Bruhhhhhhh why the fuck couldnt you say that like 1 or 2 months ago? Why last minute?
In her defense she did say that a couple of times:
But then at times she also said they wont be supporting arms embargo on Israel. Still orders of magnitude better than a lunatic who says he is a actively supporting Israel on doing whatever they want to do:
The fact that some people equate these two candidates based on their Gaza politics is insane.
The only people i kinda get are those with families there. But at the same time my family still voted for the shitty opposition instead of the even shittier leading party when i still lived in hungary even tho their views on trans rights was, lets say, not perfect. This of course mattered because trans rights are the first dominoes and i have a trans family member. So yeah the better option is still better than absolute chaos. Idk why this is so hard to get.
I get that they are angry (rightfully) at the world at doing jackshit against genocide but still on a practical level they are not helping against a party whose supporters think that the middle east should be bombed out of existence. At least many of the democrat supporters are joining weapon embargo and anti war rallies and they will have more power against the government if it’s the Democrats.
I agree but i cant really do anything with it. I live like 6000kms from the us. The shit part is that it will effect me as well as other people who cant do shit about it.
Kind of a day late dollar short scenario
I mean I already voted for Harris because I don’t wanna die in a Trump Brand Concentration Camp, but, she really couldn’t have said this any fucking sooner?
She had to wait until the day before the election so that AIPAC doesn’t have enough time to ratfuck her for it.
Unfortunately, that’s how things work here if you’re critical of Israel in any way.
Instead the majority of people who oppose genocide have seen how she has continued to pledge her support. They have seen how children, women and men have been blown to shreds and burned alive with weapons the Biden-Harris administration has sent.
This reeks more of a desperate attempt to peddle to voters now that she realizes genocide is indeed a red line for some voters
I really don’t want you people to have to find out the hard way just how fucking stupid all of this anti-Harris shit is so close to the election.
Because that would mean that millions of Palestinians would be killed when the current genocide is turned up to 11 after President Trump gives Netanyahu a blank check. I really don’t want that. Stop trying to get Trump elected please.
Not to mention the fact that a Trump win would be catastrophic to climate action. The actual number of lives on the line here is in the hundreds of millions. Anyone who can’t decide to vote for Harris just simply cannot be trusted. They are not our allies, and we should remember who they are long after this election is over, regardless of who wins.
With AMOC collapse happening actively, she is probably our last hope. We don’t have more time to “protest” vote or whatever. We need her now.
8 billion people and all megafauna and megaflora and pretty much everything in the ocean is relying on this election. Gaza is sad, but those people will die to horrific climate change anyway if Trump is elected.
Removed by mod
I’m not voting for Israel, I’m voting against the guy who is trying to prevent a ceasefire.
Removed by mod
That’s because ending weapons shipments is something we can objectively do, and should do.
It’s not like the president can just say “I declare a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine” and it magically happen. All we can do is advocate for it.
Harris has been clear in her commitment to doing whatever it takes to reach a ceasefire. Trump has been having multiple calls a week with Netanyahu trying to prevent a ceasefire.
There are only three options in this election:
- Harris: Support of a ceasefire.
- Trump: Support of genocide.
- Anything else: You don’t give a shit.
We demanded for almost a year that the Democrats need to stop supporting genocide. Instead Biden, Harris and the other party elites would rather hand the US to Trump than to stop more Arabs being murdered. Maybe she proves us wrong and actually puts Israel in check. But everything action so far has been the opposite of that.
Answer one simple question: Do you honestly believe Trump will be better for Palestinians?
I believe the US is a white supremacist empire, founded on a settler colonial genocide, which is part of why it now supports another settler colonial genocide.
There will be no change to that in the current political system. It requires a fundamental political change, probably revolution, but certainly the dismantling of the current political parties to change that.
Maybe Trump will speed up the genocide of Palestinians, but the Democrats are equally committed to it, as they have thrown away every chance to end it, while taking every chance to perpetuate it.
So your floor here is “throw gas on the fire”. Got it. You admit at best he’ll be the same, and you’re advocating for it. Your stance doesn’t seem sane for someone who wants less pain and suffering.
Removed by mod
Didn’t answer the question. The choice is binary at this point. You can support the one person who’s actually said they’ll try and stop it, or you can throw your support in the trash and help the opposition that’s said “Finish the problem” when referring to the people of Palestine.
Good thing no Palestinians have been turned to ash in that time
She isn’t personally doing the genocide, so it’s not like she can stop it. All she can do is call for it to end.
Did she call for the USA to stop sending arms to Israel or at minimum set some red lines
Nope, she repeatedly called for a cease fire and two state solution instead.
Wow the protesters were dumber than I thought
Trump Brand Concentration Camp is very apt. It succinctly expresses that the whole thing exists only for his personal monetary gain and he’s escalating to extremes for his grift.
I don’t know. Election day is tomorrow (Technically today as I’m typing). For sure late, but maybe not too late.
Most states have early voting
Yeah, but most votes don’t happen early. She’s also said this before. It’s not the first time.
And I am a prince from Nigeria who will give you money if you send me your information
Biden sure said a lot of things, but how much did he actually do?
Presidents are not kings. Congress is still required for much of the government to function and Republicans are determined to dismantle it instead so it benefits only the rich and corporations.
The supreme court disagrees
The same Supreme Court that struck down many things Biden tried to do without Congress?
Do you mean the ones beholden to Trump, or are we talking about different Supreme Courts?
It’s the same thing but a different guy.
If you just had said that two months ago, it would have saved me so mando idiotic conversations…
Just lie, these assholes don’t really care. -US politicians.
What is even the point of doing anything you promise. Just look at all the shit donald trump didn’t do and the toughest questions he had to answer was what his hair routine is.
Nah, it would have just kicked the can down the road, leading to accusations that promises mean nothing. UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml is already doing so a post or two below you.
But yeah, she should have said that from the start.
I’m sure Netanyahu also wants it to end right after he gets his sadistic goals.
As of mid 2024 the lowest estimate I found was >7000 Palestinian children dead, as compared to a highest estimate of <100 Israeli children dead. Any child dead is too many but it shows that this is not a war, it’s a slaughter.
I voted for Harris because any alternative is asinine, but we should expect that the arms shipments to Israel will continue unless we pressure our politicians.
Apparently no one in the comments has been paying attention. She’s been saying these same lines about Gaza since the convention speech.
There’s been a lot of FUD about it and .ml has been running wild denying anything even remotely pro peace from her.
At any rate literally all we need at this point is a president that tells Netanyahu he either accepts a negotiated return of remaining hostages and withdraws or he loses our weapons support.
But Biden is also doing his best to pump up their ammo supply so the next president actually doesn’t have the influence Biden could have had. It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames. They’ve been shamelessly giving Israel our best military technology with no regard to their political situation. College students called this as the most likely path 2 decades ago, and here we are appearing to be caught by surprise.
Fun fact, there’s a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.
It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there’s never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.
Fun fact, there’s a 2008
What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can’t find that law.
I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
I just read that law and it’s far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.
Section 1 just defines the title.
Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don’t bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in “should”. That has a specific legal definition that includes, “but it’s not required.”
Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
Section 6 mandates some reports.
Section 7 defines terms.The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter…”
Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames.
We did learn. Just all the wrong lessons. Iran taught us that you can ride a wave of hate for 50 years. South Africa taught us that you crack down on the BDS movement day one and keep the media on lock for your Apartheid friends.
What did South Africa do to BTS?
Boycott Divest Sanction
I hate that you’re right. I want to live in a country that’s actually moral.
Then you need to find a different planet.
Removed by mod
Yup I was born yesterday, and I’m wholly incapable of reading.
Removed by mod
Trump would do the same thing but in his case it means letting Bibi level Gaza and then buying some land to build a tacky resort on it.
Yeah stopping the slaughter is better than completing it.
It won him some Muslim voters though. Yesterday, I saw one interviewed on TV, paraphrasing: “He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, started no wars and promised to end the war in Gaza.”
Is it stupid? Yes. Is it what a potentially tipping demographics thinks? Yes.
Source:
The genocide in Gaza.
It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.
I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.
But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.
But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.
I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.
But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings
This is something that a lot of people don’t think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn’t much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they’re even more spineless than I realized. For all the “Trump isn’t fit” gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don’t care about compromise, and in fact they don’t want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that’s what gives them so much power.
On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.
It sucks, it’s not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I’m not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.
I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.
But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.
No, unlike your argument, I’m not arguing we split hairs over semantics.
she will never reach the vast majority of those people.
Unless.
She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.
No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.
Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It’s time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris’ words is not useful.
Way to stay on message
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide
Fucking liberalism in a nutshell.
What so you mean?
So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.
No, it’s utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn’t even a political position.
No idea how you plan to achieve your goals when your first step is Holocaust denial.
I will wait until she gets elected, and then if she continues to refuse to call it a genocide, then I will hold her accountable then.
But first, the existence of Palestine as contingent on her winning. Like literally.
I will hold her accountable then
By… what mechanism?
Genocide and war aren’t mutually exclusive. The Holocaust happened during WWII.
deleted by creator
As opposed to? Conservatism? How do you expect that to be different? Because in terms of president, those are your two options right now.
As opposed to?
Actual leftism. Liberalism is a Conservative movement.
How do you expect that to be different?
State level electoral reform to replace first past the post voting. Introduce competition into the voting system.
This reads as a joke but it’s actually true 😂
Bibi hates her, so that’s a good start.
Considering that him and Trump talk all the time, I would say he isn’t excited for Harris. He knows when the war is over, he is fucked. Remember, he tried to remove their supreme court before the war.
I would say he isn’t excited for Harris.
Yes… That’s what “Bibi hates her” means.
I bet ypu are fun at parties.
Ypu!? I love that guy! They are a party animal…
I’ve already voted for her, but I don’t believe her.
This is a vague plea for peace without any indication of what things she believes (and more importantly, publicly acknowledges) would be “in her power”. Is the limit of her power sternly worded letters, arms embargoes, or intervention? Because I’m pretty sue she’s not opening the door for US peacekeeping troops in Gaza, though that would be in her power (at least for a short term).
But like, with Harris we get to see if she’s willing to do anything meaningful, and maybe as public sentiment continues to turn against Israel she’ll be embarrassed enough to do something. It’s not a hopeful position to shoot for, but it is technically better than the alternative, and there other issues at play where the difference is not so limited.
The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience. In places like Michigan they’re doing this, but outside seing districts they’ve been banging the war drums for Israel.
So the lack of faith in the messaging isn’t without warrant.
The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience.
Yes, it’s this shady practice called, “campaigning”.
No disagreement that the campaign is, in fact, doing the campaigning thing.
A good campaign presents their intended policies consistently and favorably. It sells the electorate on casting their vote.
A poor campaign favorably presents inconsistent policies in a vague manner. It erodes faith in what the electorate is voting for.
Yes specifically when they think her ads in different states with different messaging are not going to be shown around.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364100748112
She represent the regular two faced career politician, which should work in regular election, but the Israel genocidal work in Gaza and war crimes expose these politician.
You linked to faux news. So i will not click the link nor does anything that you said have any meaning.
This is just a stupid take because almost all news agency are own by someone trying to push different agenda.
No other “news agency” had to legally argue in court that they are an entertainment-only product and no reasonable person would take their “reporting” as fact. Like a broken watch, they might sometimes be correct, but they are literally propaganda.
Yes okay a biased “news agency” would be fine. But faux news is just that, fake news.
All the one-issue voters: uhh… what now?
Well, now Democrats will start coming up with excuses for why conditioning or ceasing arms sales to Netanyahu isn’t within her power.
EDIT: I already voted for Harris.
EDIT: I already voted for Harris.
Is this the new “I condemn hamas” disclaimer everyone is required to have in their comments in order to criticize the democratic party?
Always has been. “I voted for the person, you can’t say I’m voting for Trump or third party.”
We have to otherwise we get smug liberals posting strawmen.
It is within the President’s power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.
(While this could maybebe overruled by congress, it would be a huge blow to Israel in the interim)
So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:
This bill specifies that no federal funds may be used to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services to Israel. Also, no funds may be used to pay the salary of any Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of State employee who acts to limit defense deliveries to Israel.
This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.
The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that’s why the House pushed this act.
Thankfully it costs nothing to not send weapons.
This is essentially the crux of the issue. Congress can designate funds in the budget for aid to Israel and they can specify what the funds are for (military equipment, humanitarian aid, loans, etc), but they don’t have the authority to perform the actual transfer of the funds (or material paid for by the funds) to Israel, that falls under the authority of the executive branch. Congress can provide the money but they can’t actually force the spending of the money.
Praise be to the system of checks and balances.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvotes, I think you’ve got it right.
people are panicing because harris might lose and acting like morons towards anyone who doesn’t unequivocally support her atm. add to that many people don’t understand how the system works on top of it. 🤷 its no matter internet points are useless to me anyway. =)
So if the Dems wanted to repeal this bill, they would need to control the house, correct?
Nah, the bill was never passed in the senate so it isn’t law at all. Just unenforceable posturing.
If Democrats controlled the House the bill would likely not have passed there in the first place.
In any case it doesn’t matter because the Senate will probably never vote on it, and even if they did and it passed Biden would veto it.
It’s also important to understand that this bill would not add any new arms transfers to Israel, but only compel the completion of existing transfers which the executive branch had chosen to withhold.
Ultimately, the point is that Congress does not have the authority to force the transfer of US military equipment to a foreign power. The disposition of military equipment is the purview of the Department of Defense, and trade with other national governments is the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both of which report to the President.
It is within the President’s power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.
It is, yes. But Democrats are fucking outstanding at inventing bureaucratic hurdles to stand in the way of things they ran on but don’t want to do.
Two days before the election with no substance?
With no time for AIPAC to completely rat fuck the election and get Trump elected. Give her some time to help prevent the destruction of democracy and if she doesn’t move on the issue then she’ll reap what she sows.
This was my thought as well. I get the feeling she’s been fairly quiet on the subject until now due to the power AIPAC has in our politics. If she spoke out this whole time, I’m sure they would have thrown all their financial and political power against her.
I hope we’re right.
Me too. Although even once Harris takes office, AIPAC would still have a lot of power and influence. But I’m choosing to remain optimistically hopeful here.
All we need to do is freaking STOP standing in the way of the UN. How many times has the US vetoed the UN in attempts to assuage the horrors being visited on these Gazan people.
Yep, hopefully Harris will be able to direct the US reps at the UN to stop doing that much.
Unfortunately it seems there’s a law that requires the US to defund where the UN recognizes Palestine as an independent state (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/unesco-votes-to-admit-palestine-over-us-objections/2011/10/31/gIQAMleYZM_story.html / https://archive.is/67xzK ) but I don’t think that applies to the scenario you just discussed.
(I also don’t get how that law works with the US supporting a two state solution - how can the US support a two state solution, one of which being Palestine - and defund those who recognize two states too?)
You’re not dont worry. But heres hoping she somehow wins either way. Otherwise we’re fucked.
and if she doesn’t move on the issue then she’ll reap what she sows.
But the next election will be the most important election ever and Republicans will be ready to commit N+1 genocides if elected.
Even given that, “end the war as soon as possible” is an open ended statement. The war would end if everyone in Gaza was dead, and that could happen pretty quick if all the gloves came off.
Still, saying something is nice.
Making peace by making a desert
yawn thats magical thinking. If that was the case she’d have committed to enforcing America’s laws on not arming genocidal forces if she was serious about. All she did was trot out some tokens and say the same thing she’s said the entire campaign.
Nothing? This is nothing new from her. Its no commitment…its vaguely worded trash.
How does Trump’s “You’ve got to finish the problem” sound? Because to me that’s not vague at all.
Sounds like a problem of you vote for him. Im certainly not 😂 nor is my state.
It’s hilarious how libs think this is any different from what genocide joe has been saying for the past year.
genocide joe
Oh shit, breaking out the hits! Can we throw a “Brandon” in there and get real sentimental about it?
Looking for some nostalgia?
Yeah, Trump would send flowers, right?
Obama promised he’d close Guantanamo…
This seems about the same
Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won’t look so much like pandering
Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners (“detainees”) in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it’s highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn’t want to move any of them to the US, because they didn’t want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???
The president isn’t supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we’ve allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.
He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It’s one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.
Who can blame the president for ruling over a hidden torture camp full of innocent people? It’s out of their hands. That’s just how USA works. \s
It’s out of their hands.
Uh, yeah, it literally was. Unless you’re saying that you want the president to be able to do whatever they want, even when a majority of congress and courts say no.
That might all be true but it only really illustrates my point - this too isn’t deliverable. But lying can buy some votes
It’s not lying under any conventional definition of lying though. Saying something is a lie usually indicates deceptive intent, along with a knowledge–or a reasonable belief–that something you’re saying isn’t accurate. If I believe that the earth is flat, and I say so, am I lying? Or am I just wrong?
Biden said that he would cancel student loans; he’s done everything in his legal authority, and a few things that weren’t, to try an cancel them out. Do you think that the fact that SCOTUS prevented him from doing so makes it a lie? Or was he unable to follow through due to factors that he couldn’t directly control?
For fuck sake… HE TRIED
Yeah I really wish she had been saying this before yesterday.
As someone who is frequently called a single issue voter over a number of different issues:
Ummm what? Her statement was insultingly empty (the entire article is air) and the title contradicts what she’s been saying for 6 months. I’m not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn
I’m not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn
Do they have billboards saying “reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity”?
Do they have billboards saying “reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity”?
They should. The overwhelming majority of Biden voters voted against Trump more than for Biden and I’d bet the farm that, while probably to a significantly lesser degree, Harris is going to win in the same way.
The Dem leadership hasn’t updated the pillars of their electoral and policymaking strategy since 1992 and it really shows.
Even when Harris or Walz say something truly based that gets the Left hopeful for real change in the right direction (which has happened a few times), some apparatchik always takes pains to point out that it’s “not part of the platform” 😮💨
Press releases walking back good things she said was kind of the hallmark of her primary campaign in 2020 too.
deleted by creator
Easy, they refuse to believe her.
After all, if she didn’t sow discord by pointlessly undermining the president while an essentially powerless Vice President, she must love genociding brown people even more than Trump does somehow.
they refuse to believe her.
I mean like, I would believe her if she rolled out a plan for how the US is going to stop funding Israel? Or a plan for holding the Israeli military accountable? Or maybe I would believe her if she didn’t hold a press conference last week gaslighting us that Israel has to right to defend itself?
I agree. I’m just hoping they’ve made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn’t intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.
It’s her or Trump, and there’s zero chance Trump will make things better, so anyone who cares about Gaza and has a realistic outlook on the situation should support Harris.
I’m just hoping they’ve made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn’t intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.
Progressives should start working on a primary challenge the moment the polls close. Democrats should never have the opportunity to claim a mandate on this issue.
Maybe. I’d prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she’s going to be. We’re forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we’re seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more “gettable” moderates and conservatives instead
Maybe. I’d prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she’s going to be.
If she shows some progressive bona fides, she’ll have no problem. Without the threat of a progressive challenger, I’m afraid we’ll get 4 years of centrists screaming that she’s the most progressive president since FDR and expecting everyone to buy it, like they did with Biden. And that’s at best. At worst, they’ll gleefully announce that moving to the right works, double down on Gaza, and THEN announce that she’s the most progressive president since FDR.
We’re forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we’re seen as unpleasable, more centrist Democrats will have an excuse not to even try.
As though they have ever tried.
EDIT: Responding to your edit:
and if we’re seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more “gettable” moderates and conservatives instead
Democrats do that in response to the sun rising in the morning.
After all, if she didn’t sow discord by pointlessly undermining the president while an essentially powerless Vice President
She had no problem disagreeing with him when he called Republican voters garbage. She had no problem differing from him when she promised to put a Republican in her cabinet.
It’s funny how she can move to his right as much as she wants, but never to his left.
Biden calling Trump voters garbage was a gaffe. His own office walked it back. It’s way easier to depart from the president on a throwaway line than on a year-long policy that an all-too-large and ignorant chunk of the population still supports.
I’m not satisfied with her public position on Gaza so far, either. But, since the notion that Trump will make anything better is ridiculous, the only plausible course is to get her in office and then pressure the shit out of her.
And in case anyone’s thinking it, the idea that Jill Stein successfully spoiling into a Trump victory somehow means he’ll take her foreign policy advice is magical thinking.
I just read you are concerned about 3rd party voters spoiling the election. Understandable given the mathematically flawed voting system most states use.
With state level electoral reform, we can get rid of First Past The Post voting and the spoiler effect that comes along with it.
citizens would be free to vote how they wish safe in the knowledge their vote would still be counted against those they don’t want in public office.
We could pass this one state at a time. Some states have already replaced FPTP voting, and more are working towards it with referendums.
Given how possible electoral reform is, and your concern with 3rd parties being a spoiler, I invite you to stop by my asklemmy post to discuss your new commitment to replacing First-past-the-post voting in your state after the election.
I forgot that I need to append “I already voted for Harris” to anything that isn’t fawning worship, or Democrats’ sanctimonious lecture reflex kicks in.
Problem is it’s not believable you voted for Harris after doing nothing but speaking out against her for months now. Guessing you voted for trump just based on your words on lemmy
This is exactly why this discussion is insufferable. You have literally been told how this person voted but you are so convinced by your own bullshit (ie that anyone mad about US support for genocide must, for some god damn reason, support Trump) that you don’t even believe it.
I cannot wait for the 6th so that we can have this conversation without it getting sidetracked by overly loyal democrats condescendingly explaining how first past the post works as if we don’t know already.
Restoring comment after the content that earned the removal was itself removed.
I didn’t read this
Step 1: FOLLOW US LAW AND STOP GIVING THEM WEAPONS
Let’s see if she ever gets this far. I am not holding my breath
We’re not in a vacuum. Two things can be true. She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose power, work to end the genocide, and find a two-state solution - that is, if Hamas and Bibi will allow it, which they won’t.
This binary all-or-nothing, zero sum bs is just toxic and ignorant.
Yeah it’s clear she wants a two state solution.
She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose
I’m not invested in the Likud Party losing if the war continues to expand and drag on.
The issue isn’t with her “pro-Israel” policy, it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy. That’s what’s driving the protests.
And that’s the rub. Is she really ‘pro genocide’? That is the question
“Hey, i have murdered some 40.000 people, most women and children. Can you send me more weapons?”
“Well sure, here ya go. Need any more troops deployed with it, so no one in the region can try to stop you?”
More clear of an endorsement isn’t possible aside from going there personally to murder the women and children herself.
But the question remains, will things be better, worse, or the same under Trump?
Like it or not, at this stage of the game there are effectively two candidates. To paraphrase South Park, you can vote for the douche bag or the turd sandwich. Neither is a very good option but one is certainly worse than the other if you’re paying any attention at all. Abstaining from voting for Harris in a swing state is tantamount to a half vote for Trump.
So sure, continue letting everyone know what the current administration is doing wrong. I’m all for valid criticism of our government. Post facts, link sources, and post ways that people can voice their displeasure to their elected officials.
Trying to sway votes away from Harris is not the answer. Because again, like it or not, the shitty choice that we’ve been handed in this scenario is bad or worse. Please stop advocating for worse.
Left-wing accelerationists will always vote for the worse result, because they’re convinced the only route to the world they want requires burning society down. That Queer and PoC communities will be exterminated in the process is of no concern to them, because they don’t actually care about real human outcomes, they just want their fantasy Communist society to emerge from the ashes of fascism’s cremated victims.
They literally think that letting Fascism win and destroy society will open the door to a communist revolution. At best they are stupid, at worst they are malicious and explicitly want Fascism. Regardless, they are enemies of progress, friends to Fascists and Christian Nationalists, and have no problem throwing marginalized people to the wolves in a bid to accomplish nothing.
I don’t even know how to respond to this. It’s filled with so much hyperbole that there’s nothing factual to refute or discuss. All I can say is that I vehemently disagree with your opinions on the matter.
it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy
What pro-genocide policy? Name one Kamala Harris, pro-genocide policy.
Because it seems to me that she just stated that her goal is to end the genocide. Seems like a pretty counterintuitive way to be “pro-genocide”…
And if you knew anything about politics in Israel, then you would 100% be invested in the Likud Party losing.
Sending weapons to the army committing the genocide is a very clear endorsement of it. Judge politicians by their actions, not by their promises.
And not only was sending those weapons a clear endorsement of the genocide, it is illegal by US law. The whole administration and majority of congress should be under investigation and in jail.
And who is the current President of the United States?
Is it Kamala Harris? No?
So my question stands: one “pro-genocide policy”
Who is current vice-president?
Her entire campaign was based on the fact that she is the continuation of Biden. Having proper primaries after Biden dropped out was argued against, saying she is already on the ticket. Her team is largely Bidens team. Distancing her from the administration she currently serves in and saying she is the continuation of that doesn’t work.
Frankly if she was opposed to genocide the only decent thing would have been to resign from her position in the current administration. You cannot be against genocide while serving a genocidal president.
Then stop serving Trump. You can’t be against any of the things he stands for, including genocide, if you’re trying to swing this election in his favor.
It’s completely in her power to stop whitewashing a genocide and creating false equivalences by calling it a “war”.
Not if she wants to get elected. I’ve said since the convention that they’re trying their best to not piss off either side and that’s mostly been their strategy. Even when she’s releasing statements on the death of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders she’s very careful to say, as an American leader, I’m glad this dude, who killed Americans, is dead.
Of course that was evidence of her being a flaming Zionist to people who want Trump elected.
Removed by mod
Yeah, no. Just not true. 6 point bump lol you fucking clown. I don’t think you understand how much power the Israel lobby has here. She would 100% lose if she came out strong against the genocide.
Wait until she is elected, then criticize her if she refuses to call it a genocide.
Just to clarify, elected? Or inaugurated?
I’d like to see her take an appropriate position soon, but am not optimistic.
Removed by mod
AIPAC - they throw their weight around and a candidate is in big trouble.
You may already be aware that tone policing is a major component of .world moderation, so incivility is liable to get you censored or even banned. But it also creates a lot of user reports which fill up our report queue, even though we don’t admin .world.
Most of those Democrats aren’t campaigning on BDS either and the polling is inconclusive. It turns on how exactly the questions are asked. The only concrete thing we’ve actually seen from them is that Americans want their president to negotiate a peace as soon as possible.
She’s not negotiating anything yet. She’s working with cards dealt by someone else. And she will be doing so as President too because that’s the life of a third party mediator.
If you want someone who will wave a magic wand and expect results, vote for Trump.
Removed by mod
I don’t know what country you think she’s running to be president for, but Netanyahu is not going to be her subordinate. She cannot simply order the end of the Gaza war. She also doesn’t get to choose the representatives in Congress. This isn’t a party system where representatives are pre-approved and seated in order. She gets the representatives that each district sends. Obviously there’s some influence there but there’s also limits, as the entire ordeal of being primaried shows.
So I don’t know what else to say except welcome to American Civics 101. Pocket constitutions are on the table on the right, and political sports regalia on the left table.
Removed by mod
I really hope you aren’t American because you don’t actually have the first clue as to how we elect Congress. She can’t even refuse to seat representatives. There’s 435 districts that elect their own representative, and they’re the only ones that can fire that representative. She could remove support for their next election but the party would need to make sure to line up a replacement and gear up to support their replacement in the inevitable primary fight. They cannot do that 215 times. They can’t do it 4 times. It took AIPAC to unseat one of the 4 left most Democrats. Their entire attention is on districts that are threatened by Republicans. And if you think they’re going to primary a proven winner in a purple district then you’re really smoking something.
So when the House party leader speaks. The President listens.
Nor have you considered that Israel could easily continue the food blockade under the guise of a continued war, without American bombs. It doesn’t take the US to manufacture bullets. That’s why the end of the war, and not just weapon shipments is desirable.
How much are your Mossad handlers paying you to type this?
Not until after the election. She’s walking a wire trying to get nonMAGA republicans to vote for her in order to save Democracy. They need to at least pretend to believe she won’t completely abandon Israel. If she can beat Trump, she’ll then be free to call a genocide a genocide. In any case, Trump wants to end the war by letting his buddy Bibi nuke Gaza and just fucking kill all the Palestinians. A “final solution” as it were.
