I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide. Biden is the President and historically, foreign policy during the tenure of the President by the Vice President doesn’t veer too far off from the President. That said, Harris has absolutely called for investigation into the suffering of civilians in the conflict.
Congress sets the budgetary amount of aid to direct to Israel and the President distributes the money via their diplomatic channels. There are very few options for the President to just suspend funding, which Biden has done twice for weapons under the rules established within 10 USC § 362 (a)(1)
Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
But outside that, there’s very little the President can do once Congress approves funding and that funding has been signed into law. This is why an independent channel investigation is required and is exactly what Harris has called for. This would allow the the US Government to establish their own inquiry into the human abuses. This would give the required evidence to cancel funding under Title XII authority. But none of that can happen overnight. It’s not an easy path to override the will of Congress.
On the opposite side, Trump has indicated that he will absolutely turn a blind eye to the whole thing and allow Israel to determine solely the “best” course of action for their current conflict. Trump has literally stated in his rallies:
From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire
Trump would not see a cease-fire as a required condition for the on-going conflict.
Harris and Democrats historically have called for a two-state solution. Trump’s plan which has been broadly adopted by the Republican party in general would:
- Give Palestinians only about 15% of their original territory
- Jerusalem would become Israel’s undivided capitol, meaning all claims by the Palestinians to the eastern half of the city would be tossed out.
- Allow Palestinians to “achieve an independent state” via a means that is not clearly defined in the plan but indicated that Israel would have a final say in that process.
- “No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes” indicating that the territory that Israel has already colonized from their current conflict would become Israel’s.
- Would put Israel and Jordan on equal footing for the administration of al-Haram al-Sharif, which will absolutely ignite a conflict.
- Any territory allocated to Palestinians would have to undergo a four year “wait” period, but there’s no protections from Israel obtaining that territory if done so during conflict. So Israel could provoke someone to fight them and that would give them justification to take the land during this “four year wait period”.
Trump has all but given up completely on a two-state solution. Which means, he’s for a one state solution. And people are fooling themselves if they believe that Trump would seek a “peaceful” one state solution. He has told Netanyahu directly, “Just get it done quickly”. Now we can play a game as what manner is used to “get it done quickly” means, but only idiots are the one’s thinking that doesn’t give a tacit nod to ethic cleansing.
I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don’t think they are thinking at all. You have one solution that is long, stupid, and required because we are a nation of laws. And you have the other solution that is “fuck it, firebomb them all and call it done”. It is difficult to imagine that there are truly people this blind and ignorant to this reality. But yet, here we are.
The notion that we might get a 3rd party into office like twenty years from now if we start today, helps nobody if the people we’re trying to help are all eradicated over the next four years. Going down this “third road” only ensures an outcome where we are fifteen years too late to help.
It makes no sense, but have you considered the possibility that most people pushing that narrative are Russian assets trying to get Trump elected?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Your account is less than 1 day old…
And they spelled “genocide” wrong in their user name… Almost like English isn’t their first language, maybe Russian is?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don’t think they are thinking at all.
They live in cloud cuckoo land where Biden/Harris can just tell Netanyahu “Fuck off and shove a grenade up your arse, you genocidal maniac” and that would actually work.
They believe in Schrodinger’s Jew: that Jews simultaneously control US politics and that US Presidents control Israel.
Most of Israel’s weapons come from the US. It’s very well possible for the US congress/government to say “no more weapons if you use them for agression”.
Biden tried just slowing weapon shipments earlier on and Rs and some Ds rammed a bill through saying nope, no slowdowns on these shipments allowed.
Biden tried just slowing weapon shipments earlier on and Rs and some Ds rammed a bill through saying nope, no slowdowns on these shipments allowed.
When you have a racist right-wing party, and a right-wing party that supports killing innocents, I am not as enthused to vote as I would be if there were a clear choice between them.
Oh so you support racism?
Wow, stoned people really do say ridiculous things.
You said there is no clear choice between. A party that supports killing innocents and racism. And a party that supports killing innocents. It’s not hard math.
I mean, if both are killing innocents, but one is killing innocents on top of being racist, it’s pretty obvious that the racist one is worse. A kindergartener could check that math.
It’s more like a racist right-wing party that supports killing innocents, and a right-wing party that supports killing innocents.
You’re right, I just thought “racist” implied “supports killing”, as I am aware of the history and practice of racism.
The Joe Biden administration also stated that Israel would receive “whatever it needs”. Which is pretty much what has happened so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war
Removed by mod
wow you just ignore that biden wanted to give them the weapons anyways. you see its a little thing called providing cover. Biden didn’t fight against it because he wanted to give isreal the weapons.
That bill went through with a veto-proof majority of all Rs and enough Dems.
Biden is a zionist, however, he’s also a politician who understands that the genocide was not and is not super favorable domestically. It’s also not a good look for the ceasefire negotiations to be as unsuccessful as they’ve been. If the opposition wasnt the orange turd this election could have easily gone R just like Reagan v Carter with Iranian hostage crisis.
oh wow! a veto proof majority! its too bad biden controls the military and can just know you. not ship them. invoke leahy. etc.
biden has no one to blame but himself for gaza. go read the article of the israel/gaza timelines. there was no need for whats happening to happen. biden just had to… not ship weapons. he had all the legal cover he could have possibly wanted if his goal was to end the genocide.
It’s also not a good look for the ceasefire negotiations to be as unsuccessful as they’ve been
lol. they have not even happened. bibi has 0 interest in a ceasefire. the biden admin knows this. if they don’t then we definitely need to get rid of them all.
Nooooo!!! Anything other than perfect support at all times for everything Netanyahu does is Trump support from Russia! Every lemmy genocide supporter says so!
Removed by mod
In really it’s probably a mix that totals to around 90% of the people making these pronouncements are either bots, paid trolls from enemy nations, nihilists, or the equivalent. The remaining 10% probably have a genuine belief that voting for Harris makes them complicit in the genocide the Israeli government and its military are committing. They’re incorrect, on many levels, but that is probably their genuine belief.
We must always vote for the lesser evil because that’s what the real world is, from the most negative point of view: reducing evil and suffering. We know some of the things we’re doing today will be seen as evil by our progeny. We don’t know others.
A Harris administration will be the most likely to reduce the suffering of Palestinians, the most likely to force the Israeli government and military to end the genocide, and the most likely to make real strides toward middle east peace.
We must always vote for the lesser evil because that’s what the real world is
Ah, the world is always things getting more evil, the choice is just slower or faster? Sounds shit to me, you can have it.
Woosh
Yes, that’s the sound of things getting worse.
So get off your computer and do something about it instead of lording your morality over the rest of us here.
Get involved with an organization and go physically help in Gaza. Go volunteer your time for your local pro Palestine congressperson. I’ll wait.
Oh no but you’re sitting here pushing propaganda talking points, which you somehow believe is helpful but actually tacitly supports the literal Nazi candidate who calls people vermin. Because that’s the thing that is really helpful.
Oh no but you’re sitting here pushing propaganda talking points
“Killing innocent people is bad” is harmful propaganda? Okay.
If that makes the Dem party look bad, you can’t say it’s my fault. I didn’t conjure up the moral rule that killing is wrong, and nor did I ask any Dem politician to support it.
So get off your computer and do something about it instead of lording your morality over the rest of us here.
You seem to think that saying ‘killing innocent people is bad’ is a ridiculously lofty moral position, one so far out of touch with reality that stating it is in some way worthy of disgust.
And that’s exactly why I say it. Because people need to hear it, because they react to it with disgust, indicating that people don’t really care about the issue.I do, though. Because killing innocent people is wrong. What I do about that is that I have never killed anyone. And, when it happens, I disagree with it. And I keep saying it, even when people get angry that I’m making such a big issue out of something so normalised.
Removed by mod
You come off as someone who had the protocols of the elders of Zion read to you in your sleep every night without your knowledge
In really it’s probably a mix that totals to around 90% of the people making these pronouncements are either bots, paid trolls from enemy nations, nihilists, or the equivalent.
All you’re missing is that one magic word
I’m trying to understand how this system works and came across this article from Al Jazeera which, if I’m reading it correctly, is saying that the US did determine gross human rights violations but the Biden administration is refusing to apply the Leahy Law. Doesn’t this mean that Biden does have the authority to stop sending military aid but isn’t, or am I misunderstanding something? Also, aside from Leahy Law why can’t he veto the military aid?
Oh man, this is a doozy. You aren’t wrong but I’ve got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.
The thing is the Leahy Law doesn’t put the power directly in the President’s hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I don’t know how familiar you are with how the Executive Office works or not. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.
There’s Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but there’s the whole “what if” Blinken quits given an EO and then we have to get the Senate involved which is currently 50-50 on Republicans and Democrats. Which that turns it even more complex and Senators can delay confirmation until after the election or if they’re really bitter, until next year. Which means that everything that requires a Secretary of State would get put on pause.
I get that everyone thinks the President gets to have the final say, but the President orders people around on EOs, which the various Secretaries can just quit if they don’t want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. That’s kind of a built in protection in our system of Government to prevent a President becoming a dictator. If a President wants XYZ done and the Secretary thinks that’s bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.
There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published, unless the President does so since the President has unilateral authority on classification markings (except for anything related to the name of spies and nuclear bomb designs, that is one of the few things that requires both the President and Congress to sign off on, there’s a few other exceptions as well but I won’t go into them).
But anyways, Blinken is the one who can stop aid. The President could order him, but he could also quit, which means the Senate would get involved, and I can explain why all of that would be messy if you need me to.
why can’t he veto the military aid
The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President “has” to carry it out. There’s a ton of background on “Executive Discretion” and any time the President wants to exercise discretion, Congress can sue, which then brings the matter into the other branch, the Judicial. Plenty of States that would sign on, to a Congressional suit (which that’s a requirement for Congress to sue the President, at least one State has to join in).
So Biden could use Discretion to delay funding, and he’s done that quite a few times, but he can’t just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a “Reviewing Executive Order” and it requires a department to “review” ((insert whatever the topic is)). That’s a delay, but it isn’t a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, “we provide $xxx to Israel’s Iron Dome”, we have to send that money to them at some point.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion. There’s been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but that’s been on things called Continuing Resolutions (CR). Republicans in the House (who are the ones who control what the US Budget is) have been using CRs to get choice things enacted. That’s because Republicans in the House have passed rules on how a budget may be formed in the House that are impossible to comply with (which that’s a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.
Anyways, that’s been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldn’t have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I don’t know, because if the election isn’t kind to Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they could block Harris’ Sec. of State unless they specifically pledged to support Israel. Now they could absolutely lie about that, but then Congress could also impeach them, but that would cut off aid to Israel for some time as that’s not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.
This comment needs no be posted and stickied everywhere. I mean everywhere. Thank you for your detailed response and explanation of how the executive works. I’m saving this comment.
If you want to keep up with daily events in the Executive, the Federal Register (Fed. Reg. or FR) cannot be beat. It contains all of the FOIA request, every public inspection requirement, CFR proposals, Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations, and so forth.
If you want something more specific to rule making, you can find that here. Rule making makes a bit more sense when you think about it. Say Congress passes a law that says “build me a road between Texas and South Dakota”. The law will usually say who (department) is in charge of that and then that department will take the money and begin rule making. Rule making is basically laying out the path the road will take, what kind of materials will be used, what companies are allowed to bid, environmental guidelines, etc, etc ,etc… Once those rules have been made the who is going to do it is determined. Like Highways in this case, the Federal Government provides the money and the States are the ones who select the labor and make minor course corrections to the highway (like if it’s about to pass through a cemetery or something).
Rule making is also sometimes called regulation. Because the agency put in charge is regulating the action being done to ensure compliance with what they think the law is asking for, because Congress is very NOT detail oriented until they really want to be. Also with rule making, Congress can “ask” a department to come in and meet with them if Congress thinks some of the rules don’t mesh with what they were thinking.
There’s also override laws, which Congress passes like a normal law. These laws, remember the Constitution requires laws to be applied equally if they involve the public so these override laws are written as such so that they only apply to a executive department, specifically smack the department over the head and “corrects” where the rule making went wrong. These don’t happen often, but we did have one back in Trump days over the FCC. The FCC had made a new rule that required ISPs to get permission to sell customer data, and Congress plus then President Trump overrode the FCC, explicitly banning them from ever creating such a rule. It’s still open if the FTC could make such a rule. But that’s an example of an override of regulation.
Oh also my whole comment didn’t even touch on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which is what would happen if a Secretary quits. Very, very, very long story short. The Deputy Secretary automatically gets to become the “acting” Secretary BUT they cannot do any “exclusive actions”, which that Leahy rule is indeed an exclusive action. The “acting” Secretary can only maintain “status quo” until the Senate Confirms that the acting secretary is indeed the actual secretary. But an “acting” position can only last for 210 days, after which the office is then considered “vacant”, but none of that matters anymore because Congress uses “pro forma” sessions to prevent recessed appointments. But typically, if a position is “vacant” and Congress is not in Session, the President can make a recess appointment.
If you ask me, what we really need is an Amendment to the Constitution that provides the President a way to declare Congress as absent and if some threshold of Congress doesn’t become present, then the President can then call Congress not in Session. The whole “pro forma” sessions of Congress really needs to stop, like in a really bad way. Sort of like how Filibuster should return to requiring a person physically speak for the entire duration of the filibuster and must remain on topic.
Congress has gotten really soft on everything and that’s allowed them to permit a lot of bad faith actions in Congress to happen. It used to be that it was “gentleman’s agreement” that Congress would behave and act in good faith, but boy have we really fallen down on that since the 1980s.
Anyway, I’m rambling.
Dude. This is awesome. We need to make this into YouTube shorts or tik tok. Anything to get civic education out. We are extremely in need…
Not the person you replied to, but just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to write up such an informative answer. I learned quite a few things from it.
Hey, professor, where do I sign up for the next civics lecture?
I’ve been needing some better gov’t education since long before high school.
it’d be a poor course it empirically incorrect on a number of counts.
lol. entire wall of text predicated on a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed. someone didn’t pay attention to trumps presidency at all.
but lets hit on the misconceptions you’re spouting.
Once something becomes law, the President “has” to carry it out
incorrect. Presidents have refused to enforce/carry out laws repeatedly throughout history. that’s one of the powers of the executive branch. its not explicit but there is no enforcement mechanism. Your assertion that congress can sue is 100% true. what you’re missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years. Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism. You may have learned about this little system in grade school: The honor system. which is entirely useless. There are historical instance of this such as worcester v georgia. abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus and more recently Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But Harris likely wouldn’t have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT.
biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role. not like he has a lot of time left there’d be no time to confirm a new individual anyways. Blinken simply isn’t the issue, biden was until we got rid of him by not supporting him. Now Harris is, she’s the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken.
You’re entire ‘civics’ lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs. especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing.
Ugh. This is why I hate summary because there’s always someone who is like “you didn’t explain EvErYtHiNg so you’re wrong!” While you’re trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didn’t because it increases what needs to be talked about when what I originally said was correct.
entire wall of text
I hate this term because it shows that people are trying to oversimplify something that is in itself complex. Additionally, you’re trying to point out things but you didn’t cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. You’re basically trying to make an argument of “you explain too much” and “you didn’t explain enough”. It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t argument that you’re trying to make. I’m calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. I’ll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, I’ll just block you. I don’t have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you don’t stop beating around the bush. That’s all there is to it.
a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed
That’s not correct. I’ll point to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 5 USC § 3345. You seem smart enough, you can figure out why Sec. of State quitting and the deputy becoming acting would trigger such a response.
someone didn’t pay attention to trumps presidency at all
Again, I’ll point to the many failures on exclusive authority during that term. Namely you can see the multiple failures along the regulation of coal that failed exclusive authority. Acting has only nonexclusive duties for the 210 day period and the extended period of 300 days on inauguration. Hence the failures on rule making.
what you’re missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years.
Yes, this is why enjoining an EO exists as a measure for the courts. Immediate relief is something the claimants can seek when bringing the issue up to the courts. That’s why you hear emergency relief often with controversial orders.
Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism.
The enforcement is via Congress at that point. If a just rules something as violation of the Court order, that’s easily handled by Congress.
worcester v georgia
Just so we’re clear the Nullification scandal, Jackson indicated he was ready to march troops into South Carolina and shooting the government if need be. That was with eye to Georgia daring them the exact same thing. We’d revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.
So just, so we’re clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. I’m not sure the argument you’re providing holds a lot of water here in that “they can do what they want to do with no ramifications”. Clearly getting shot at by the Army is a ramification that at the time neither party wanted to try out. But we did give it a go a bit later.
abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus
Yeah. Thing called the Civil War.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Was kicked to Congress, like I said it would be. Was mulled and Congress decided to take a pass. But that’s not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. You’ll note how many of them didn’t last. CCC still a thing?
biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role
Again see FVRA.
not like he has a lot of time left there’d be no time to confirm a new individual anyways
Again see FVRA, carry over has a lot more impact in the first 300 day period than having an acting position.
Now Harris is, she’s the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken
That is just plainly incorrect.
You’re entire ‘civics’ lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs
And you covered zero of them either. I’ve provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that “the historical realities of EOs” is a complex issue. But apparently you don’t like walls of text.
especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing
I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesn’t do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, he’d still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.
Lol, all of it comes down to enforcement as you well know and the fact is there would be none. Everything you cited are either) insanely unlikely or not a function of our branches. Getting shot at by a member of the military? Lol. Please. Not remotely relevant.
Impeachment today is essentially toothless. Particularly in biden’s case as hes done with office anyways.
So as i said: in the three months remaining of bidens term he could 1) absolutely dump blinken and replace him, not an issue. 2) can absolutely withhold weapons see leahy. 3) the history of the president defying judicial orders is well supported.
FVRA
Id give a shit if it actually meant anything. You clearly confuse words on paper with real world consequences.
I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesn’t do.
Correct it has bearing on what biden can do. I.e. fire him and replace at his leisure. Which is why you’re trying to place the blame on bliken because as you know biden has many options on the table for gaza he is just unwilling to use them because he is a Zionist.
You’ll note that in you 2nd wall of nonsense. Not once have you managed to identify how the judicial branch can hold a president accountable.
Yes congress might, though as we both know they almost certainly won’t and essentially has never happened. oh no impeachment, poor 2 timer trump has suffered zero consequences from it. And that was after trying to overthrow the government. Lol @ congress taking a pass not equaling consequence free. But i see your issue you think someone filing paper work is a consequence. 😂 Identify material consequences a president has suffered as a result of defying congress or a judicial order? You’ll find very few.
And it amuses me you claim harris isnt culpable for the genocide, she absolutely is and you know it which is why you won’t expand on in detail as you’re so very happy to do.
The fact biden is a Zionist is why gaza is continuing it literally has nothing to do with blinken. There are many paths biden can take to deal with him. He can fire him, countermand him, or execute him thanks to scotus.
Stop wasting everyones time by trying to argue the indefensible. You’re clearly one of the dunces who thinks rules on paper matter even though people break them constantly in the real world with zero problems.
can absolutely withhold weapons see leahy
He can’t legally, and Republicans in the House would absolutely jump at the chance to impeach Biden and have it carry over into the next session as Democrats did with Trump’s second impeachment. It would literally be the train they ride till midterms.
Gosh you are really bad at this.
You clearly confuse words on paper with real world consequences
I don’t think you’ve ever worked for the Government. You are insanely bad at this.
I’ve given you plenty of opportunity and you’re just spewing “nothing means anything anymore!!!” Gosh, it’s not like I haven’t met countless numbers of you types.
Not once have you managed to identify how the judicial branch can hold a president accountable\
Enjoined. You clearly aren’t reading anything, I’m not typing any more. Consider yourself blocked, you are a waste of time.
snicker oh no! republicans impeachment! whatever will we do. it’ll take them longer to run the impeachment trial than he has time left in office! rofl. OH NO! biden will be PUNISHED with… wait for it… removal from office. THE HORROR.
- vacancies act has no punishment clauses. its toothless.
- you’re statements about ‘failures for coal regulation’ were not punishments. they were rejections of changes in policy. fun fact: enforcing leahy would not be a change in policy. its codified law.
- presidents have been ignoring the legal law for weed for almost a decade now. why? because presidents have chosen not to enforce it.
your coal example: sigh lets talk about how they were rolled back during biden’s term. Why? because biden agreed with the courts and didn’t like the policies to begin with. but the courts most certainly didnt force trump to roll them back.
you really dont get how to wield executive power. 90% of it is doing what you want letting people challenge it and by the time it gets through the court you’ve already accomplished what you wanted. my entire point has been there is 0 negative outcome for a president to exercise flagrant violations of law. israel is a prime example of this in fact.
You’re simply dense and can’t see the facts through your rose tinged glasses of your belief in law and order. fucking gaza is a straight up example of this. Those who control enforcement control which laws are upheld and there is jack shit courts can do about this. trump abused the fuck out of this.
selective enforcement please read up on it. it applies here.
Enjoined. You clearly aren’t reading anything, I’m not typing any more. Consider yourself blocked, you are a waste of time.
is like your version of congressional impeachment? oh no… whatever will I do. only reason I was responding to you was so everyone else knows what a load of nonsense your shit was.
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.
Blinken stated here:
In speaking with him the other day after he made his decision about not seeking re-election, what he’s intensely focused on is the work that remains over these next six months to continue the efforts, the work that we’ve been doing, particularly trying to bring peace to the Middle East, ending the war in Gaza, putting that region on a better trajectory
However, as you said earlier:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.
Regarding:
There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published
I would like to hear more on this.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion.
I did come across this where apparently Israel secured funding through a deal with the Obama administration.
I’m not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isn’t stopping the military aid which I would like to hear, but it seems to me like both the Obama and Biden administrations are the ones that pulled us into the genocide and that Blinken is playing the “we are working toward a ceasefire” card while not stopping the genocide, and figures like Harris are also playing the same card while pushing the same anti-protest rhetoric as Zionists. This article does suggest that Harris isn’t going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like there’s at least some chance she might deviate from what Biden is currently doing; however, the article also suggests that she will have a similar approach to foreign policy as Biden. Aside from that, with the track record of Democrats historically supporting Israel and siding with donors against the interests of people along with their recently having dropped multiple progressive issues, I don’t think people are convinced that Harris (and many Democrats in general) is going to stop the genocide (not saying that Trump who openly supports Israel is going to be any better).
Removed by mod
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.
“Now that you know I don’t listen to fuckall outside of my own bubble, sit down while I lecture you for several pages”
The two-state solution is a boondoggle.
There can only be a one state solution.
So make a choice: Israel or Palestine.
So make a choice: Israel or Palestine.
You say that like the choice hasn’t already been made without the input of the voters.
What should happen to Palestinians if Israel is chosen? What should happen to Israelis if Palestine is chosen?
Israel has made it clear that it wants to exterminate Palestinians, and is literally in the process of doing so right now.
Palestinians are not genocidal. They don’t want to exterminate Israelis. They just want to be able to go home and stop being killed and starved and tortured.
Israelis can assimilate into Palestine and stop trying to make a Jewish ethnostate. Palestine can be one multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious democracy.
Palestinians are not genocidal. They don’t want to exterminate Israelis.
Even if some or most do wish to exterminate, this is arguably understandable. How many bombs would have to fall on you and your family before you were extremely angry? Maybe even, we could say, rationally angry?
Palestinians have entire documents and conferences on what to do with non-useful Jews. As for the useful ones, they will not be allowed to flee Palestine. Doctors and such will be prevented from emigrating.
There are no angels in this conflict. Both sides have desires for a genocide.
Certainly there are factions within Palestine that are genocidal. They’re not in charge of anything, though, and don’t represent the mainstream.
Meanwhile, the Israeli genicidiers control the government and are a mainstream cultural force.
They are not the same.
The conference was hosted by Hamas.
Hamas isn’t lead by the people it was lead by even a decade ago. Their more recent 2017 charter is pretty explicitly not genocidal, they are anti-Israeli and explicitly not anti-Jewish.
I say we find land for each of them someplace in the US, build infrastructure and housing, evacuate Jerusalem and bulldoze it.
The two-state solution is a boondoggle.
Better tell that to China, or do you know better than an AES state?
What do you think “critical support” means?
I think it’s one of those weasel words some leftists use so they can ignore their own hypocrisy while they moralize like the evangelical Christians they were raised as.
So you don’t know what it means.
Critical support means supporting AES countries against the capitalist hegemon despite still having criticisms of some of their decisions. I don’t have to think every single decision they make is perfect because I don’t moralize about my politics.
What you’re talking about is dogmatism, i.e. taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation. Mao harshly criticized this in On Contradiction and On Practice.
No decision can ever be perfect, is my point.
taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation
Lol I’ve been to Hexbear and old chapo chat, I have no idea how you can say this with a straight face.
Mao harshly criticized this in On Contradiction and On Practice.
Cool, was that before or after struggle sessions were implemented in China?
Okay, that’s about following the Party line and the strategy of democratic centralism. What the Party decides is what the membership must respect and uphold.
I am not a member of the Communist Party of China. They wouldn’t want me anyway lol
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.
Because they are, USA is currently fueling a genocide in gaza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war
im convinced at this point that the “don’t vote or you support genocide” thing is a russian troll campaign
Single-issue voters are ignorant to begin with, but failing to help stop another Trump presidency isn’t the moral high ground. If you’re in that group there’s no point polishing your halo, because you are shitting on it.
So genocide is a single issue to you, like school vouchers or fema funding? I think that says a lot about you. None of it good.
edit: and please, downvote away if you dont agree, But notice how close the election is and how many upvotes this viewpoint has. 28 up to 70 down is what I see at this point. If Harris loses it will be because she flatly ignored this ~30% of of Dem voters.
So genocide is a single issue to you, like school vouchers or fema funding?
Hey now. Vote for Kamala and you can get genocide, school privatization, and more underfunded climate disasters. You don’t have to choose.
Dems of 2024 have fully ingested the Republican platform of 2004. That’s why the Cheneys are campaigning for the Harris ticket.
This shit is so fucking dishonest. Go away.
And you are on here doing Netanyahu’s work of trying to get as many palestinians as possible killed by focusing your Ire on what, Kamala Harris? We all know Netanyahu wants trump to win. And we all know how trump sees even domestic US palestinians legally here. He thinks they’re terrorists. Do you think he won’t try to deport them? Or do you agree with Trump on that front?
Why are you here doing Netanyahu’s work for him? He can come on here himself and bitch about kamala, he doesn’t need you.
Human Shields rhetoric. You’re blaming the folks in the firing line for the actions of the ones pulling the trigger.
I’m accusing you of doing exactly what Netanyahu would prefer that you do, no more, no less.
I’m accusing you
“Always go on the offense and blame the other guy for dying” is the IDF strategy, yes.
you’d be the one that knows it
If/when Trump wins and he immediately deports all Palestinians, will you admit you were wrong? Or will you just double down (or are you just full of shit from the get-go)?
and he immediately deports all Palestinians
His biggest voting block? Doubtful.
Voting blocks? What voting blocks? It’s cute that you think we’ll continue to hold elections after Trump wins.
I wish everyone saw this buried comment showing your complete disregard and dismissal of palestinians so they cold easily see your comments are at best those of an attention hungry narcissist.
Check out prole’s recent post where they asked me to end my own life. They’re truly an amazing contributor to Lemmy.
Removed by mod
And you are on here doing Netanyahu’s work of trying to get as many palestinians as possible killed
Ah, yes, what Netanyahu truly wants is for us to, checks notes, be angry about Israeli state terrorism.
He’d prefer leaders publicly support the genocide and would recognize the illegal settlements, offer additional support.
I also wouldn’t count out the idea trump and netanyahu are undermining peace talks - we have already seen trump push republicans to reject a far right border bill because he thought it would give him advantage and the fact that Reagan did something similar with the Iran hostage crisis.
The reality is that Netanyahu would prefer Trump over Biden or Kamala, do you deny this?
Cheney is campaigning for Harris because Trump is so bad that even the Devil says “Wow, that’s fucked up”
Unfortunately, the switch is broken and everyone on that top track is getting railroaded no matter who wins.
Harris has no actual plan to protect any of the above. No more than Biden or Obama did.
Oh yes, I remember living in North Carolina and when Pat McCory’s cruelty to transpeople lead to him getting voted out, Governor Cooper just made it even worse because he thought it was funny…
No wait he actually expanded healthcare access for transpeople and repealed the bathroom laws.
Are you completely ignorant of the reality of the situation or are you intentionally trying to depress the Leftist voting block with doomer talk?
No wait he actually expanded healthcare access for transpeople and repealed the bathroom laws.
He did not. Transgender rights in NC were eroded over the governor’s veto. State officials are now exploring how to enforce the law.
I mean its likely trump will continue the genocide for people who managed to flee to the US by revoking the legal status of refugees given he seems to think the word “palestinian” means “terrorist”
The cruel calculus is that Netanyahu wants trump to win.
Do you hold your nose and vote Harris to deny Netanyahu another victory or do you roll over entirely for Netanyahu and let him have an assistant in genocide with Trump? What is the lesser of two evils here?
Netanyahu, at least, will be thrilled to hear palestinians are not voting for Kamala because of him.
I mean its likely trump will continue the genocide for people who managed to flee to the US by revoking the legal status of refugees given he seems to think the word “palestinian” means “terrorist”
We already almost completely deny them. The US has accepted less than 600 Palestinians in the last decade. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/republicans-want-ban-palestinian-refugees-already-hard-get-in-us-rcna120892
so some 600 people will likely get persecuted if trump wins?
hostage situation huh. With both Harris and Trump saying they are about to kill people, but Trump killing more unless we give Harris our support.
That’s the dark calculus of it all. I would also point out the villain here is Netanyahu and the main reason to vote Harris here is to deny him a margin of victory. Who knows what plans Trump and Netanyahu have cooked up behind the scenes.
Removed by mod
So genocide is a single issue to you, like school vouchers or fema funding?
Hey now. Vote for Kamala and you can get genocide, school privatization, and more underfunded climate disasters. You don’t have to choose.
Dems of 2024 have fully ingested the Republican platform of 2004. That’s why the Cheneys are campaigning for the Harris ticket.
Hmmm… I swear I just saw this comment word-for-word a minute ago. Almost like it was copy/pasted.
Very strange. I’ve seen it too. Must be a bug. I have no other explanation.
What part of “Trump is actively sabotaging peace talks” do you not understand?
Please, refer to this chart -
Many thousands of us dont vote for genociders of any party. “What part of that do you not understand”. Support genocide, then we dont support you, full stop.
Right, but the trolley thing is apt here. There is no option to just stop using the trolley because it’s not safe, it’s a runaway trolley with too much momentum to slow down. All you can really do is decide which track it goes down, and pick the less lethal path.
Harris could steer the trolley so it doesnt hit anyone. She’s not trapped on an out of control trolley car at all-- She is driving the effing thing and has full control.
The two party system is a broken system. You do not choose who you support. You vote against who you dislike the most. It’s a shit system, but wasting your vote is more akin to supporting Trump than voting for Harris is to supporting Harris.
My vote is one of many who think this way. When you stand alone you are unempowered yes, but when you have a lot of people behind you then you’re a movement and you have power. The anti genocide movement has power that Harris needs to win, Our votes are there for the taking, and its up to Harrsi to choose whether she’ll pick AIPAC or us. If she picks AIPAC and the destruction of our republic, then thats on her. IF the continuation of our system of government depends on bribery to do the murder of innocents, then its time to change our system of government.
Our system of government is fundamentally rotten and needs to be changed in general regardless of Harris. Not voting, resulting in putting a fascist in power isn’t how you do that.
Our system of government is fundamentally rotten and needs to be changed
Allowing yourself to be steered by maneuvered into giving away your once every 4 years bit of negotiating ability is not the way you do that.
A vote isn’t an endorsement, you are not personally responsible for the actions of the people you vote for - otherwise trump voters would be in deep shit. Even if you vote for the best politician the world has ever seen that’s still not you doing the politics and you’re not responsible for it. The forces involved are simply larger than a single person.
A vote is a tool to be deployed tactically. Its powerful enough republicans are looking for ways to prevent you from having it.
Look at it this way: Netanyahu would prefer Trump win because he might get more support and expand the genocide of palestinians to US soil. A vote for Kamala likely won’t improve Gaza but it will deny Netanyahu things he wants.
Tactically, there is efficacy in denying the butcher of gaza the things he wants even if it doesn’t go as far as anyone needs it to. Why let Netanyahu win without a fight?
A vote isn’t an endorsement, you are not personally responsible for the actions of the people you vote for
I dont agree. When soneone says they will do something terrible and you vote for them anyway, you have enabled it and have some of that outcome on your hands.
Then you commit to never voting. If you vote for Bernie people will say “oh he endorsed joe biden, he is complicit” but you don’t get to choose the battlefield only the outcome of the battle.
Fundamentally a percentage of politicians will lie, or lack resources to fulfil promises. There is simply nobody on earth that can uphold the promise of never doing something terrible, even on accident.
I reject the idea that war crimes are always the only choice we have in any election. But if thats your slant, OK, why not push for a third option-- getting Harris to stop the shipments by applying voter pressure on her. The only time politicians care about what the elctorate thinks at all is right before a close election, like right now. Why are so many dems not pushing her to take a better stand than she has had?
Are you replying to LovableSidekick? The grandparent post didn’t mention genocide.
Single-issue voters are ignorant
I think killing is wrong. Feel free to call that ignorant.
Trump told bibi to "hurry up and finish the job. He will kill 10x as many Palestinians and say they deserved it.
He has also promised to “round up millions of illegals” in the US and put them in camps, itself a genocide. He will undoubtedly kill thousands doing it.
He also stated that he will use the military to eliminate " the enemy within," who he specially called leftists like yourself. He will kill people in the process.
Your choice should be pretty clear if you abhor killing.
Yes, my choice is for a party which doesn’t support killing innocent people. The Dems still have time to campaign on that platform.
I agree that one party has said that they are even more pro killing innocent people. And I don’t agree with that. That’s because I don’t agree with killing innocent people at all.There is no level of killing innocent people that I’m okay with.
Then you’re making an emotional decision based on refusing to accept anything less than perfect, and since perfection is not an option in this election, and because not voting is essentially a vote that trump doesn’t have to counter, abstaining voters are proportionally more helpful to trump than they are to Harris.
Then you’re making an emotional decision based on refusing to accept anything less than perfect
You can continue making practical decisions based on accepting killing innocent people. I’ll be over here waiting for people like you to notice what you’re doing. Maybe when you are one of the innocent people being killed you will decide it’s not acceptable?
You need to realise that the world is not black and white - it exists in shades of grey where nobody gets everything they want, and have to accept compromise for the greater good. You seem to be stuck in a mental state where you can’t bring yourself to vote for a party that isn’t offering a perfect world to you, and you must get past that and look at the bigger picture, and the impact of disgruntled blue voters staying home in protest. If trump wins, your protest will have contributed to that win, and you’ll have to live with that.
If trump wins, your protest will have contributed to that win, and you’ll have to live with that.
No, I promise you, I won’t. Me living with being in a world where killing innocent people is politically acceptable is far more harmful than the guilt I will feel on Trump winning. This is because my protest is not contributing anything to that win whatsoever. You might as well ask me to feel unhappy that the moon has craters when I - as far as I can tell - am not a large mass hurtling through space that has hit the moon.
If Trump wins, then that will simply show that enough Americans want to hurt innocent people. As is shown by America being a country which finds itself unable to strongly counter IDF terrorism visited upon Palestinians.
I will be sad, but I won’t be completely surprised.
I say it again: my protest will have no effect on Trump winning.
My protest will also have no effect on innocent lives being taken. This is because we live in a morally grey world, where people can rationalise harming innocent people as an acceptable byproduct of doing business. After all, the price of compromise for me getting a better candidate is allowing brown strangers to die. Doesn’t that sound great? I deserve more than them. I’m not brown, after all! It’s their fault for being born where they are.
And, finally, my protest will have no effect on Trump winning.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Sorry, who? And what?
Removed by mod
What about all the innocent women who are dying in our country because of who trump appointed to the supreme court and the result was the overturning roe vs wade?
Do those lives matter at all to you? Women bleeding to death in their cars because hospitals refuse to treat a miscarriage.
What about the kids who get massacred in school shootings because Trump and people like him won’t support increased gun control legislation?
What about all the innocent people of color who have been killed by police? Do they matter to you?
If trump gets into the office not only will the Palestinian people be far worse off, so will every group I mentioned above and more.
You said you are against killing innocent people, then why dont you care about the women, children, and people of color who are getting killed in our country needlessly?
There’s far more destruction for far more people if trump gets into office. If you want to double down, go for it, because I think it’s worth reminding people just how much death in our country can attributed to Trump. Every woman who dies from preventable pregnancy complications. Trump directly contributed to that.
If trump gets into the office not only will the Palestinian people be far worse off, so will every group I mentioned above and more.
There is no level of killing innocent people that I’m okay with.
I’ll support a political party which does not want to make people worse off because of their identity.The problem, as I see it, is that there is literally no chance for a third party to win the presidency.
Which means that I have three options:
- Vote Trump. Someone who has called for more violence.
- Vote Harris. Whether I’m happy with her or the Democratic party or not. Try and mitigate as much killing and harm as I am able to. Actively try to prevent things from getting worse.
- Vote third party/Don’t vote. Either Trump or Harris will win, and I can claim my conscious is clear. If Trump wins, I will have not done what little I could have to lessen the evil. I have to be okay with someone who is far worse getting into power
We can’t solve the genocide by voting third party. All we can do, all that the little power granted to us can do, is try and prevent it from getting worse. So if you want to prevent as much killing as you actually can, if you want to give the most people the opportunity to live, then morally as I see it, you need to vote Harris.
Is she perfect? No. Hell no, man. But she is the candidate that with this genocide happening, and it is happening regardless of who is getting in, who will give the most Palestinians a chance to live. A third party candidate isn’t making it to the White house so a third party candidate can NOT lessen the harm.
Which means that I have three options
I do not have three options, myself.
It is said that Americans have three options, the best of which only might improve the situation where one country is terrorising another country by killing innocent people, every day.
What about all the innocent women who are dying in our country because of who trump appointed to the supreme court and the result was the overturning roe vs wade?
See state ballot initiatives. they’ve been far more effective in 4 years than democratic presidents and congress critters have in 5 decades.
What about the kids who get massacred in school shootings because Trump and people like him won’t support increased gun control legislation?
see above.
What about all the innocent people of color who have been killed by police? Do they matter to you?
see above. biden and harris support the police remember? they actively fought against police reforms.
If trump gets into the office not only will the Palestinian people be far worse off, so will every group I mentioned above and more.
yes that is unfortunately true, maybe you should inform harris to change her position on genocide to ensure the other groups are not put at risk over her hubris? On the flip side its a lot easier to protect the groups you’re white knighting for in your local community via your local reps and processes and your own personal actions.
Maybe you should realize you can in many states safely vote third party for president and democrats down ballot and essentially have the same national outcome while simultaneously undercutting the genocide harris is dead set on committing. thereby giving left wing congress critters more leverage with harris post election.
What you are really telling everyone here is that you are unwilling to give up a bit of your privileged lifestyle over a little bit of genocide. That says more about you than it does about the individuals withholding their support from harris.
state ballot initiatives
LOL, way to immediately tell everyone that you have no fucking clue how this country works.
oh dear am I embarrassed!
- legalizing weed -> state ballots.
- min wage increases -> state ballots.
- legalizing mushrooms -> state ballots.
- health care improvements -> state ballots.
- abortion -> state ballots.
- LGBT+ rights -> state ballots.
seeing a pattern here?
Just say you like trump ffs
I don’t like killing innocent people. Which is something Trump will do, so I don’t like him.
I checked your post history, I don’t care much for you, either.
Oh wow, the perpetually-online militant fuckwit read my comments, that’s just terrifying!
Anyways.
K while everyone else at the adult table discusses things you can play with your imaginary options.
Every country kills innocent people. It happens.
Every country kills innocent people. It happens.
Thanks for admitting this.
imaginary options.
Not respecting a human world which purposefully kills the innocent is not ‘imaginary’.
Not even trying to minimize the amount of killing in the human world because it won’t reach 0 seems like you don’t actually care about human life at all.
That’s interesting. I have to support a party which supports killing innocent people to be against killing innocent people.
Wow, humans sure are good at rationalising things in a nonsensical way. No wonder they’ve made such a fucked up world.
Removed by mod
Thanks. As I said to the commenter above. We are sitting at the adult table. Come join us once you realize everyone has blood on their hands and the world isn’t black and white.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Where is yours?
Oh, you aren’t sorry about the war crimes your government has accomplished?
Typical.
Removed by mod
As a modern state with a functionning justice system
That might just be the best joke I’ve heard all week.
As a 19th century state with a two tier justice system…
Thinking killing is wrong is not ignorant. Deliberately ignoring the point is ignorant. If Harris loses Trump wins, and if Trump wins things will be a lot worse for Palestine. Refusing to help because you’re standing on an imaginary moral high ground is both wrong AND ignorant, because you’re clearly smart enough to look beyond your own righteousness. You have no excuse.
Refusing to help because you’re standing on an imaginary moral high ground
How do you want me to help?
Assuming you are actually an American citizen: you vote for Kamala Harris.
If Kamala Harris wins, and innocent people still die from state terrorism, what next?
Then we hold our politicians accountable? Because we still can? Because we still have a functioning Republic, and not a fucking Autocracy?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You’ve done the dark calculus and made a strategic vote, its doesn’t mean you endorse everything Kamala does.
The reality is Kamala will likely be more amenable to pressure here than the Trump. At worst you’ve protected the small number of palestinian refugees to the US from further persecution. At best you create a lasting problem for Netanyahu by electing people who aren’t cheerleading the genocide.
Help elect Kamala Harris by voting for her.
I can’t, that would be illegal.
It’s the equivalent of “I can’t save everyone, so I’ll doom them instead!”
I agree with Michael Moore’s theory that this was why many people voted for Trump in 2016. They felt ignored and powerless, so they said okay here, I’ll vote for this asshole, see how you like that! It was an expensive lesson that I don’t think the Democratic party has really paid attention to. Their response was to rethink their campaign strategies - many of them probably blamed their loss on trying to elect a woman for President - so they regrouped and managed to get Biden elected. But he didn’t put any bold ideas forward. All he really did was be a Democrat in the White House instead of a Republican. I don’t feel like Kamala Harris is playing that game. She really does want to move forward in a big way and not go back.
I knew all these single issue fake leftists were full of shit when it was revealed that Trump has been sabotaging peace talks and they weren’t immediately outraged by that revelation.
Nah, they all have a political objective, and it doesn’t involve peace in the middle east. Their objective is to use genocide as a political wedge to divide the left and get Trump elected.
Hey look, Bernie right on it. Again.
You think he ever gets tired of being right all the time?
He probably gets tired of so many others being more popular and more incorrect.
We need a whole senate of inter generational Bernies.
Where where these people of moral conscience when Bernie had a shot?
it’s not like this shitshow sprung up overnight.
They voted for Hillary, because the party decided it was her turn and made everyone else drop out and endorse her.
That’s right. And then they conveniently forgot about the following midterms.
They most likely voted for bernie
Doubtful. They’re the kind of people who say that Bernie is a shitlib and controlled opposition.
IMHO it’s more like half of them. Bernie is a successful compromise between liberal and leftist voters.
Now Bernie is endorsing Harris, but if he was someone’s compromise, then that compromise isn’t necessarily transitive to a more centrist candidate.
I did, but most of his supporters did not follow through.
I really wouldn’t bet on it.
Hey, they were having brunch.
The idea that not voting is some form of protest that has material consequences for the ruling class is ahistorical. It took centuries of struggle to attain universal suffrage. The people in power are perfectly happy to have only a small fraction of the demos exerting any political power at all; in fact this is how most civilizations have functioned for the past few thousand years.
I just need anyone who thinks about skipping voting to “Save Palestine” to refer to this graph
Btw, there’s a third choice… it’s pulling the Jill Stein lever.
The Jill Stein Lever is made of rubber and not actually connected to anything, so pulling it will accomplish two things “Jack” and “Shit”
God forbid Biden/Harris actually change their handling of Israel.
They always expect the millions of voters to change rather than the dozens of politicians to change to align with the voters.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. PACs just gotta snap their fingers, flyers ready to print, websites ready to host like newspapers stockpiling living celebrity obits
God forbid Biden/Harris actually change their handling of Israel.
They watched Seymour Skinner ask himself “Am I out of touch?” and decided that he was completely correct when he decided “No, it’s the children who are wrong.”
- They expect the voters to align with the donors
Donors think of voters/voting as “the fifth column.”
Yes, Trump is even worse. But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable.
If politics is killing innocent people more nicely (‘yeah, that’s bad, but it just happens’) or more nastily (‘haw haw stupid children’), I no longer care about politics.
Let’s say Trump gets elected, and ten years from now, some kid asks you, “What did you do to prevent this?”
Are you going to tell them you just didn’t care enough to bother?
In that same 10 year, some kid asks, what did liberals do to prevent this during Biden’s term.
You can respond we were at brunch we didn’t notice what was going on.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you. It may well be that, under Trump, more innocent people will be killed. Still, I have the preference of voting for people who reduce the number of innocent people being killed, rather than voting for people who condone it.
Yes, Trump is even worse. But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable. Humans will destroy themselves because they lack compassion for other living beings, and that’s just what it is. You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.
Yeah, that’s cool, so am I - that’s not the only thing that’s on the ballot, though, and you can try to justify it as “Well, I’m not voting for anyone”, but this is very much a “If you aren’t voting against Trump, you’re voting for him, directly or indirectly” situation.
It’s cool, though - I’m sure everyone will understand. You couldn’t do the bare minimum to prevent an authoritarian takeover because you felt very strongly about one issue. Nevermind that your actions actually made that issue’s outcome worse for the people you purport to care about. We’ll all overlook that.
AKA:
“Why are you hitting that screw with a hammer?”
“I refuse to use a screwdriver; it takes too long and I’m morally opposed to patents that you get with screwdriver heads.”
“You do know that your hammering is going to make a total mess of things, rIght?”
“I don’t care; it’s the principled stance I’m willing to take to build this house.”
Claims to have a principled opposition to screwdriver head patents: buys screws anyway.
Sounds like the Democrats to me. All “I’m the anti-genocide candidate!” while shipping cluster bombs to the middle east.
It’s possible for both to be correct. You can’t fix the US government by voting third party for President, because the system isn’t set up to support that. First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.
And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east instead of politely asking for both sides to stop killing each other so everyone can talk, while representing the people sending weapons to one side of the conflict, who are taking advantage of their position in government to methodically wipe out an entire people.
deleted by creator
And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east
I was told that no one can because AIPAC.
Thank you for saying this.
AKA: whatever this tedious bullshit is.
you felt very strongly about one issue
Yes, I feel very strongly about innocent lives.
Given that, I expect you’ll be voting for the ‘less bad’ candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the ‘more bad’ candidate in winning, then?
No, I will not be voting. If I were to be able to vote, I would prefer a candidate who works to stop innocent people from being killed, rather than condone it happening. I find that quite an important moral issue.
If you’d be just as happy with Donald “Do what you have to do” Trump as with Harris, you can’t feel too strongly about innocent lives.
You’re a single issue voter. Think about that.
Yes, the most important single issue to me is not killing innocent people. If that’s not an important single issue to you, I disagree with your morality.
If the Overton Windows shifts further right, will be we arguing that we must vote Dem because they’ll criminalise fewer women who have miscarried? Because they’ll fight for the ‘least flamboyant queers’ to keep their jobs?
My stand is that killing innocent people is wrong. You can disagree, we seem to live in a world where killing innocent people on purpose is something that we have to put up with for the sake of democracy functioning.
In politics you choose a direction. Do you want more death, less death, or don’t care about the deaths.
Trump is more deaths, Harris is less deaths, not voting is that you don’t care about the deaths (or a different differentiating issue matters more)
Those are your choices when it comes to voting and encouraging others to vote.
That is your impact, pick one
not voting is that you don’t care about the deaths
Voting for someone who condones killing innocents is not acceptable.
You are inventing that anyone is condoning killing innocent’s BUT that’s not even important.
You get to pick, you want more deaths, less deaths, or don’t care.
There are no other impacts you can have with your vote.
If you care deeply you can join marches and protest. The many people who are doing so will gladly tell you Harris is not doing enough, but that it would be idiotic to not vote for her.
I want to support a candidate who is against killing innocents.
You are inventing that anyone is condoning killing innocent’s
I have personally talked to people who condone Israel killing innocent people. They rationalise it in all kinds of ways. That’s what people tend to do, which is why I am not fond of people.
Harris is calling for an investigation into Israel that would reduce the amount of innocent deaths, and they’ve been trying to negotiate a cease fire for a while now.
The executive branch has very little power to stop congress from approving funding for anything.
Executive branch has 100% control over actual spending. Congress could approve $10T for Israel, and executive can spend it as fast or slow or none as it feels like. Congresses only power is setting a ceiling on spending.
This sounds great but isn’t really true at all. Please don’t spread misinformation.
money Congress appropriates? Yes, federal agencies must prudently plan to spend money during its period of availability, but the President can request that Congress cancel or rescind some of this funding. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (Impoundment Control Act) of 1974 outlines a fast-track procedure for legislation responding to a President’s rescission request. Upon submitting a proposal to Congress, the President can withhold the funds targeted for rescission for up to 45 days or until a withholding would prevent the funding from being prudently obligated. If Congress has not enacted legislation by the end of that period, the funds must be released, and they cannot be proposed for rescission again under the Impoundment Control Act. Until 2018, a president had not proposed a rescission under this process since 2000. In May 2018, President Trump sent a package of proposed rescissions to Congress for consideration. Congress did not act on that request to approve any of the proposed reductions under the fast-track procedure, and the funding was released.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds
Ok, thank you. There was a lot of unspent covid relief allocations, fussed over without anyone in congress trying to force the spending. It would seem impossible to impose quality of spending criteria.
There was a lot of unspent covid relief allocations, fussed over without anyone in congress trying to force the spending.
Yes, but those might have helped Americans. When it’s propping up the political career of the fascist head of a genocidal apartheid state, that’s when congress springs into action and makes it happen. Funny how Netanyahu doesn’t have to wait for decades for incrementalists to get off their worthless asses to get what he wants.
That is good.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you.
[…]
You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.If you think your stance is more moral than others’ and would like for people to agree with you, have you tried not being a complete cunt about it?
I have no dog in this race since I live in a country with a sane voting system, so you can spare me your performative moral outrage.
I live in a country with a sane voting system
You don’t have a spare room by any chance, do you?
Unfortunately the voting system is the only sane part about Finland. Our current government is so far right that it includes multiple literal neo-Nazis and a pedophile neo-Nazi (who stepped in to replace a neo-Nazi), and multiple ministers (well ok, a minister and the Speaker of the Parliament) have fantasized in public about murdering eg. gay people or foreigners. The Speaker of the Parliament is also one of the right wing mass murderer Breivik’s idols, and has obliquely spoken in support of Breivik’s act of terror.
This place is a conservative shithole and I suggest anyone considering a vacation here to go somewhere else, especially if you’re not white or cishet
The Speaker of the Parliament is also one of the right wing mass murderer Breivik’s idols, and has obliquely spoken in support of Breivik’s act of terror.
Killing the outgroup is popular. This is because “if we oppress them, we look good because we have power.”
People like him make it clear that we’re soon going to be in a “us or them” situation here – these people literally want to murder leftists, 50% of the country’s voting age population supports them (and distressingly the youth vote went to the right), and their rhetoric is getting more and more violent by the day.
This current government is normalizing fascist speech and tactics, and it won’t be too long until talk of some sort of final solution to the leftist question will be completely normal, and after that it won’t be too long until they actually start implementing it. Unfortunately the majority of people who are willing to use political violence are conservatives, because like I said, soon it’s going to be us or them.
have you tried not being a complete cunt about it?
No, but I have tried blocking people who are rude.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you.
[…]
You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.cries about people being rude
I’m actually more upset about how terrible your post formatting is.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you.
[…]
You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.cries about people being rude
makes weird jabs about formatting when their hypocrisy is pointed out
I’m going to point at the Green Party, one of the 3 major parties in the current election, and at the 3 or 4 smaller parties that are gaining traction, then I am going to explain to them that 10 years ago, the country was deeply gripped by a plutocratic fascist duopoly and I did what was necessary to combat that fascism while others accepted it and pledged to it because it was in their best interest to just fall in line.
Then I will encourage them never to kiss the ring of fascism and genocide in order to preserve their own personal feelings of security.
one of the 3 major parties in the current election
Call it what you want, but the green party has no chance of making an impact on the outcome of this election except as a spoiler candidate.
I did what was necessary to combat that fascism
And by that you mean voting for the only non-fascist candidate with a chance of winning the election, right?
These liberals voting for the green party think that letting a genocide happen now is an acceptable cost of doing business if it maybe leads to a Green presidency in 30 years. They’re willing to be complicit in Trump’s genocide.
Liberals don’t vote for the green party. Not genocidey enough.
Sure it is. The Green Party is doing more to make genocide happen than the Democrats are. The Greens are explicitly running as a spoiler candidate to make Harris lose swing states. This will cause Trump to win the presidency and bomb the West Bank.
We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic, we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.
Source: https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/10/harris-vs-trump-spoiler-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud.html
You seem to have liberals and leftists confused. Liberals support Democrats because they’re happy that the party has come around to supporting the genocide they’ve always wanted. Some leftists don’t want genocide and vote for someone you don’t want them to (someone who, yes, is an intentional spoiler, which I’ve said before), so you have to pretend that your genocide support is the moral genocide support.
You’re no different. I voted for Harris, by the way. Took a long shower afterwards. Didn’t help. I will resent Democrats forever for manipulating me into voting for liberals’ genocide.
The. Democrats. Are. The. Ones. Who. Started. The. Genocide.
This is Genocidal Joe’s genocide. Trump will just inherit the framework Biden built.
No, Winston Churchill started it. He’s not a Democrat. He’s not even American. Also, it doesn’t matter who started it. “He started it” is an appropriate argument to use on the playground when you get in trouble for fighting. This is a genocide. It’s a little more serious, and drag would appreciate it if you took it seriously.
I was referencing the election cycle in 10 years.
And I don’t vote like a 13 year old trying to get my buddy the little fake crown for homecoming. Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation.
All this time the shills have been saying “vote for the genocide today, and then start the work the day after election day to make the Green party viable” has been a shameless diversion tactic the entire time.
I can throw away my vote on a genocidal cop who is pro-border wall, pro-incarceration of refugees, pro-genocide, pro-cop city, pro-lethal response to protesters, etc, or I can vote for the Green party to get actual funding and actual participation in the election process in 4 years.
It would have been so much faster for the supposedly left leaning party to actually lean left and get my vote, but since they decided to disenfranchise me and do everything they can to silence me, my went Green.
we are no longer a 2 party nation
We’re a two-party nation as long as first past the post voting is the standard. If you want the green party to be taken seriously, that should me what you’re campaigning for, not a third candidate in an inherently two-party system.
I can throw away my vote on a genocidal cop who is pro-border wall, pro-incarceration of refugees, pro-genocide, pro-cop city, pro-lethal response to protesters, etc, or I can vote for the Green party to get actual funding and actual participation in the election process in 4 years.
You can vote for a candidate who’s got a chance of beating the authoritarian dictator wannabe, or you can throw away your vote on a spoiler candidate with no chance of winning the election on the hopes that other people don’t do the same and let Trump win.
I do hope that if Trump wins, all of you people who’re trying to take the moral high ground will reflect on the situation and realize that you not only didn’t do the bare minimum you could have to stop it, your actions actually indirectly assisted him gaining power again. I don’t have much hope that that will happen, but I hope it does.
It’s really a shame, because normally, I’d be very in support of the green party. I like their platform. But they need to get political seats elsewhere before going for the fucking presidency. Even if, by some weird happenstance, they got elected, they would be completely blocked by the other branches of government at every turn. Get some seats in local government, get some seats in state governments, get some house and senate seats, then try to join the big leagues.
Exactly, Jill Stein is a stooge with no government experience whatsoever who thinks she can jump right in and be president of the most powerful country on earth. Not to mention taking money from republicans and accepting legal aid from Trump’s personal attorneys. It’s a joke.
If you want to be a real candidate, start with city council. Mayor. Governor. state senate. ANYTHING and work up from there. But she isn’t interested in making any actual progress.
Look at AOC for example, a progressive politician who is starting where she can actually make a difference and learn how to be a legislator and leader. Who knows, maybe one day we can vote for her for president.
When you lose with your “fall in line with my fascist” bullshit, remember you are at fault for your own loss.
You could have stood up for what is right, you could have influenced the Democrats to return to their roots, but you didnt. You made excuses for them and championed their fascism.
You are the reason they lost.
I honestly hope you’re getting paid by someone to be here. The Trump campaign, Musk, Putin, China, somebody, because at least then I could understand your stance from a purely self-serving standpoint. If this is your sincerely held belief, I don’t know what happened to get you here, but you should probably review your sources and really think about what you’re saying, because it’s pure fiction.
Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation
Bullshit. They have been receiving public funds you numb nuts. You can verify that from the Federal Election Commission. Here is their spreadsheet they provide as summary.
Please go fuck off with this argument as it is 100% verifiably false. This is literally lies that the Green party has told you. They routinely squander the money they receive because they hire zero talent to actually use funds in a meaningful manner. They have zero ground game, they only focus on top ticket rarely if ever down ticket, and office and PR positions are absolute shit.
Holy fucking shit have you eaten their lies, whole cake worth of them. I am so sorry you think the current leadership of the Green party is actually honest. Maybe if we were talking the 1980s leadership, but holy fuck, the Green party today has been overtaken by folks who are in it for them and them alone. And they go out and play victim, “Oh this system is not fair!!!” When their own willful incompetence ruined any chance.
I won’t have this bullshit of victim they play. The Green party can suck a dick, the people running it have successfully ran that fucking boat into the goddamn iceberg at full throttle. Anyone supporting Stein is so fucking clueless at this point, there’s zero redemption. Jill ain’t in this for any kind of morality, she’s in it for money, lights, and attention. The number of people who haven’t caught on to this is absolutely astounding.
But we are NOT going to pretend that the Green party hasn’t been receiving federal election funds, when that is so effortlessly proven FALSE. If you’ve been giving her money, she using that money to eat well, cause she ain’t spending it on getting elected. And I assure you, she’ll be out and about playing victim when she loses this time too.
Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation
But BULLSHIT, BULL FUCKING SHIT. BULL ---- SHIT!! That bitch has had millions handed to her and we still a two party system. Do NOT be spouting this bullshit. Don’t be a pawn in her little victim game. She’s a bad person, you do NOT need to be played by her game. You want to fix the two party system? Go to your State assembly, because THAT IS WHERE IT IS FIXED.
This little path that you explained, you’re being played by dumb motherfuckers who are halfwits at politics.
but since they decided to disenfranchise me and do everything they can to silence me, my went Green
No what happened was you lost your backbone and in your moment of weakness you got played by dumber idiots than Trump. The fact you think this two party system is fixed by the President election proves you have zero fucking clues. You know what, you should likely throw your vote away. I don’t think you have anything to contribute to the left or the right. If you just stay 3rd party for the rest of your life, both parties can just write you off. If you vote 3rd party the rest of your life and not fix this at the State level, then you’re no different than a dead voter. That’s what Republicans and Democrats know about third parties, that’s why they don’t sweat them.
Because this whole “if we only get 5%” argument is a lie they tell you to keep sending them checks. They’ve been getting money, they’ve been getting election dollars, they aren’t hurting for cash. Jill just doesn’t want the job, because if she did, she would be running the party a whole lot like the 1980s and not this current “let’s waste money as fast as we possibly can” mentality she currently has.
It’s right there in black and white. They’re being handed the tools to succeed down ticket. They just don’t want it and that’s why they don’t go down ballot, that’s why they have zero ground game, that’s why they disappear for four years right after the election. They don’t want to win, they just want your fucking money.
They SHOULD HAVE been receiving donation matching, but the Democrat Party meticulously filed injunctions in every state to block those funds until the very end of the election cycle.
At 5%, they get a cut of the blanket federal election fund through a channel the Democrat Party cant throw frivolous lawsuits at to sabotage the campaigns.
Fuck off with your fascist misinformation, you filthy bootlicker.
You know I commented, but you aren’t even worth that reply.
But here’s that link just in case you missed it.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-declares-stein-eligible-to-receive-2024-matching-funds/
deleted by creator
Green or socialist party (better. not funded by GOP even if you don’t buy into socialism generally) in California or other non-swing state. Awesome. In swing state, destructive.
Green Party … major parties
That’s a great joke… oh, you’re serious.
Their membership is < 1/3 that of the libertarian party.
You heartless liberals think that sacrificing thousands of Palestinian lives in the here and now is worth it in order to have a chance at a Green Party presidency maybe in 30 years. No! Genocide is never an acceptable cost of doing business. Stop being complicit in genocide! Vote for Harris.
The one who is steadfast pro-genocide…?
Am I missing something here?
Harris cant answer a question to save her life, but an answer she has given over and over IM TALKING… is that she unconditionally condones and supports the genocide.
Stop being complicit in genocide! Vote for Harris.
If Harris were pledging to reign in Israel from killing innocent people, I would wholeheartedly agree with this.
The president and I are working around the clock every day to get that ceasefire deal done
- Kamala Harris
now is the time to get a ceasefire deal and get the hostage deal done.
- Kamala Harris
We’re not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel and in the region including Arab leaders
- Kamala Harris
it is time for this war to end and end in a way where Israel is secure, all the hostages are released, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity and self-determination.
- Kamala Harris
Thank you for agreeing.
I agree that you posted something that does not indicate that killing innocents will stop.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
ten years from now, some kid asks you
Ten years from now, a Palestinian child asks you, but they never existed, because their parents were killed.
The non voters will tell the children that letting Palestine be destroyed was worth it. That participating in genocide wasn’t that bad.
Removed by mod
Let’s say in 10 years, the choice is between a dem who wants 20 genocides and a republican who wants 21: will you still be a militant democrat?
That depends entirely on what the rest of their platform looks like. If the republican’s platform resembles Trump, and we’re still operating within a 2-party system, you can bet your ass I will, because there’s more at stake than one issue.
Look, we have two options: Vote against Trump, or don’t. That’s it. And if you aren’t voting for a viable candidate, which right now is Harris, and only Harris, you’re not voting against Trump. Simple as that.
To me, this just means there’s no evil great enough that our politicians could commit that would make you start questioning the validity of our government and electoral process. This is the liberal idealism that leftists talk about.
Is this accurate? Is there any evil great enough that would compel you to start considering tearing it all down?
I know our electoral process is bullshit, and I believe our government is corrupt as hell.
I’m also a pragmatist. I can either work within the confines of the system we have to try and effect the least harm possible, or I can register a protest vote now in hopes that some time in the future it’ll help fix things. I’m taking the first option.
If we manage to change the voting system to allow for third party votes without sabotaging our own self interests in the meantime, I’m all for it. If third party candidates want to run for lesser offices where they have a chance of being elected and have a chance of making a difference, I’m all for it. But voting for a third party candidate for president, or declining to vote as a protest maneuver, is simply the worst option. It’s looking for a long-term solution to a very short-term problem, and I simply can’t see any good argument for taking that approach.
Electing Trump right now is ‘tearing it all down’, but not in the way I want.
Removed by mod
If politics is killing innocent people
It’s not just politics, it’s a rule of law. We have passed in the past under different administrations laws requiring funding to the Israeli state. Only via our legal process can we undo that. Now there are some laws that allow the President to suspend funding that has been legally appropriated, but those only go so far.
It’s a will of Congress and the understanding that we are a nation of laws, that money keeps funneling towards Israel. But at the same time there are some bending of the laws via creative justification that allows us to setup a floating pier and deliver supplies to the Palestinians.
And Israel doesn’t want aid being delivered by the United States because at the same time it allows them to begin collecting evidence against Israel’s current abuse of human rights.
There has to be an understanding that there is a process by which an administration has to follow. It’s dumb we have that process, I won’t deny that, but until Congress gets off it’s collective ass and change that, we have to follow that process. Otherwise, just doing whatever opens the door for folks to do whatever in the opposite direction as well and have zero recourse.
But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable
It’s not acceptable but at the same time we can have two takes to it. We either follow our laws or we don’t. Everything that has created this situation, that didn’t happen overnight. The laws that provide unquestionable aid to Israel, those weren’t passed in the last four years. It takes time to undo those things. Now that does provide a means for innocent people to die and you have every right to be disgusted by it. I will absolutely not tell you, that your opinion is incorrect. It’s dumb that we’ve put ourselves into this position.
But that said, absent any system, this “I no longer care about politics”, the ONLY thing that will do is ensure the complete and effective eradication of these people. The “I no longer care about politics” stance is synonymous with the “I don’t care if these innocent people are wiped from this Earth.”
This is a difficult conflict and it’s wild that so many people toss their hands into the air and shout “I don’t care anymore!!” the second the conflict actually gets into one of it’s really difficult phases. If this phase of the conflict troubles you, you are not an ally for any means of protecting innocents that you think you are. Protection of people’s lives is dirty ass work, if the messiness of the politics of this troubles you, you wouldn’t be able to save anyone anyway. It may come as a surprise to many here, but humanitarian crisis like this are messy affairs, shit is complex, and nobody ever walks away hands clean. Who knew the world was like this?
People seem to forget that our government was intentionally created to be hard to change.
But that said, absent any system, this “I no longer care about politics”, the ONLY thing that will do is ensure the complete and effective eradication of these people. The “I no longer care about politics” stance is synonymous with the “I don’t care if these innocent people are wiped from this Earth.”
I disagree. I care very much about innocent lives, but I don’t care much for a political system which views those lives as a necessary price to pay for diplomacy.
Ho Chi Minh knew all about America’s long history of slavery and genocide. He knew that and he welcomed the Americans who came to fight the Japanese.
Any questions?
Help me I’m being harmed by Biden
And if you do nothing, nobody becomes president?
No. The Idiot takes power. How is that “acceptable?” Because you sat on your thumbs and let it happen, rather than choosing less evil?
Do y’all think the trolley problem is just a cute comic?
Look, maybe they just don’t know how this will play out. By all means let them trade their vote away for teh feelz and directly condemn an entire countries residents to death.
Trust me bro, they care a ton about Palestine, they aren’t using civilian deaths to leverage any political bullshit I swear.
Democrats have taken the stance that it’s absolutely UNTHINKABLE that they could possibly not support a genocide, instead full bore opting that the other side’s genocide support is somehow worse. Man, fuck these people so hard.
Like it or not, a significant portion of the country is in favor of supporting Israel, and so they have to walk the line of supporting Israel without supporting genocide, because if they don’t they also lose.
Republicans can campaign on being pro-genocide, give weapons to Israel on the condition they use them with less discretion, and make a campaign promise to deny asylum to any refugees and they don’t lose a vote.
Democrats have to support Israel and Palestine, which is nearly impossible to do without a degree of “please don’t use this gun wrong like you have every other time”.If you actually don’t see how a Republican administration would be vastly worse for Palestinians, I don’t know what to tell you.
Like it or not, a significant portion of the country is in favor of supporting Israel,
Straight up not true to an extent that electorally matters. The only people who would drop Harris for supporting Palestine are the republican voters she’s needlessly trying to court. Meanwhile at this rate she’s losing/already lost Michigan and at least one other swing state with a significant Muslim population (there are a few of them). Her neglect of her voter base is what will do her in.
Got any data for that claim, or just asserting?
It’s why the Harris campaign is consistently trying to thread the needle and support Israel while not supporting the genocide.
I’ve been trying to find recent data separated by political party (it’s there I’ve seen it before) but I can’t find it for some reason.
Do you have any sources to back up your claims?
Democrats have taken the stance that it’s absolutely UNTHINKABLE that they could possibly not support a genocide
“It’s just what happens!!!”
I’m ready for the Dems to roll over when abortion is banned and the numbers of women dying in childbirth skyrocket. “The voters have decided. This is just what happens!” Instead they will shift the Overton window to “women should be jailed for 5 years rather than 10 when they have a miscarriage which looks like an abortion”. I hope this statement is a joke, and not actually a prediction.
Your hypothetical situation regarding abortion is happening as we speak, and the democrats are fighting it. I’m not sure where you’ve been for the last year.
In fact it’s one of the other major reasons why we need to vote democrat. RvW was overturned because SCOTUS is stacked with republicans. You want to prevent shit like that happening again, you need to vote so we can rebalance the courts.
The democrats have openly refused to pack the courts. How are they supposed to campaign if they don’t have Republicans to threaten us with?
not sure what you’re talking about, Biden has appointed almost as many judges as Trump did. And also not far off Obama who served two terms.
They had two years of majority in both houses under Biden where they could have added justices to the bench.
yeah obviously moderate dems and DINOs like Manchin are never going to go for that. If that’s your bar for voting for democrats you’re being completely unrealistic.
The democrats have openly refused to pack the courts. How are they supposed to campaign if they don’t have Republicans to threaten us with?
I used to think these kinds of comments were silly jokes. But, the more that the Dems just allow everything to slip rightwards, it seems like this is really their strategy, and I’m worried it’s not a joke.
deleted by creator
I hope all this actually happens, as the US would be a better place with serious political representation that isn’t different flavours of Conservative. But I won’t be surprised if it does not, plenty of people are happy to vote for bigotry.
and the democrats are fighting it
Yes, and I worry that they will keep fighting it from a further and further rightwards position, meaning rights are eroded while they position themselves.
Recent post around here said “democrats will shift to the right if they lose”. Yes that overton window will be “only get 1 year prison if they accuse the father of rape” shift.
Trump is 100x worse. Liberals might be in bed with conservatives on 90% of issues, but fascists actually want to use the military against us.
I upset people when I reject the idea that we are voting to save democracy because I believe the US’s two party system is an insult to every ideal that democracy stands for, but I am still voting for Harris. Vote to save our country from fascism. Vote to keep your friends and family from being rounded up for supporting Healthcare for all.
Bernie was against a ceasefire for at least three months. He claimed Israel has the right to defend themselves.
Bernie is responsible for manufacturing the consent that let the genocide continue this long.
Now it is coming back to bite the Democrats. And all Bernie can say is “Trump is worse”. Take a hike old man.
Removed by mod
I still can’t believe how stupid they are, thinking that making sure the Trump gets elected, it somehow means they are “doing something about genocide”, ha ha ha!
One solution to this would the Dem party being clearly opposed to killing innocent people. That would be nice.
Why’s it matter. The repubs aren’t opposed to it so your argument is useless.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Bernie was against a ceasefire for at least three months.
Israel is a very odd country, as it seems to be fuelled by killing innocent people and stealing their land illegally. People say that the country would disappear, and all its citizens, if a stop was put to that.
Are people really claiming Trump isn’t worse? I think it’s more that people think that Harris may be better than Trump (pretty low bar there), but still too bad to vote for. Voting for the lesser evil only goes so far. At some point the lesser evil is still too far from one’s own ideals that voting for them isn’t an option. Different people will obviously draw that line in different places and if I lived in the USA, I’d probably begrudgingly vote for Harris in the coming election.
Democrats basically slandering anyone who refuses to vote for their candidate as Trump supporters is fucking stupid and will hardly convince anyone to change their minds. Especially when it seems democrats have had nothing to offer the left other than “the other side is worse” for as far back as I can remember. If they want the left’s votes, they need to earn them.
