this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
848 points (95.9% liked)

Aged Like Milk

350 readers
139 users here now

A community dedicated to all those things in media and elsewhere that didn’t stand the test of time, at all.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JesseoftheNorth@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Damn. Maybe she shouldn’t have been so hung-ho on the slaughter and torture of Palestinians. Maybe the DNC should have done literally anything to separate themselves from the GOP when it came to foreign policy.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 68 points 2 days ago (8 children)

I don't understand why people can't understand that multiple things can be true.

Someone can have voted for Harris, donated to her campaign, preferred her to be president, felt that personally their own lives would have been better if Harris were president, and also be disgusted that Harris is pro-genocide.

[–] OshagHennessey@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

It's pretty easy to understand. The people who don't get it are the ones who are only capable of one-dimensional thought. They can't hold multiple, complex beliefs, so they assume you can't either.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Because Lemmites only see things in binary.

You're either a communist or a disgusting fascist nazi

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Centrists will never understand this.

They also cannot understand that someone can say something centrists want is a losing issue and still be willing to vote for a centrist candidate, while being able to notice that they're gonna lose if they keep it up.

Also explains the reaction to Mamdani. Centrists didn't get the sex pest they wanted and went from "blue no matter who" to "party unity my ass" immediately. No progressive legislators badmouthed harris like gillibrand did with her disgusting Islamophobic attacks against Mamdani.

Centrists think everyone is like they are, inasmuch as they don't believe at all in their stated principles and will vote third party if they don't get their very first choice. We saw this in 2008 as well when they formed a fucking PAC to elect mccain because they didn't want to vote for a black man. For all the blame they throw at the left for 2016 and 2024, progressives never formed a PAC to elect trump. But if Sanders had won the nomination in 2016 or 2020, I have no doubt that we would have seen centrists campaigning for trump like we saw them campaigning for cuomo and mccain.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Yeah, it was pretty simple for anyone capable of making decisions without deferring entirely to their feelings.

The stats prove Dems are better for our economy (and rights). We were coming off a legislatively successful Democrat presidency. Serious strides were made for the working class and we were recovering from the pandemic better than any other 1st world nation. The Dem candidate was a career prosecutor with a doctorate in law.

On the other hand we had the side that the stats show are awful for our economy (and war). The candidate was an already failed president with two impeachments and an insurrection under his belt. With a doctorate in nothing but dipshittery.

You have to be pretty stupid to NOT go with option 1, including by staying home or voting for a 3rd party candidate with absolutely ZERO possibility of winning. Regardless of whether you're mad that they're maintining an allegiance with a foreign nation you aren't exactly happy with. Foreign affairs aren't exactly simple. Especially with an ally you want to keep for their strategic geopolitical position.

But, as we've learned, most Americans prefer to think with their feelings instead of their intellect. And now gestures broadly.

I just don't see how things are going to get better with a nation full of people this dumb.

load more comments (4 replies)

Well, Schumer and Jeffries are refusing to reduce ICE funding or oppose them, so we are still in the point that the Dems support everything but would like a bit more politeness and layers of obfuscation, rather than ICE not killing people in the streets and being the American Gestapo.

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 108 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] 5redie8@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Shame a lot of them just refuse/are too scared to ever recognize it. The rest of us suffer for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Davel23@fedia.io 127 points 3 days ago (5 children)

It's true! Trump hasn't sent the army after anyone! Just ICE, CBP, and the National Guard!

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 104 points 3 days ago

don't forget the Marines in Los Angeles

[–] ozymandias@sh.itjust.works 56 points 3 days ago (3 children)

the National Guard is part of the army

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Admin of db0: "yeah, well Kamala would have double sent the army"

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (14 children)

Downvoted for US politics. And this isn't agedlikemilk material, this is agedlikewine. She was absolutely right.

Fuck the pedo voters, third party voters, and non-voters.

[–] stray@pawb.social 46 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think The Hill's reaction is meant to be the milk.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago

What is posted here is the tweet calling it a lie, not her debate or rally where the claim is made. The tweet has aged like milk.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

They're half right. ICE is A secret police force, not an army.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago (9 children)

Yeah but she loved the genoside, that’s why we have to have utter incompetent apocalypse every goddamned day for three more years.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 61 points 3 days ago (1 children)

and also still have the same genocide happening, plus even more acts of war to boot

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 23 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I'd argue a worse genocide.

Dems were stuck on "but but Israel is an ally" and tried to gently suggest that they stop. But Biden did take some action. The US even built a port to send in aid. Now obviously we had the power to stop sending Israel money and supporting them. That's where they failed.

Trump however just said good work and keep it up. He's encouraged Israel to go faster and joked about how great the strip will be once it's freely developed real estate.

So yeah, one of these is clearly a worse option

[–] Tonava@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 days ago (7 children)

one of these is clearly a worse option

Following USA politics as an outsider, this has baffled me greatly the past year and more. Is harm reduction really such a difficult concept? It's like that damn bus scenario, just with only bad options.

Something like: There's five people on the bus, and the brakes stop working, so they vote for what they should do. Two say they should drive off a cliff, and one says they should just swerve and crash into the nearby ditch. Two people don't vote because they want neither. The bus drives off the cliff and everyone dies

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Doesn't matter.

The people who voted 3rd party or didn't vote because they were mad about Israel only ever cared about their own personal feelings. If they actually gave a shit about Palestine, they would have made the decision that hurt them the least. That's not what they did.

It was all about their own satisfaction.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] paequ2@lemmy.today 30 points 3 days ago (43 children)

Purists couldn't vote for the lesser of two evils. The choice was: vote for genocide or vote for genocide+even more horrible shit. Somehow genocide+even more horrible shit seemed more appealing.

load more comments (43 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›