190
Kamala Harris’ Donors Privately Urge Firing of FTC’s Khan, SEC’s Gensler
(finance.yahoo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
190 points (94.8% liked)
News
23409 readers
1815 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You keep ignoring that Democrats have no problem addressing the concerns of people who don't vote for them, provided those people are Republicans.
Because, again, they have more votes to gain there than on the left where it's mostly younger people that won't turn out to vote either way.
Those never materialize, but Democrats do it anyway. It's almost like they want to move to the right and will use any excuse to.
Versus Republicans who overwhelmingly vote against Democrats every time. Yeah, you just want to move to the right since it means continuing support for genocide.
Eh... They actually do materialize though...
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/20/nx-s1-5081167/republicans-for-harris-coalitions-have-launched-in-several-swing-states
And they're reliable voters and there's a lot of center right Democrats to lose that are reliable voters and the left has three choices anyway, not voting and letting Republicans win, voting Republican, voting Democrats.
You might not like it, that's the system the US is stuck with.
Again, I'm not in the USA, I have no say in the matter, I just understand political strategy which seems like an issue with most left wing electors (because it goes against left with ideology and principles).
The highest figure in your article is 100 individuals.
Guess 100 Republicans are worth 42,000 dead Palestinians
Meanwhile, listening to voters and the very possibility of moving left pulled in 1000 times that number:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/26/young-voter-registration-skyrockets-harris/74556135007/
You're right. You don't. Don't worry, neither do I. My name isn't Netanyahu.
Again, that's registrations for a population that doesn't turn out, let's wait and see, but if you look at the % of support for Israel called on age and the % of voters by age, it's clear that there's a shit ton more Israel supporters that are reliable voters.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/politics/polling-democrats-divided-israel-palestine/index.html
69% disapproval amongst those under 35 that don't turn out to vote vs 77% approval amongst those over 65 that do turn out to vote. And again, no matter how much you cater to them and how convenient you make it to vote, people under 35 just don't bother voting!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/voter-turnout-rate-by-age-usa
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/eval/pes2021/evt&document=p5&lang=e
Also the 100 Republicans vs 42k Palestinians is a false equivalency, those Palestinians don't have voting right in the USA.
And in the meantime, make sure to do everything possible to alienate those voters so we can gleefully declare that they don't vote so we can continue supporting genocide.
Please stop calling genocide supporters "Israel supporters." It's dishonest.
"Fuck off, we don't need you because you don't vote! Wait! Why aren't you voting? Welp, guess we have no choice! We get to support genocide!"
God damn, you never miss a chance to be obtuse. Killing 42,000 Palestinians was worth it to you for a lousy 100 Republican votes.
Again, you refuse to look at examples from outside the USA. Voting in Canada is extremely simple, you get a guaranteed 4h off work while voting is open, they have people willing to transport you, you can show up without ID and swear that you are who you say you are and as long as they have your name and address on the list at the office you showed up to, you can vote. Voter turnout for those under 35? About 45%. We have a variety of parties as well, not just two. In my province we also have a party that is there pretty much specifically to defend the interests of younger people and those with little financial means. People under 35 just don't vote!
They're supporting the decisions of the State of Israel, they're Israel supporters, just like people who support the decisions of the Democrats are Democrat supporters. Yes it's a genocide, it's committed by a State and that State needs to be mentioned.
I'm showing you that young people don't vote in general, there's nothing special about the USA, it's not about the party not catering to them, they just don't vote.
Reading comprehension isn't your forte, I get that, but open your eyes and start looking at what's going on outside your country, it might help you understand what's going on in yours.
You want Kamala to come out and say she'll stop selling bombs to Israel? Fine, she'll get a defeat and the Republicans will sell even more bombs to Israel. Instead she can say the USA will support Israel while also saying that Palestinians don't deserve their current faith, get elected and then do something about Israel.
Again, in the end you have two options in the USA and one would gladly see Gaza be wiped out completely so what gains are there to make for the Democrats to adopt a more radical stance against Israel when they know they're currently the most reasonable option of the two?
Political strategy doesn't care about your feelings, it's about getting elected.
I think you overestimate single-issue pro-genocide voters.
I have two options what would gladly see Gaza wiped out completely. I'm upset about that. I know why you aren't.
You interpret my analysis of their political strategy as me supporting the genocide happening right now, that's very insulting.
You truly need to take a step back, you're clearly too emotional to have this conversation.
Imagine being emotional about genocide.
You want me to believe that you dispassionately weighed the evidence and monstrous cold logic dictated that continuing to sell weapons so that genocide can flourish was the correct decision. I don't buy it. I think you started from a conclusion you liked and worked your way backwards.
You want to have a conversation about if it's right or wrong to send bombs to Israel when this conversation is about the political strategy behind the decision to continue to mention support for Israel during the campaign, they're two separate discussions and you're clearly unable to distinguish between the two.
And you don't.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/13764678
The conversation was about her stance and the impact on her chance to get elected from the get go, not on if what's happening in Palestine is right or wrong (it is wrong, it's not the subject of the conversation even if you try to make it be about that).
If you don't want to have that conversation, talk to someone else.
If you don't want to have the conversation this was about in the first place why did you bother replying at all? You're the interloper here, not me.
Genocide is wrong. You support it anyway and come up with bullshit justifications to make yourself feel better about the outcome.
I don't support it at all, I've said it multiple times and, again, this is not what the conversation is about.
Except for advocating for persisting in selling weapons that guarantee that it will continue.
I never advocated for them to keep selling weapons. We're talking about the campaign, not actual policies and my point from the get go is that they would lose more votes than they would gain if they come out against Israel.
Political
Strategy
Work on your reading comprehension buddy, it's bad.