and the EU than Putin.
One small improvement like this one, made every voting cycle, will eventually lead to wherever you want to move those goal posts.
How can you possibly believe this in 2026? Tell me, which western liberal democracy hasn’t seen living standards be destroyed, welfare hollowed out, and worker rights disintegrated over the past 20 years? Tell me one single western liberal democracy where the people are consistently making gains and are happy with their government
Like a ratchet!
You did it, you saved Gaza!
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Here’s President Clinton establishing the Oslo accords helping Gaza exist as a recognized nation in peace with Israel. Specifically,
Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement.
Just making sure you’re aware that voting helped establish Gaza’s existence.
And voting is also is the reason it could have been saved from genocide.
Trump was supposed to save Gaza according to large portions of people here on Lemmy that told me voting for Kamala would be voting for genocide in 2024.
Now we live in a world where the actual truth is much more obvious - that Kamala would have obviously protected Gaza more than Trump. (Simply because she’s not politically compromised by Israel the same way Trump is).
So now you want to tell me voting doesn’t work to prevent genocide. Despite the current outcome being very clearly AVOIDABLE through voting. Just that option wasn’t taken - largely through the encouragement of many here on Lemmy to not vote for Kamala.
If more people didn’t vote for Trump the genocide wouldn’t have happened. Period. That is just not the outcome we have now. That doesn’t mean voting failed. It means most people failed to vote for the person who could have stopped it.
The Oslo accords weren’t a good thing what world do you live in, they were an entrenching of Israeli colonialism and Palestinian disfranchisement.
I think you meant to send this to the other guy.
I did! Apologies about that! 🙌 Completely missed the thread I was supposed to be responding to.
that Kamala would have obviously protected Gaza more than Trump
lmao you guys don’t actually believe this right? “Obviously once she was in office she would have done a 180, she was secretly anti-genocide the entire time”. Want to go take a look and see how many of the fatalities of the genocide happened under the biden/harris admin?
It’s grading on a curve.
Biden/Harris were weak on Israel, barely managing to occasionally wag a finger at them for misbehavior, but continuing to provide some support to Israel. This was bad.
Trump’s admin has been all in on it and has been ride or die for everything Netanyahu wants. This is even worse.
That’s cool and everything, but these people don’t actually care how many people die in which scenario.
It doesn’t matter if they care, it matters what they do. Because that’s what decides the outcome in each scenario. Their actions. Not their feelings.
Trump ended up encouraging the genocide, planning to build a resort on top of mass graves. Kamala just didn’t verbally attack Israel openly.
Those actions are not the same, and would have lead to a different outcome despite both candidates not caring.
By ‘these people’ I mean people who didn’t vote (because they don’t care how many die), not the politicians.
Kamala was an active participant in the genocide as VP what are you talking about?
And you failed to prevent trump taking office even though you tacitly endorsed a genocide.
And we’re back to: see article and protest-non-voters won’t believe this one simple trick.
“Whatever’s normal.”
