74
Why would there be a divide when Trump said he wants Gaza leveled?
I feel a bigger divide with Trump, but I still despise the Harris-Biden position on Gaza.
Donated, voted, and will volunteer for Harris, but her position re:enabling Israeli mass murder is a moral and policy disaster imo. Maybe she needs to take it to ensure some funding stream or another, but I don't have insight into that.
Not just funding but hedging against the 7 million Jewish-Americans still sympathetic to Israel and who are also a key voting bloc for Democrats.
Not to mention if they just cold-turkey withdraw all aid to Israel and then Bibi just so happens to ignore Intel of another October 7th terrorist attack (cough false flag), then that would spell doom for Biden and by extension Harris.
I expect a much less amicable tone to Netanyahu following a Democratic win in November.
But can I just say I appreciate your rational position to not necessarily like their policy on Israel but still see the bigger picture, here? For as much as we can all be disgusted by Israeli actions, there are many other issues for which Democrats are just 100% better on. So at worst Dems/Repubs could be perceived as the same on Israel and Gaza (I don't think that's true), but Dems are clearly better on Ukraine and Domestic policy, from protecting trans rights to preserving our democracy itself.
Not just funding but hedging against the 7 million Jewish-Americans still sympathetic to Israel and who are also a key voting bloc for Democrats.
Actually it doesn't seem to be a good tactical move even if we forget that we're supposed to also have morals:
Interesting poll, I want to see all the data instead of it being reported second-hand. I have much respect for Hasan but he's an activist in this aspect, not a journalist. Moreover I find it interesting that both Michigan and Wisconsin were side-stepped, two swing states second only to PA in importance for Harris. GA and AZ tertiary.
Morality is a fickle beast when I know for a fact there isn't a single Gazan whose life would be better under Donald, forgetting the outright doom this spells for Ukrainians... Again, morally speaking. And that no matter what position Harris takes she'll be more open to change than the alternative.
Still I think if the polls continue to show this and shift as they have since Israel's response to October 7th then you'll continue to see a more aggressive posture from Harris. There simply is no way they're going to get ahead of the polls here until we as the activists continue to influence public opinion on this matter.
And unfortunately, if she publicly backs Gaza, the Israeli Mafia (AIPAC) will strangle her campaign until it collapses
People don't like genocide? Pretty straightforward. Some things cannot be excused by "the other side is worse."
So what are the options? Don't vote and let the president that created a genocide in the borders of the US win?
There never has been a perfect candidate in the history of human kind.
I like Harris. She's just shit on this.
This debate is so exhausting. Do you understand that people can criticise a specific policy without advocating voting for the other side or not voting at all because of it? Like, do you get that this is NOT an election issue but a policy issue? It is just something that I care about.
There never has been a perfect candidate in the history of human kind.
This isn't me bitching about universal healthcare or something. This is actually someone arming a genocide. Not "perfect" - yeah no fucking shit we don't expect that but is the bar really THAT low?
This debate is so exhausting.
Then stop. No one is forcing you to debate.
Do you understand that people can criticise a specific policy without advocating voting for the other side or not voting at all because of it?
This might be true to you but not to the readers of your or our posts. These are all public. Any independent reader or any Republican that is swaying to Harris can change their mind on anything, including your post. Your voice has weight.
Like, do you get that this is NOT an election issue but a policy issue? It is just something that I care about.
Then maybe we should just talk about the current sitting president who will be in that position in the next 5 months rather than a VP whose only power is tie breakers in the senate.
This isn’t me bitching about universal healthcare or something. This is actually someone arming a genocide.
I am talking about the same thing. A genocide happened in America by Trump. That is something that can be directly controlled by the next president. Israel has enough money to continue their genocide without the $4 billion that the US gives them. They are killing humanitarians and their own people in Gaza. They only care about end results. Do you really believe Israel will listen to anyone else?
Then stop. No one is forcing you to debate.
Nobody is forcing you to make it such hard work to have this debate either. So many people just pivot right to the election and then the whole conversation gets derailed. It's like you need to add voting intention disclaimers if you want to say something as basic as "if you give Israel 2,000 lb dumb bombs you will be helping them kill innocent children. That's a bad thing."
Any independent reader or any Republican that is swaying to Harris can change their mind on anything, including your post.
I think our posts aren't really very impactful. But I see your point. The problem is they would have to be misreading my posts, and I think I've been pretty consistent. Vote blue, but push them to be better on this. I have hopes about Walz's take but I almost don't want to check if they're misplaced.
Then maybe we should just talk about the current sitting president who will be in that position in the next 5 months rather than a VP whose only power is tie breakers in the senate.
Yeah I mean why not both? It's not like the issue will be solved in 5 months so her position also matters. And the idea that this is her only power is a bit misleading, surely? Does she not talk to Biden? Does he not listen to her? Lol
A genocide happened in America by Trump.
What do you mean?
Yeah I mean why not both? It’s not like the issue will be solved in 5 months so her position also matters. And the idea that this is her only power is a bit misleading, surely? Does she not talk to Biden? Does he not listen to her? Lol
According to the news before the nomination, no.
What do you mean?
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group..
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2.
BBC: 'Like a kidnapping': Migrant family separated under Trump reunited after four years
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
What Trump did is awful, of course, but was it really committed with this intent in mind?
Like I get what you're saying, separating families at the border is harmful, cruel and driven by racism. But I'm not sure it counts as genocide. This from the CNN article:
The Physicians for Human Rights likened it to “torture,” and the American Academy of Pediatrics told CNN the Trump administration’s practice of separating families at the border was “child abuse.”
Seems totally fair to me. It is torture. It is abuse. It is callous and disgusting. But I feel like it would be a stretch to call it genocide, particularly with what Israel is doing in mind.
Look at the same list for Israel:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Since it's hard to keep up at this point they may have even done the last.
What I'm saying is that for all us that want to stop or at least minimize such horrendous acts, I think there should be a clear priority here. And honestly saying separating families at the border is genocide is really cheapening what genocide means.
But yeah pragmatically speaking there is only one harm it seems possible to stop with the election. UNLESS Harris changes her position, which is a thing she can do. Then we could stop both and to me that is what we should fight for in any way we can.
Because people are fucking stupid.
That explains it.
I have too much hope for humanity.
So her position is different?
She said civilians should be protected and countries should follow international laws. This probably refers to the ruling of the International Court of Justice.
To me she is wagging her finger harder than Biden and it really isn't a stance that something will be done with a lube marked on the ground.
What... what's the lube for?
I wrote "line"... I have no idea why it says "lube".
I just tried it again and it didn't auto correct to "lube"...
Sorry about that.
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
74 points (89.4% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1847 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS