1196
submitted 4 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 198 points 4 weeks ago

I just don't get how people are looking at Harris' stance as being pro-genocide. Biden is the President and historically, foreign policy during the tenure of the President by the Vice President doesn't veer too far off from the President. That said, Harris has absolutely called for investigation into the suffering of civilians in the conflict.

Congress sets the budgetary amount of aid to direct to Israel and the President distributes the money via their diplomatic channels. There are very few options for the President to just suspend funding, which Biden has done twice for weapons under the rules established within 10 USC § 362 (a)(1)

Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.

But outside that, there's very little the President can do once Congress approves funding and that funding has been signed into law. This is why an independent channel investigation is required and is exactly what Harris has called for. This would allow the the US Government to establish their own inquiry into the human abuses. This would give the required evidence to cancel funding under Title XII authority. But none of that can happen overnight. It's not an easy path to override the will of Congress.

On the opposite side, Trump has indicated that he will absolutely turn a blind eye to the whole thing and allow Israel to determine solely the "best" course of action for their current conflict. Trump has literally stated in his rallies:

From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel's hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire

Trump would not see a cease-fire as a required condition for the on-going conflict.

Harris and Democrats historically have called for a two-state solution. Trump's plan which has been broadly adopted by the Republican party in general would:

  • Give Palestinians only about 15% of their original territory
  • Jerusalem would become Israel's undivided capitol, meaning all claims by the Palestinians to the eastern half of the city would be tossed out.
  • Allow Palestinians to "achieve an independent state" via a means that is not clearly defined in the plan but indicated that Israel would have a final say in that process.
  • "No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes" indicating that the territory that Israel has already colonized from their current conflict would become Israel's.
  • Would put Israel and Jordan on equal footing for the administration of al-Haram al-Sharif, which will absolutely ignite a conflict.
  • Any territory allocated to Palestinians would have to undergo a four year "wait" period, but there's no protections from Israel obtaining that territory if done so during conflict. So Israel could provoke someone to fight them and that would give them justification to take the land during this "four year wait period".

Trump has all but given up completely on a two-state solution. Which means, he's for a one state solution. And people are fooling themselves if they believe that Trump would seek a "peaceful" one state solution. He has told Netanyahu directly, "Just get it done quickly". Now we can play a game as what manner is used to "get it done quickly" means, but only idiots are the one's thinking that doesn't give a tacit nod to ethic cleansing.

I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don't think they are thinking at all. You have one solution that is long, stupid, and required because we are a nation of laws. And you have the other solution that is "fuck it, firebomb them all and call it done". It is difficult to imagine that there are truly people this blind and ignorant to this reality. But yet, here we are.

The notion that we might get a 3rd party into office like twenty years from now if we start today, helps nobody if the people we're trying to help are all eradicated over the next four years. Going down this "third road" only ensures an outcome where we are fifteen years too late to help.

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 54 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It makes no sense, but have you considered the possibility that most people pushing that narrative are Russian assets trying to get Trump elected?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] BrioxorMorbide@lemm.ee 32 points 4 weeks ago

I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don’t think they are thinking at all.

They live in cloud cuckoo land where Biden/Harris can just tell Netanyahu "Fuck off and shove a grenade up your arse, you genocidal maniac" and that would actually work.

[-] johker216@lemmy.world 26 points 4 weeks ago

They believe in Schrodinger's Jew: that Jews simultaneously control US politics and that US Presidents control Israel.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[-] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 17 points 4 weeks ago

In really it's probably a mix that totals to around 90% of the people making these pronouncements are either bots, paid trolls from enemy nations, nihilists, or the equivalent. The remaining 10% probably have a genuine belief that voting for Harris makes them complicit in the genocide the Israeli government and its military are committing. They're incorrect, on many levels, but that is probably their genuine belief.

We must always vote for the lesser evil because that's what the real world is, from the most negative point of view: reducing evil and suffering. We know some of the things we're doing today will be seen as evil by our progeny. We don't know others.

A Harris administration will be the most likely to reduce the suffering of Palestinians, the most likely to force the Israeli government and military to end the genocide, and the most likely to make real strides toward middle east peace.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago

I'm trying to understand how this system works and came across this article from Al Jazeera which, if I'm reading it correctly, is saying that the US did determine gross human rights violations but the Biden administration is refusing to apply the Leahy Law. Doesn't this mean that Biden does have the authority to stop sending military aid but isn't, or am I misunderstanding something? Also, aside from Leahy Law why can't he veto the military aid?

[-] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 34 points 3 weeks ago

Oh man, this is a doozy. You aren't wrong but I've got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.

The thing is the Leahy Law doesn't put the power directly in the President's hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I don't know how familiar you are with how the Executive Office works or not. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel's aid.

There's Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but there's the whole "what if" Blinken quits given an EO and then we have to get the Senate involved which is currently 50-50 on Republicans and Democrats. Which that turns it even more complex and Senators can delay confirmation until after the election or if they're really bitter, until next year. Which means that everything that requires a Secretary of State would get put on pause.

I get that everyone thinks the President gets to have the final say, but the President orders people around on EOs, which the various Secretaries can just quit if they don't want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. That's kind of a built in protection in our system of Government to prevent a President becoming a dictator. If a President wants XYZ done and the Secretary thinks that's bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.

There's way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published, unless the President does so since the President has unilateral authority on classification markings (except for anything related to the name of spies and nuclear bomb designs, that is one of the few things that requires both the President and Congress to sign off on, there's a few other exceptions as well but I won't go into them).

But anyways, Blinken is the one who can stop aid. The President could order him, but he could also quit, which means the Senate would get involved, and I can explain why all of that would be messy if you need me to.

why can't he veto the military aid

The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President "has" to carry it out. There's a ton of background on "Executive Discretion" and any time the President wants to exercise discretion, Congress can sue, which then brings the matter into the other branch, the Judicial. Plenty of States that would sign on, to a Congressional suit (which that's a requirement for Congress to sue the President, at least one State has to join in).

So Biden could use Discretion to delay funding, and he's done that quite a few times, but he can't just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a "Reviewing Executive Order" and it requires a department to "review" ((insert whatever the topic is)). That's a delay, but it isn't a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, "we provide $xxx to Israel's Iron Dome", we have to send that money to them at some point.

A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion. There's been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but that's been on things called Continuing Resolutions (CR). Republicans in the House (who are the ones who control what the US Budget is) have been using CRs to get choice things enacted. That's because Republicans in the House have passed rules on how a budget may be formed in the House that are impossible to comply with (which that's a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.

Anyways, that's been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldn't have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I don't know, because if the election isn't kind to Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they could block Harris' Sec. of State unless they specifically pledged to support Israel. Now they could absolutely lie about that, but then Congress could also impeach them, but that would cut off aid to Israel for some time as that's not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

This comment needs no be posted and stickied everywhere. I mean everywhere. Thank you for your detailed response and explanation of how the executive works. I'm saving this comment.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)
[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 144 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

im convinced at this point that the "don't vote or you support genocide" thing is a russian troll campaign

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago

Been saying it for weeks. Nobody with half a brain would fall for that shit.

A vote against Harris is a vote against protecting America. That may not be true next election(fuck, I hope it's not), but right here...right now....it's true.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] iamthetuner@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

The genocide will continue no matter who wins. The argument is dumb.

load more comments (34 replies)
[-] b_n@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago

That's been my experience on Lemmy recently too. It feels like there is a push to disenfranchise to "teach them a lesson we dont support genocide by ensuring a somewhat more genocidal maniac gets in instead".

I get the sentiment, but it ignores the two party system, and not voting does not fix that broken system, it ensures it. And I think the trolls know this too.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 91 points 4 weeks ago

Hey look, Bernie right on it. Again.

[-] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 54 points 4 weeks ago

You think he ever gets tired of being right all the time?

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 34 points 4 weeks ago

He probably gets tired of so many others being more popular and more incorrect.

We need a whole senate of inter generational Bernies.

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 85 points 4 weeks ago

Single-issue voters are ignorant to begin with, but failing to help stop another Trump presidency isn't the moral high ground. If you're in that group there's no point polishing your halo, because you are shitting on it.

load more comments (144 replies)
[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 75 points 3 weeks ago

I knew all these single issue fake leftists were full of shit when it was revealed that Trump has been sabotaging peace talks and they weren't immediately outraged by that revelation.

Nah, they all have a political objective, and it doesn't involve peace in the middle east. Their objective is to use genocide as a political wedge to divide the left and get Trump elected.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago

I knew all these single issue fake leftists were full of shit when it was revealed that Trump has been sabotaging peace talks and they weren’t immediately outraged by that revelation.

Why would anyone even be surprised by that? We're mad because Democrats see what's happening between Trump and Netanyahu and are doing what Netanyahu wants anyway.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] sandbox@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I’m a leftist. I don’t want you to change whoever you’re voting for, vote what you feel is right.

What I do want you to do is be honest. I believe that the only way we can fix things is to admit the reality of the situation that we’re in.

I want you to admit that you’re voting for a genocidal candidate. Because either way if you’re voting Trump or Harris, you’re voting a genocidal candidate.

Once you can admit that, then we can start thinking about fixing it.

If you’re just going to shove your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge your complicity in the system, then you are a slave to it.

[-] b_n@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago

I have not seen many leftists not agree that both votes are for genocide - that's just a given.

But protesting the system during the election is daft. Do you want genocide, or more genocide? You are not a slave to the system if you vote and then actually do something about it to change it.

Ignoring the current system is plain ignorance. Voting doesn't make you a slave. Voting and giving up makes you a slave. How about vote and campaign for change instead. Despair does not lead to change.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 68 points 4 weeks ago

Where where these people of moral conscience when Bernie had a shot?

it's not like this shitshow sprung up overnight.

[-] knightly@pawb.social 39 points 4 weeks ago

They voted for Hillary, because the party decided it was her turn and made everyone else drop out and endorse her.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] ZMoney@lemmy.world 41 points 3 weeks ago

The idea that not voting is some form of protest that has material consequences for the ruling class is ahistorical. It took centuries of struggle to attain universal suffrage. The people in power are perfectly happy to have only a small fraction of the demos exerting any political power at all; in fact this is how most civilizations have functioned for the past few thousand years.

load more comments (34 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 34 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I just need anyone who thinks about skipping voting to "Save Palestine" to refer to this graph

Btw, there's a third choice.. it's pulling the Jill Stein lever.

The Jill Stein Lever is made of rubber and not actually connected to anything, so pulling it will accomplish two things "Jack" and "Shit"

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 3 weeks ago

Trump is 100x worse. Liberals might be in bed with conservatives on 90% of issues, but fascists actually want to use the military against us.

I upset people when I reject the idea that we are voting to save democracy because I believe the US's two party system is an insult to every ideal that democracy stands for, but I am still voting for Harris. Vote to save our country from fascism. Vote to keep your friends and family from being rounded up for supporting Healthcare for all.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1196 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19126 readers
3738 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS