-95
Democrats be like
(lemmy.ml)
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 09 Sep 2024
-95 points (28.1% liked)
Memes
45753 readers
946 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you think Trump would cease sending bombs? I don't think he's any better, and in fact would probably send more. We can protest once she actually does it which might be effective, unlike with Trump who would view the protesters as the enemy.
Nope, I believe that, like Harris, he will continue to uphold bipartisan US foreign policy, and maintain the current flow of bombs to Israel.
Painting Harris as "Palestine's best hope for continued existence" is monstrous and downplays her already active support for continuing the genocide, it reads as you trying to pre-emptively absolve yourself of guilt for voting for her.
Trump has full on said he is going to be a dictator and that people won't have to vote anymore. With Harris we still have a voice and vote, with Trump democracy is at risk.
Acting like she isn't the best chance to even have a shot at fixing things is naive.
America isn't a democracy, never was.
Additionally, if Trump has the ability to take away your right to vote if he takes office, he has the ability to take it away even if he doesn't, you can't politely vote fascism away.
Ok, so no one should vote. Laws don't matter. Nothing is real.
Wait, so you're saying he has the same power to effect laws as president as he does as citizen? That's just very wrong... You know plenty of dictators were voted in at some point right? A history lesson might serve you well.
Again, interesting mental gymnastics.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The ability for an American President to permanently or even temporarily take away the right to vote is so immense it would take a full on coup, at which point the original outcome of the election doesn't matter. Many dictators were not voted in, you need to open a history book and see what causes fascism.
Here's an exercise: why do you think fascism is rising in America? Is it ideas, or material conditions?
If America isn't a democracy why would you vote? Please tell me how that's mental gymnastics. What's mental gymnastics is declaring democracy doesn't exist because you don't like the candidates.
Got it, you think democracy doesn't exist but every citizen has the same power as the president. Lol, from a guy who uses the term mental gymnastics all the time, now I know how you became so familiar with the term.
Because late stage capitalism is strangling the working class. So pro fascist leaders are using that to come into power. Just like every other before then, you blame all the problems on anyone standing in the way of your power and you tell people that you're the only one who can fix it. Which is exactly, literally, what Trump has done over and over.
Now how about this exercise. Tell me what democracy is, by definition, and how the US does not fit that definition.
The American Empire is formatted in such a way that candidates are only on the ballot if they serve Empire. It doesn't matter what I do, there will be no Leftist candidates electorally.
How is Trump going to take away the right to vote? He would only be able to do so with a coup. I can't coup the US Empire.
Oh, better answer! Not quite accurate, but the right direction! So, tell me this: what is Kamala going to do to stop Late Stage Capitalism? Is she a secret Communist?
The rule of the majority over the minority. The US Empire does not fit this because the parties and candidates derive their power from the Imperialist class, ie the monopoly Capitalists, via controlling the media, lobbying, and fully controlling the parties themselves.
So you see we're between a rock and hard place, yet you're focused on landing on a pillow.
That's not going to happen. The hard place is gunna suck and hurt but the rock has sharp edges and will hurt more.
Where did I say that she was "Palenstine's best hope for continued existence"? I said nothing of the sort, so thanks for putting words in my mouth. The truth of the matter is that the US will always send Israel bombs, but one candidate will do it more than the other. Palestine is fucked either way, unfortunately.
Third parties will not win, Trump will not be any better for Palestine than Kamala, and Kamala at least has better domestic policy anyway. I don't feel guilty for voting for her when the other candidate literally wants me any my queer friends dead, along with Palestine. Sorry, not sorry.
Didn't realize you were a different person from the original commenter I was talking to. Speaking of, it's helpful for people to have profile pics for that reason.
How will one candidate do it more than the other? Is Trump going to build bombs himself? This is a bipartisan effort.
Correct, and Kamala will not be any better for Palestine than Trump, and pretending otherwise is monstrous.
Vote for whoever you want, just don't pretend your vote for Harris is helping Palestinians. The US is dedicated to genocide either way.
I'm not going to upload a profile picture so that you can avoid reading.
Trump will give the military industrial complex more money. Look at what you're doing now, you're literally defending Trump. That's a huge red flag, and you should maybe look at yourself and see why you are now defending him.
Did I say my vote would help Palenstine? No. I said it would keep the status quo, and that if Trump was elected it would only accelerate the genocide and also hurt myself and my queer friends. Are you a single issue voter?
Our two options are Trump or Kamala. There's no chance a third party will win (by design). So, of those two, I definitely know who I'm voting for.
Lmao. How? Is he going to beg Congress to pass what they already are agreeing to pass?
Not at all, I think he's a monstrous piece of shit, I just don't think he has magic powers like you do.
Again, materially, how?
I don't care who you vote for with respect to the genocide, both candidates support current US foreign policy and neither will change it, and pretending otherwise is monstrous.
I accidentally deleted my comment when I went to edit it. My apologies.
Miriam Adelson is one of the Trump campaign's chief financiers. She pledged the Trump campaign in the neighborhood of $100m to support Israel's annexation of the West Bank. That would be direct acceleration of the genocide.
https://archive.is/qUpIJ
Adelson previously donated close to $100m to Trump support moving the embassy back to Tel Aviv, which Trump gleefully supported.
That would likely provoke a war with Iran, and even then, he wouldn't be able to do that without bipartisan support. If he can do that, and it can be proven Kamala would not, that is tangible evidence of escalation, something everyone else here failed to provide in any capacity, thanks.
Still, again, I question his ability to actually accomplish that even if he wanted to, and question that under conditions that allow him to be able to that Kamala would not also go through with it, given her record of unconditional support for genocide.
One of the candidates from the major parties will win. Period. One will gleefully do what he can to accelerate the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel has said they're not concerned with Iran, and they shouldn't be with all the weapons the west sends them.
Harris is currently the VP and can't just openly go against the administration she is serving in and therefore is in a tough spot, I'd imagine. Do I think Harris will commit to a weapons blockade or any sort of immediate solution? Absolutely not.
I do, however, think that Harris will 100% be more open to measures to bring about a ceasefire through pressuring Netanyahu and the Israeli state. That's the choice.
Nobody in US politics has a chance to stop the genocide instantaneously. That's the fact. Nobody that will be elected can do that. Harris, I believe, will be far more open to measures that will bring about change.
Is there a perfect option? There never is.
You do realize how congress works, right? If Trump wins, the house is probably going to stay red, and the Senate could easily flip to red as well. Then, all Trump has to do is say the word and suddenly the schedule for bombing Palestine has changed.
You did defend Trump, covering your eyes and plugging your ears over it doesn't help.
I'm not going to continue to explain the basics of US politics and government to you. If you can't understand how electing Trump or voting for a third party hurts Palestine, then it's hopeless to continue to try. You are a lost cause, single issue voter. I don't care if you care who I'm voting for, because you can't seem to grasp the basics of politics in general. I'm voting for her because if I don't, I will lose my own rights and be unable to help those who have already lost theirs.
The genocide is bipartisan though, look at the voting records of congress. They are going to agree regardless, the anti-genocide faction is a minority of the DNC.
Quote me and show me, this is libel.
I understand that's why you're voting for her, I just wish you'd stop pretending she's better than Trump on Palestine despite them supporting the same policies.
I'm very aware it's bipartisan, do you think that there are no progressives in congress? Also, that kind of defeats your own logic - since congress is bipartisan and will continue to vote for more weapons to Israel, Trump will not stop a single shipment and will actively lobby congress members to create more bills for more weapons. That is exactly the point people are trying to get inside your head: that Trump will only accelerate the shipments. You're so close to realizing the truth, but I doubt you'll do it.
I'm not going to continue to explain to you how US politics work and how single issue voting supports Trump. That's on you, it's not libel if you just can't understand politics. Keep supporting him by proxy though, I'm sure that will end well for Palestine.
She is status quo, and therefore better than Trump who is worse than status quo in every subject. She's not better for Palestine in general, but she is better than Trump for Palestine.
Anyway, I'm done explaining the basics to you. You know who I'm voting for, and I know you'll throw your vote away to empower Trump, so at least we're on the same page there.
The number of anti-Genocide democrats is low enough that they don't make a material impact on weapon shipments, the Zionists have enough votes to pass what they want. It's a zero-sum deal, either the shipments pass or they don't, and with a super-majority the Zionists are uncontested regardless.
Neither will Kamala.
This is goofy, the US only has so many bombs, and shipments are set by Congress. Is he going to pay out of pocket to increase shipments?
"I didn't realize I was talking to somebody else. But it shout fault for not being easily recognizable beyond the different name above your words."
I admitted a mistake, and offered a suggestion, I didn't cast fault. Touch grass.
Point me in the direction of your preferred candidate then.
If I could pick anyone, it would be Claudia De La Crúz, but even if I vote for her she won't win. I just want Liberals to stop pretending that voting for Harris will cease the genocide, because it won't, and it's monstrous to suggest otherwise.
Yep, you're right that she wouldn't win and you would be propping up Trump by voting for her. I don't see any "liberals" saying she'll stop the genocide, either. I only see you bringing up that point in this thread.
Actually I'd be propping up Kamala by not voting for Trump.
Read the thread, there are plenty of people on this thread pretending Harris will be better for Palestine, which is a lie.
There are two people, by definition one is better. So you saying her being better is a lie must mean you think Trump is better. Which is insane.
This is a new level of liberal gymnastics, lmao.
Materially, if Trump and Kamala approve the same genocidal weapon shipments, regardless of their individual feelings, what changes? Do you think Trump has fascist magic that makes the bombs Kamala promised to send anyways more deadly?
No, but if you look beyond a single isolated thing you're crusading for your realize that sending weapons over seas isn't the only power the president has. The president can make the world much worse beyond a single conflict in the middle east.
You can't see being that single issue. Other people are looking at long reaching impact. If my your admission they both want to send bombs, then look at what else they are doing. Try to effect some level of change and take action instead of just judging and bitching.
A bit nasty to describe genocide as "a single conflict in the middle east," but regardless, the GOP and DNC are aligned on foreign policy.
Nasty? Is it multiple conflicts, is it not in the middle east? Or are you just mad and want to use inflammatory words to drive a discussion off feelings not reality.
The reality is that it's genocide, using passive language is a rhetorical strategy to downplay the internationally recognized genocide.
I'm not down playing anything, it's you assuming and wanting to be extreme. Why don't you call it the murder of innocent children, are you trying to play it down by using a single word?
Jesus, it's not even about the issues with people like you, it's just an excuse to feel righteous and go after people.
Surely you can see tha difference between "conflict," which implies roughly equal power and moral responsibility, and "genocide," which depicts the situation accurately as Israel carries out its extermination campaign, right? Like, you aren't denying that "conflict" is more passive than genocide, correct? Moreover, you called it "a single conflict," designed explicitly to downplay it.
Correct your vebage, otherwise it's clear that you're acting as a Zionist.
It does not imply that at all, that's a massive assumption on your end that you use as a point to press. Throughout history the term conflict has be used to talk about many wars/battles and not all of them were equal, at all.
I'm saying I'm a conflict there can be genocide. But if anything genocide doesn't even capture the full scale of what's happening beyond the pointless killings. Conflict is a much broader scope, including things like economic impact, infrastructure damage to the county, etc. It's not one or three other. I agree genocide is bad and this conflict is bad and you're arguing with me about how I'm not saying it's bad enough because I used a word you don't fully understand. What are you even doing?
You need to educate yourself on the terms being used and stop making assumptions then using those assumptions to label people. You're mindset, while focused on something different, is bordering on MAGA.
It absolutely does, this is silly.
We were using the term "genocide," you changed it to "a single conflict in the Middle East." You swapped the language.
Scratched liberal starts projecting, who could've predicted?
That's not what you said. You originally said "cease the genocide", which neither candidate will do and no one here is saying otherwise.
Plenty are, and plenty are saying Trump will make it worse through fascist magic and warlockery.
He will make it worse, because he is a fascist. It's not magic, basic knowledge of how congress and fascism work. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it "magic".
So if a fascist takes office, bipartisan agreemants based on preset budgets magically shift, and cause the shipments to increase in magnitude? Sounds like magic to me.
Those budgets get changed constantly, and if you think Trump and the GOP won't change them you're a bigger idiot than I initially realized.
The GOP is aligned with the DNC in this matter, the DNC is not blocking anything nor is the GOP pushing for more. Both are in agreement. If the GOP gets more congress seats, the anti-genocide section of the DNC still can't change anything.