It is good and proper that the protests aren’t going away.
At the same time, I want to point out that castigating Harris for policies that she cannot currently control (because, you know, the VP doesn’t have any real authority there, and moreover AIPAC would deploy metric fuckloads of cash against her if she says anything too critical) is deeply counterproductive. So maybe pump the brakes on the “HARRIS IS KILLING PALESTINIANS” because… you know… she’s not.
All that said: none of that applies if she gets sworn in and doesn’t change direction on supporting Israel in fairly short order, and she should be castigated for that. But only if she perpetuates the genocide after being sworn in, when she can actually make and execute international policy, which is illegal to do until you’re elected.
If she were to make those promises, it would incite AIPAC and corporate megadonors to use dump trucks of money against her, and would diminish her chances of winning. That’s it. That’s all I’m saying. And that’s why I’m reserving judgement for the moment.
Edit: derp, it helps to read the entire sentence instead of 80% of it. Just adhd things 🫠
And I’m not disagreeing with you. All I’m saying is these protestors want her to stand up to AIPAC and the others from now. They have no guarantee that even if she does get voted in that she would do anything and they want that. A guarantee. They want her to earn their vote. You can disagree with the stance and you’re absolutely not wrong in saying she will piss off groups like AIPAC if she does but these people have an absolute right to withhold their vote for her if she doesn’t give them what they want. What that means come election day; I’ll leave someone more knowledgeable in American politics to say.
Long odds on Harris having enough pull with either the DNC or Israel to pull off anything in four years even if she expressed any interest in castigating Israel.
I’m not optimistic she could do anything about the area even if the Dems took the House, Senate and Presidency.
The president is the de facto head of the political party they’re running under. They tend to have a fairly free hand to make kinda sweeping changes to party policy, due to the simple fact that they’re the president.
It is good and proper that the protests aren’t going away.
At the same time, I want to point out that castigating Harris for policies that she cannot currently control (because, you know, the VP doesn’t have any real authority there, and moreover AIPAC would deploy metric fuckloads of cash against her if she says anything too critical) is deeply counterproductive. So maybe pump the brakes on the “HARRIS IS KILLING PALESTINIANS” because… you know… she’s not.
All that said: none of that applies if she gets sworn in and doesn’t change direction on supporting Israel in fairly short order, and she should be castigated for that. But only if she perpetuates the genocide after being sworn in, when she can actually make and execute international policy, which is illegal to do until you’re elected.
You’re not wrong in a sense. The problem is she is refusing to promise to fix things regarding this topic when she is sworn in.
You’re not getting what I’m saying.
If she were to make those promises, it would incite AIPAC and corporate megadonors to use dump trucks of money against her, and would diminish her chances of winning. That’s it. That’s all I’m saying. And that’s why I’m reserving judgement for the moment.
Edit: derp, it helps to read the entire sentence instead of 80% of it. Just adhd things 🫠
And I’m not disagreeing with you. All I’m saying is these protestors want her to stand up to AIPAC and the others from now. They have no guarantee that even if she does get voted in that she would do anything and they want that. A guarantee. They want her to earn their vote. You can disagree with the stance and you’re absolutely not wrong in saying she will piss off groups like AIPAC if she does but these people have an absolute right to withhold their vote for her if she doesn’t give them what they want. What that means come election day; I’ll leave someone more knowledgeable in American politics to say.
Long odds on Harris having enough pull with either the DNC or Israel to pull off anything in four years even if she expressed any interest in castigating Israel.
I’m not optimistic she could do anything about the area even if the Dems took the House, Senate and Presidency.
The president is the de facto head of the political party they’re running under. They tend to have a fairly free hand to make kinda sweeping changes to party policy, due to the simple fact that they’re the president.