• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      84
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well, now Democrats will start coming up with excuses for why conditioning or ceasing arms sales to Netanyahu isn’t within her power.

      EDIT: I already voted for Harris.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is within the President’s power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

        (While this could maybebe overruled by congress, it would be a huge blow to Israel in the interim)

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:

          This bill specifies that no federal funds may be used to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services to Israel. Also, no funds may be used to pay the salary of any Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of State employee who acts to limit defense deliveries to Israel.

          This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.

          The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that’s why the House pushed this act.

          • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            So if the Dems wanted to repeal this bill, they would need to control the house, correct?

            • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              32
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Nah, the bill was never passed in the senate so it isn’t law at all. Just unenforceable posturing.

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              If Democrats controlled the House the bill would likely not have passed there in the first place.

              In any case it doesn’t matter because the Senate will probably never vote on it, and even if they did and it passed Biden would veto it.

              It’s also important to understand that this bill would not add any new arms transfers to Israel, but only compel the completion of existing transfers which the executive branch had chosen to withhold.

              Ultimately, the point is that Congress does not have the authority to force the transfer of US military equipment to a foreign power. The disposition of military equipment is the purview of the Department of Defense, and trade with other national governments is the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both of which report to the President.

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              2 months ago

              This is essentially the crux of the issue. Congress can designate funds in the budget for aid to Israel and they can specify what the funds are for (military equipment, humanitarian aid, loans, etc), but they don’t have the authority to perform the actual transfer of the funds (or material paid for by the funds) to Israel, that falls under the authority of the executive branch. Congress can provide the money but they can’t actually force the spending of the money.

              Praise be to the system of checks and balances.

              I don’t know why you’re getting downvotes, I think you’ve got it right.

              • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                people are panicing because harris might lose and acting like morons towards anyone who doesn’t unequivocally support her atm. add to that many people don’t understand how the system works on top of it. 🤷 its no matter internet points are useless to me anyway. =)

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          It is within the President’s power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

          It is, yes. But Democrats are fucking outstanding at inventing bureaucratic hurdles to stand in the way of things they ran on but don’t want to do.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        EDIT: I already voted for Harris.

        Is this the new “I condemn hamas” disclaimer everyone is required to have in their comments in order to criticize the democratic party?

        • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Always has been. “I voted for the person, you can’t say I’m voting for Trump or third party.”

          We have to otherwise we get smug liberals posting strawmen.

      • fluxion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        With no time for AIPAC to completely rat fuck the election and get Trump elected. Give her some time to help prevent the destruction of democracy and if she doesn’t move on the issue then she’ll reap what she sows.

        • nieminen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          This was my thought as well. I get the feeling she’s been fairly quiet on the subject until now due to the power AIPAC has in our politics. If she spoke out this whole time, I’m sure they would have thrown all their financial and political power against her.

          I hope we’re right.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Even given that, “end the war as soon as possible” is an open ended statement. The war would end if everyone in Gaza was dead, and that could happen pretty quick if all the gloves came off.

          Still, saying something is nice.

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          and if she doesn’t move on the issue then she’ll reap what she sows.

          But the next election will be the most important election ever and Republicans will be ready to commit N+1 genocides if elected.

        • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          yawn thats magical thinking. If that was the case she’d have committed to enforcing America’s laws on not arming genocidal forces if she was serious about. All she did was trot out some tokens and say the same thing she’s said the entire campaign.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Obama promised he’d close Guantanamo…

      This seems about the same

      Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won’t look so much like pandering

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners (“detainees”) in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it’s highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn’t want to move any of them to the US, because they didn’t want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???

        The president isn’t supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we’ve allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.

        • Zaktor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It’s one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.

        • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          That might all be true but it only really illustrates my point - this too isn’t deliverable. But lying can buy some votes

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s not lying under any conventional definition of lying though. Saying something is a lie usually indicates deceptive intent, along with a knowledge–or a reasonable belief–that something you’re saying isn’t accurate. If I believe that the earth is flat, and I say so, am I lying? Or am I just wrong?

            Biden said that he would cancel student loans; he’s done everything in his legal authority, and a few things that weren’t, to try an cancel them out. Do you think that the fact that SCOTUS prevented him from doing so makes it a lie? Or was he unable to follow through due to factors that he couldn’t directly control?

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Who can blame the president for ruling over a hidden torture camp full of innocent people? It’s out of their hands. That’s just how USA works. \s

      • _stranger_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        How does Trump’s “You’ve got to finish the problem” sound? Because to me that’s not vague at all.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s hilarious how libs think this is any different from what genocide joe has been saying for the past year.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      As someone who is frequently called a single issue voter over a number of different issues:

      Ummm what? Her statement was insultingly empty (the entire article is air) and the title contradicts what she’s been saying for 6 months. I’m not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn

      • Logi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn

        Do they have billboards saying “reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity”?

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Do they have billboards saying “reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity”?

          They should. The overwhelming majority of Biden voters voted against Trump more than for Biden and I’d bet the farm that, while probably to a significantly lesser degree, Harris is going to win in the same way.

          The Dem leadership hasn’t updated the pillars of their electoral and policymaking strategy since 1992 and it really shows.

          Even when Harris or Walz say something truly based that gets the Left hopeful for real change in the right direction (which has happened a few times), some apparatchik always takes pains to point out that it’s “not part of the platform” 😮‍💨

          • Zaktor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            Press releases walking back good things she said was kind of the hallmark of her primary campaign in 2020 too.

    • ceenote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      2 months ago

      Easy, they refuse to believe her.

      After all, if she didn’t sow discord by pointlessly undermining the president while an essentially powerless Vice President, she must love genociding brown people even more than Trump does somehow.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        they refuse to believe her.

        I mean like, I would believe her if she rolled out a plan for how the US is going to stop funding Israel? Or a plan for holding the Israeli military accountable? Or maybe I would believe her if she didn’t hold a press conference last week gaslighting us that Israel has to right to defend itself?

        • ceenote@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I agree. I’m just hoping they’ve made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn’t intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.

          It’s her or Trump, and there’s zero chance Trump will make things better, so anyone who cares about Gaza and has a realistic outlook on the situation should support Harris.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m just hoping they’ve made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn’t intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.

            Progressives should start working on a primary challenge the moment the polls close. Democrats should never have the opportunity to claim a mandate on this issue.

            • ceenote@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Maybe. I’d prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she’s going to be. We’re forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we’re seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more “gettable” moderates and conservatives instead

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Maybe. I’d prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she’s going to be.

                If she shows some progressive bona fides, she’ll have no problem. Without the threat of a progressive challenger, I’m afraid we’ll get 4 years of centrists screaming that she’s the most progressive president since FDR and expecting everyone to buy it, like they did with Biden. And that’s at best. At worst, they’ll gleefully announce that moving to the right works, double down on Gaza, and THEN announce that she’s the most progressive president since FDR.

                We’re forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we’re seen as unpleasable, more centrist Democrats will have an excuse not to even try.

                As though they have ever tried.

                EDIT: Responding to your edit:

                and if we’re seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more “gettable” moderates and conservatives instead

                Democrats do that in response to the sun rising in the morning.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        After all, if she didn’t sow discord by pointlessly undermining the president while an essentially powerless Vice President

        She had no problem disagreeing with him when he called Republican voters garbage. She had no problem differing from him when she promised to put a Republican in her cabinet.

        It’s funny how she can move to his right as much as she wants, but never to his left.

        • ceenote@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Biden calling Trump voters garbage was a gaffe. His own office walked it back. It’s way easier to depart from the president on a throwaway line than on a year-long policy that an all-too-large and ignorant chunk of the population still supports.

          I’m not satisfied with her public position on Gaza so far, either. But, since the notion that Trump will make anything better is ridiculous, the only plausible course is to get her in office and then pressure the shit out of her.

          And in case anyone’s thinking it, the idea that Jill Stein successfully spoiling into a Trump victory somehow means he’ll take her foreign policy advice is magical thinking.

          • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I just read you are concerned about 3rd party voters spoiling the election. Understandable given the mathematically flawed voting system most states use.

            With state level electoral reform, we can get rid of First Past The Post voting and the spoiler effect that comes along with it.

            citizens would be free to vote how they wish safe in the knowledge their vote would still be counted against those they don’t want in public office.

            We could pass this one state at a time. Some states have already replaced FPTP voting, and more are working towards it with referendums.

            Given how possible electoral reform is, and your concern with 3rd parties being a spoiler, I invite you to stop by my asklemmy post to discuss your new commitment to replacing First-past-the-post voting in your state after the election.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            2 months ago

            I forgot that I need to append “I already voted for Harris” to anything that isn’t fawning worship, or Democrats’ sanctimonious lecture reflex kicks in.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              2 months ago

              Problem is it’s not believable you voted for Harris after doing nothing but speaking out against her for months now. Guessing you voted for trump just based on your words on lemmy

              • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                This is exactly why this discussion is insufferable. You have literally been told how this person voted but you are so convinced by your own bullshit (ie that anyone mad about US support for genocide must, for some god damn reason, support Trump) that you don’t even believe it.

                I cannot wait for the 6th so that we can have this conversation without it getting sidetracked by overly loyal democrats condescendingly explaining how first past the post works as if we don’t know already.

  • Zaktor
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve already voted for her, but I don’t believe her.

    This is a vague plea for peace without any indication of what things she believes (and more importantly, publicly acknowledges) would be “in her power”. Is the limit of her power sternly worded letters, arms embargoes, or intervention? Because I’m pretty sue she’s not opening the door for US peacekeeping troops in Gaza, though that would be in her power (at least for a short term).

    But like, with Harris we get to see if she’s willing to do anything meaningful, and maybe as public sentiment continues to turn against Israel she’ll be embarrassed enough to do something. It’s not a hopeful position to shoot for, but it is technically better than the alternative, and there other issues at play where the difference is not so limited.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience. In places like Michigan they’re doing this, but outside seing districts they’ve been banging the war drums for Israel.

      So the lack of faith in the messaging isn’t without warrant.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience.

        Yes, it’s this shady practice called, “campaigning”.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          No disagreement that the campaign is, in fact, doing the campaigning thing.

          A good campaign presents their intended policies consistently and favorably. It sells the electorate on casting their vote.

          A poor campaign favorably presents inconsistent policies in a vague manner. It erodes faith in what the electorate is voting for.

      • Doorbook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes specifically when they think her ads in different states with different messaging are not going to be shown around.

        https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364100748112

        She represent the regular two faced career politician, which should work in regular election, but the Israel genocidal work in Gaza and war crimes expose these politician.

        • Breezy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          You linked to faux news. So i will not click the link nor does anything that you said have any meaning.

          • Doorbook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is just a stupid take because almost all news agency are own by someone trying to push different agenda.

            • Breezy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yes okay a biased “news agency” would be fine. But faux news is just that, fake news.

            • Empricorn@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              No other “news agency” had to legally argue in court that they are an entertainment-only product and no reasonable person would take their “reporting” as fact. Like a broken watch, they might sometimes be correct, but they are literally propaganda.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Kind of a day late dollar short scenario

    I mean I already voted for Harris because I don’t wanna die in a Trump Brand Concentration Camp, but, she really couldn’t have said this any fucking sooner?

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      She had to wait until the day before the election so that AIPAC doesn’t have enough time to ratfuck her for it.

      Unfortunately, that’s how things work here if you’re critical of Israel in any way.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        2 months ago

        Instead the majority of people who oppose genocide have seen how she has continued to pledge her support. They have seen how children, women and men have been blown to shreds and burned alive with weapons the Biden-Harris administration has sent.

        This reeks more of a desperate attempt to peddle to voters now that she realizes genocide is indeed a red line for some voters

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I really don’t want you people to have to find out the hard way just how fucking stupid all of this anti-Harris shit is so close to the election.

          Because that would mean that millions of Palestinians would be killed when the current genocide is turned up to 11 after President Trump gives Netanyahu a blank check. I really don’t want that. Stop trying to get Trump elected please.

            • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              With AMOC collapse happening actively, she is probably our last hope. We don’t have more time to “protest” vote or whatever. We need her now.

              8 billion people and all megafauna and megaflora and pretty much everything in the ocean is relying on this election. Gaza is sad, but those people will die to horrific climate change anyway if Trump is elected.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            2 months ago

            We demanded for almost a year that the Democrats need to stop supporting genocide. Instead Biden, Harris and the other party elites would rather hand the US to Trump than to stop more Arabs being murdered. Maybe she proves us wrong and actually puts Israel in check. But everything action so far has been the opposite of that.

            • _stranger_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 months ago

              Answer one simple question: Do you honestly believe Trump will be better for Palestinians?

              • Saleh@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                I believe the US is a white supremacist empire, founded on a settler colonial genocide, which is part of why it now supports another settler colonial genocide.

                There will be no change to that in the current political system. It requires a fundamental political change, probably revolution, but certainly the dismantling of the current political parties to change that.

                Maybe Trump will speed up the genocide of Palestinians, but the Democrats are equally committed to it, as they have thrown away every chance to end it, while taking every chance to perpetuate it.

                • _stranger_@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  So your floor here is “throw gas on the fire”. Got it. You admit at best he’ll be the same, and you’re advocating for it. Your stance doesn’t seem sane for someone who wants less pain and suffering.

                • _stranger_@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Didn’t answer the question. The choice is binary at this point. You can support the one person who’s actually said they’ll try and stop it, or you can throw your support in the trash and help the opposition that’s said “Finish the problem” when referring to the people of Palestine.

    • Randelung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Trump Brand Concentration Camp is very apt. It succinctly expresses that the whole thing exists only for his personal monetary gain and he’s escalating to extremes for his grift.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know. Election day is tomorrow (Technically today as I’m typing). For sure late, but maybe not too late.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.

      Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.

      • Juice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.

        So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.

        But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.

        But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.

        I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings

          This is something that a lot of people don’t think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn’t much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they’re even more spineless than I realized. For all the “Trump isn’t fit” gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don’t care about compromise, and in fact they don’t want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that’s what gives them so much power.

          On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.

          It sucks, it’s not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I’m not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.

          • Juice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.

            But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.

          No, unlike your argument, I’m not arguing we split hairs over semantics.

          she will never reach the vast majority of those people.

          Unless.

          She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.

          • Juice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It’s time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris’ words is not useful.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide

        Fucking liberalism in a nutshell.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          No, it’s utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn’t even a political position.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I will wait until she gets elected, and then if she continues to refuse to call it a genocide, then I will hold her accountable then.

              But first, the existence of Palestine as contingent on her winning. Like literally.

          • Juice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          As opposed to? Conservatism? How do you expect that to be different? Because in terms of president, those are your two options right now.

          • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            How do you expect that to be different?

            State level electoral reform to replace first past the post voting. Introduce competition into the voting system.

  • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Step 1: FOLLOW US LAW AND STOP GIVING THEM WEAPONS

    Let’s see if she ever gets this far. I am not holding my breath

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    Apparently no one in the comments has been paying attention. She’s been saying these same lines about Gaza since the convention speech.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s been a lot of FUD about it and .ml has been running wild denying anything even remotely pro peace from her.

      At any rate literally all we need at this point is a president that tells Netanyahu he either accepts a negotiated return of remaining hostages and withdraws or he loses our weapons support.

      But Biden is also doing his best to pump up their ammo supply so the next president actually doesn’t have the influence Biden could have had. It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames. They’ve been shamelessly giving Israel our best military technology with no regard to their political situation. College students called this as the most likely path 2 decades ago, and here we are appearing to be caught by surprise.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fun fact, there’s a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.

        It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there’s never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.

        • nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Fun fact, there’s a 2008

          What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can’t find that law.

          I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.

          • LePoisson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.

            https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf

            There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.

            So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.

            • nednobbins@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I just read that law and it’s far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.

              Section 1 just defines the title.
              Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
              Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don’t bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
              Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in “should”. That has a specific legal definition that includes, “but it’s not required.”
              Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
              Section 6 mandates some reports.
              Section 7 defines terms.

              The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter…”

        • LePoisson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.

          https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf

          There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.

          So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames.

        We did learn. Just all the wrong lessons. Iran taught us that you can ride a wave of hate for 50 years. South Africa taught us that you crack down on the BDS movement day one and keep the media on lock for your Apartheid friends.

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    2 months ago

    3rd party voters: “I’m not voting for Harris until she condemns the Gaza war!”

    Harris: *says she condemns the Gaza war*

    3rd party voters: *desperate scrambling sounds to find something else to be a single issue contrarian*


    I’m really hoping I’m wrong about that, but I’m seeing it on this thread.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Have you been to a protest or talked to pro-Palestinian voices. The demand has always been to stop weapons shipments to Israel, even before October 7th. This isn’t moving the goal posts, the goal posts have been there for decades, it’s just both parties have and continue to ignore them.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean for context something like 70 million early voters already cast their ballot, so this quite literally cannot change their vote and that number is roughly half of the entire votes cast the entire last election. So in all likelihood, roughly half the people you’re mad at can’t react at all because of how long she waited.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Empty rhetoric about “war” has never been a worthwhile “goalpost”. We’ve had more than a year of that already from genocide joe.

          It’s always been about ending the genocide and reversing zionism more generally.

        • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No, the goal post has always been that she’ll enforce America’s laws regarding weapon shipments until israel behaves. This is not that. This ‘ill continue the Biden policy of committing a genocide and periodically send sternly worded letters that do nothing.’.followed by ‘israel has a right to defend itself’ platitudes.

          Harris needs to commit. And this is not that. No goal posts have been moved. Shes trotted out some tokens and said the same thing shes said every time.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          2 months ago

          Debunking the strawman is not moving the goalpost.

          You do not get to set the demands for other voters. And then pretend they have been met when they are clearly not.

          • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            33
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why should they give a fuck about your “demands” when you change them immediately once met?

            • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              31
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 months ago

              Kamala already promised not to impose a weapons embargo on Israel. She still does not call it a genocide. No demands have been met.

              What does she mean by everything in her power? Nuking Gaza so the “war” ends? Send in the American military to fight in Gaza?

              • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                Liberals will see no problem choosing polite, handwringing genocide over rowdy, bombastic genocide. They fall so easily for style points and optics completely devoid of substance.

                20 years from now, when the only choices are between a dem who wants 20 genocide and a republican who wants 21, liberals will still be frothing at the mouths, blaming anti-genocide leftists for the country’s devoluton into fascism. This is the logical conclusion of liberal “pragmatic utilitarianism”

                In biology, one learns about a certain species of caterpillar that can only cross the threshold of metamorphosis by seeing its future butterfly. Proletarian subjectivity does not evolve by incremental steps but requires nonlinear leaps, especially by way of moral self-recognition through solidarity with the struggle of a distant people. Even when this contradicts short-term self-interest, as in the famous cases of Lancashire cotton workers’ enthusiasm for Lincoln and later for Gandhi, such efforts not only anticipate a world beyond capitalism, they concretely advance the working class’s march toward it.

                Socialism, in other words, requires nonutilitarian actors, whose ultimate motivations and values arise from structures of feeling that others would deem spiritual. Marx rightly scourged romantic humanism in the abstract, but his personal pantheon — Prometheus and Spartacus, Homer, Cervantes, and Shakespeare — affirmed a heroic vision of human possibility. But can that possibility be realized in today’s world, a world where the “old working class” has been demoted in agency?

                -Mike Davis

            • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              2 months ago

              The demands haven’t changed. They’ve always been, and this is really quite simple; stop sending weapons to Israel while it’s engaging in genocide. The goalposts have not shifted.

            • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              2 months ago

              Aren’t most polls against the genocide, so it would’ve helped? Even the goalposts you’re providing don’t acknowledge it as a genocide.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Third-party voters as a whole don’t matter nearly as much as the handful of Muslims in Michigan that this message is directed towards. Also, this message is not significantly different than what she’s been saying since the DNC. Her big misstep wasn’t her messaging on Gaza; it was ignoring the Uncommitted leaders entirely.

      • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yep, the Democrats didn’t even allow a Palestinian to speak at the DNC, but they had how many Republican politicians come on stage?

        The Democrats have ignored the Muslim/Arab community almost entirely this election cycle, and are now freaking out because their Status-Quo policy decisions might have cost them the election.

        And when you point this out on Lemmy, you’re screamed at for being a Trump supporter and wanting Gaza leveled. No, we just wanted our party leadership to reflect the wants of the majority of their constituents for once.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Exactly. The progressive base is somehow never big enough to win the Democrats the election, but if they complain at all about the party or the candidate, they immediately become large enough to cost the Democrats the election.

          [sigh]…that being said, if you haven’t already, please go vote for Kamala today, especially if you live in a swing state.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Seems a little too little too late for it to move the needle much, especially given how much early voting has happened. Harris’s position on Israel has been so bizarre, pretty sure Israel has even been actively working against Democrats this whole time anyways.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Way to late and it’s ridiculous she waited till desperation to take a good stance.

      • Zaktor
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s basically the same pattern Biden followed. Even when he did fits and starts of good things, it was way too late and only felt like he was doing it for political reasons, not because he had a change of heart.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          Biden very clearly was saying things to try and keep a lid on domestic unrest. He literally parroted, (and still does) whatever Netanyahu says. Then he always blames Hamas for Netanyahu tossing in a known deal breaker at the last minute, (occupation of Gaza), even though Biden said he doesn’t want that either.

          Biden’s entire conduct over Israel has been in bad faith.

          Harris could not possibly have the same line as Biden so far because she doesn’t have control over weapons shipments or negotiations. All she can do is call for peace, and yeah those calls get tainted when your boss is saying the exact same stuff in bad faith. But if we aren’t smart enough to realize she cannot possibly be operating in bad faith at his level until January 20th, then we deserve everything we get.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Peace has always been her call. We have yet to see how she would work for it because she isn’t in the hot seat yet. We have a choice between someone calling for peace, but not really pro Palestinian, and someone calling for ultra death squads.

        Grow up.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          With early voting and the roar of everything this is too late to make a huge wave difference I think.

          What’s up with the grow up comment. I’m just talking about the strategy being ineffective. It’s completely random.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            Because your comment reads like the standard .ml stuff trying to tie her to Netanyahu no matter what she says.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              There is somehow always a moving Boogeyman in here.

              And yet it’s everyone else that has to grow up.

              • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                I was told to grow up the other day for simply pointing out why Muslim/Arab voters may be struggling internally with voting for Harris. Just, y’know, applying empathy and putting myself into someone’s shoes who has way more involved in that than I do.

                When I pointed out that this is why Democrats lose voters (they’re condescending and dismissive to their own party because their issues/concerns aren’t “convenient” right now) I’m screamed at for supporting Trump and how much worse it would be.

                100,000 voters cast protest votes during the primaries in just Michigan alone over the Palestinian genocide, it’s clearly an important issue to your constituents and they deserve to be treated with respect. Not condescension and insults, as if they can’t possibly comprehend their choices here.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s completely in her power to stop whitewashing a genocide and creating false equivalences by calling it a “war”.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not until after the election. She’s walking a wire trying to get nonMAGA republicans to vote for her in order to save Democracy. They need to at least pretend to believe she won’t completely abandon Israel. If she can beat Trump, she’ll then be free to call a genocide a genocide. In any case, Trump wants to end the war by letting his buddy Bibi nuke Gaza and just fucking kill all the Palestinians. A “final solution” as it were.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not if she wants to get elected. I’ve said since the convention that they’re trying their best to not piss off either side and that’s mostly been their strategy. Even when she’s releasing statements on the death of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders she’s very careful to say, as an American leader, I’m glad this dude, who killed Americans, is dead.

      Of course that was evidence of her being a flaming Zionist to people who want Trump elected.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yeah, no. Just not true. 6 point bump lol you fucking clown. I don’t think you understand how much power the Israel lobby has here. She would 100% lose if she came out strong against the genocide.

          Wait until she is elected, then criticize her if she refuses to call it a genocide.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Most of those Democrats aren’t campaigning on BDS either and the polling is inconclusive. It turns on how exactly the questions are asked. The only concrete thing we’ve actually seen from them is that Americans want their president to negotiate a peace as soon as possible.

          She’s not negotiating anything yet. She’s working with cards dealt by someone else. And she will be doing so as President too because that’s the life of a third party mediator.

          If you want someone who will wave a magic wand and expect results, vote for Trump.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I don’t know what country you think she’s running to be president for, but Netanyahu is not going to be her subordinate. She cannot simply order the end of the Gaza war. She also doesn’t get to choose the representatives in Congress. This isn’t a party system where representatives are pre-approved and seated in order. She gets the representatives that each district sends. Obviously there’s some influence there but there’s also limits, as the entire ordeal of being primaried shows.

              So I don’t know what else to say except welcome to American Civics 101. Pocket constitutions are on the table on the right, and political sports regalia on the left table.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I really hope you aren’t American because you don’t actually have the first clue as to how we elect Congress. She can’t even refuse to seat representatives. There’s 435 districts that elect their own representative, and they’re the only ones that can fire that representative. She could remove support for their next election but the party would need to make sure to line up a replacement and gear up to support their replacement in the inevitable primary fight. They cannot do that 215 times. They can’t do it 4 times. It took AIPAC to unseat one of the 4 left most Democrats. Their entire attention is on districts that are threatened by Republicans. And if you think they’re going to primary a proven winner in a purple district then you’re really smoking something.

                  So when the House party leader speaks. The President listens.

                  Nor have you considered that Israel could easily continue the food blockade under the guise of a continued war, without American bombs. It doesn’t take the US to manufacture bullets. That’s why the end of the war, and not just weapon shipments is desirable.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You may already be aware that tone policing is a major component of .world moderation, so incivility is liable to get you censored or even banned. But it also creates a lot of user reports which fill up our report queue, even though we don’t admin .world.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Trump would do the same thing but in his case it means letting Bibi level Gaza and then buying some land to build a tacky resort on it.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It won him some Muslim voters though. Yesterday, I saw one interviewed on TV, paraphrasing: “He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, started no wars and promised to end the war in Gaza.”

      Is it stupid? Yes. Is it what a potentially tipping demographics thinks? Yes.

      Source:

    • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      In her defense she did say that a couple of times:

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/26/kamala-harris-benjamin-netanyahu-us-visit-palestine-israel-gaza-war

      But then at times she also said they wont be supporting arms embargo on Israel. Still orders of magnitude better than a lunatic who says he is a actively supporting Israel on doing whatever they want to do:

      https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/us-israel-trump-phone-call-netanyahu-gaza-cease-fire-2024-election.html

      The fact that some people equate these two candidates based on their Gaza politics is insane.

      • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The only people i kinda get are those with families there. But at the same time my family still voted for the shitty opposition instead of the even shittier leading party when i still lived in hungary even tho their views on trans rights was, lets say, not perfect. This of course mattered because trans rights are the first dominoes and i have a trans family member. So yeah the better option is still better than absolute chaos. Idk why this is so hard to get.

        • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I get that they are angry (rightfully) at the world at doing jackshit against genocide but still on a practical level they are not helping against a party whose supporters think that the middle east should be bombed out of existence. At least many of the democrat supporters are joining weapon embargo and anti war rallies and they will have more power against the government if it’s the Democrats.

          • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I agree but i cant really do anything with it. I live like 6000kms from the us. The shit part is that it will effect me as well as other people who cant do shit about it.

  • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    You’re still not saying the magic words harris. Repeat after me: ‘i will enforce american laws regarding war crimes until israel obeys international laws regarding war crimes and genocide’. You’ve waited too long and i doubt you’ll do it before you need to tomorrow.

    Its easy to see how she’s more focused on the israel hostages than Palestinian population, a group who as our own diplomatic core has informed the admin shes a part of, will be returned in a ceasefire agreement. Hamas already agreed to return them, at least before israel starting offing those leaders first. Only israel is the issue.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Actually I’m pretty sure you just demanded that she look into the disagreement in Israel. Which she did, so you owe her now. Stop changing your demands! It’s your fault they ignore the left. /s

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        child, shes well aware of whats going on in gaza. they, the biden admin, knows exactly the situation and they know its a genocide. They’ve known most of this year. I certainly didn’t demand she look into it. I’m demanding she apply the US law as written to israel.