This is extremely misleading. Fuck Trump 10000 times and kamala is the only sane choice, but stop trying to paint over reality to try and make her look like she’s not just a lesser evil.
She didn’t just “not promise to solve 1000 year conflict” (which the genocide has been going on for the last 75 years),
she did promise to continue funding genocide with American taxpayer dollars. (Of which the US has been giving and average of $5 billion in tax dollars and weapons to Isreal per year for the last 75 years, since they first invaded Palestine).
We are voting for her because she is the lesser evil. We don’t have to be happy about it or stop criticizing her on her bad policies.
Basically: Vote for Harris, but also fuck her for vowing to continue funding genocide. Trump would also keep funding genocide, and he’d also destroy what’s left of the west, on top of every other obvious reason he should never be in power again (and never should have been).
OP consistently makes posts that only divide the Dem base.
Considering they started out with AI posts lying about early voting, I guess it’s an improvement?
What does third parties have to do with lifelong Dem voters wanting the Dem candidate to side with the Dem voting base on basic parts of the party platform like:
-
No fracking
-
Better healthcare
-
Climate change is real and producing less fossil fuels is a good thing
What you’re doing is insisting if you’re not 100% loyal to the candidate with a D by their name you really have an R.
That’s the same fucking shit Republicans went thru and it ended up with trump.
Why the fuck do you want to follow down the path of “never criticize the party, and always vote for them”.
Please explain to the class why this time it will work out good for the party that takes that path.
The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit. We’re still only eight years past an election where Hillary Clinton took the Rust Belt for granted, and we all paid the price for that when traditionally solid union votes swung to Trump because he was boosting fossil fuel extraction while Clinton implicitly threatened the livelihoods of families dependent on coal and fracking jobs.
Healthcare you have a point on, but also keep in mind that the last time Dems had the votes for sort of sweeping reform was 2008, and what we got out of that was the ACA, which for all its faults was still a big step up over the status quo. Obama was going for a big bipartisan win, in spite of McConnell’s announcing that he was killing bipartisanship in the GOP caucus, and that was a mistake, but perhaps an understandable one given that up to that point that’s how Congress had always worked.
There have been windows of time since in which Dems have held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but never with enough margin to defeat a Senate filibuster, and with DINOs like Manchin and Sinema standing in the way of filibuster reform. I do not doubt that progressives in Congress would move an M4A or public option bill through the legislature if, in 2025, the House flips back and the Senate stays Democratic in spite of the unfavorable cycle, but withholding your vote doesn’t get you any closer to that happening.
The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit
Polls show progressive policy isn’t just popular with Dems, but all voters…
That’s life mate, I’m sorry it doesn’t agree with your opinions, but it’s the truth.
That’s why Obama’s 08 campaign did so fucking well, despite not really being that progressive in any other developed country.
The neoliberal experiment has only benefited the wealthy, stop defending them, they got lawyers and lobbyists for them, pick people over corps and we can get something done.
Polls show progressive policy isn’t just popular with Dems, but all voters…
That is until they’re told it’s a Dem policy.
And of course the progressives actually show up to vote.
The neoliberal experiment has only benefited the wealthy, stop defending them
Neoliberals are Republicans, so we’re already not defending them.
Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base. It’s not ‘‘do or die’’ it’s vote for an administration that will actually respond to pressure and voter’s policy goals, or vote for a dictator backed by industralists who all want an ethnostate of uneducated second class citizens.
Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base.
And Biden got elected despite his age…
2020 was an example of the candidate moving their campaign left and winning the election.
-
I think this is a dumb take. Third parties are only used like this in the US because our voting system is incredibly broken and there is little interest in fixing it. If you don’t explicitly highlight the caveats:
- The spoiler effect is a fixable problem, even on the state by state basis.
- Third parties are, conceptually, a great idea
then what you’re doing is attempting to uphold and protect the broken system from being improved.
It is a fixable problem, but it is not a fixed problem. Bringing them up during presidential elections and only during presidential elections doesn’t fix the problem and just leads to it.
Which is why the correct way to bring it up is to mention the spoiler effect.
The problem is when you talk to some republicans they want a 1 party system. They want to ban democrats. If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties. These are both antidemocracy views that normalize each other.
So what you’re arguing for here (to be very clear) is that it is better to embrace a softer form of anti-democracy messaging than to explain that we should avoid voting third party when spoiler effects are a concern.
I’m saying that if you’re in favor of strengthening third parties in America a lot of work needs to be done and just shouting vote third party every 4 years is none of that work.
And I’m saying damage control for third parties a lot more work needs to be done than simply saying “3rd party bad, 2 parties good.” because idk if you’ve been watching but we’re perilously close to having a 1 party system.
This a prime opportunity to educate voters on their own voting system and people are squandering that to oversimplify their messaging to the degree they sound like republicans.
Edit: To clarify if you wanted to eliminate the republican party, a 3rd party needs to replace it in a 2 party system creating a “catch 22” situation where fptp props up a fascist minority party because 3rd parties can’t compete
Any third-party candidate trying to run for the president is either stupid or acting in bad faith. That’s what the meme was pointing out. That’s the reality of the situation in America until the work is done to fix the spoiler problem. If someone is competent and actually is acting in good faith, they don’t run as a third party in US presidential elections. If their belief is we need stronger third parties, they do that by trying to change the electoral system at a more local level.
because idk if you’ve been watching but we’re perilously close to having a 1 party system.
THAT IS WHY WE’RE SAYING 3RD PARTY BAD
This is NOT the time. Just shut up about 3rd parties. The debates and discussions are still perfectly valid in 3 months, let’s talk about it then.
“Now” is the only time to educate people about how the voting system needs to change and the “Less parties more good” mantra is the stupidest shit I’ve ever seen. The problem has a name and its called the “spoiler effect”.
People talk about these issues during political season or they don’t talk about them. Quit trying to solve a short term problem with a long term problem.
If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties.
I have never seen this argument from any democrat before.
Questioned their legitimacy in participating as a candidate in a presidential election? Yes.
But banning third parties? Absolute hogwash, I’ve never once seen that.
Sure you conveniently haven’t, but I’ve seen it floated on these boards and the post in the chain above us we’re replying to is aligned with antidemocratic messaging - it by no means rejects anyone who wants to ban 3rd parties.
But lets make an even easier comparison making it hard for 3rd parties to exist is not wholly different than banning them. This is in fact how republicans approached abortion before the supreme court’s catholic wing decided to allow bans.
Its all working to the same goal. Anti 3rd party messaging without context and rational thought is just anti-democracy messaging which only helps republicans. Every legal tool democrats are using to beat down 3rd parties will eventually be used by republicans to prevent democrats from being elected.
The only way to fix it is to change the way we vote so that 3rd parties don’t produce spoiler effects.
OK, so claims of randos on the internet.
NOT any single elected democrat.
Got it.
Ah so what matters is words not actions? Taking steps to remove 3rd parties from ballots is fine as long as you don’t say it?
The spoiler effect is absolutely a fixable problem. It would be great if our current third party candidates actually put in effort to exist in the political eye and work for said reform, outside of crawling out of their hole every 4 years to run for President.
Western settler-colonialism is not “a 1,000 year conflict.” It’s a modern imperialist project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialismWhat 1000 year conflict? The nakba was less than a century ago. Plus “please stop giving 2000 pound bombs to Israel to commit a genocide with” is a very far cry from “please end the Israeli apartheid state”.
Memes get a pass when it comes to outright lies… I guess.
Nobody expects Kamala to solve it. They do expect her to stop supporting genocide.
i mean, to my knowledge maybe i’m wrong i don’t follow this conflict very closely, but so far the only source i’ve seen for it being genocide was the ICJ ruling that it “might be genocide if this continues getting worse” which i dont believe was followed up on.
A number of history scholars or whoever have claimed that it “amounts to genocide” or is “effectively genocide” (im being really generous with the phrasing here) which people have equated to mean “there is genocide”
The ICC has put out a warrant for the funny israeli guy, doesn’t mention genocide.
I don’t know if any countries have explicitly called it genocide? Aside from maybe south africa, idk how they raised the case. But if you know of any cases, inform me, i am actually curious about that one.
and if we go with a strict definition of genocide, I.E. “strictly killing related to ethnicity” and extrapolate that to a test of “would the killing stop if the conflict stopped” i personally so no reason why israel would continue to kill people in the same capacity as they are not, or at all, if the conflict magically stopped entirely.
People also point to the UN definition of genocide being incredibly broad. The US bombing japan in WW2 would arguably be genocide under that definition, most wars would constitute genocide. Now to be clear, i don’t think it’s bad, it’s just a legal definition, meant to be held out in a court of law, which usually tend to be pretty vague, until tried.
Frankly, i think it would also be rather unprecedented for someone in a higher position of power to call this a “genocide” as well. Who knows what kind of a mess that would entail. It’s certainly not something you want to throw around if you want the rest of the government, and the american public to like you. Which is, the goal of politics.
I don’t really see any reasonable expectation for her to call it a genocide. Expectation to callout war crimes and various other wrong doings? As well as retracting support? Absolutely.
Although little fun fact, right now the harris campaign isn’t running on policy, as policy gives something for trump to attack, so without policy he can’t attack anything she says, aside from her character, so it’s pretty likely they’re trying to outwit trump in that regard, if you’re wondering why she doesn’t talk about things like this more specifically.
Honestly @[email protected] below sums it up. Almost everyone from the region calls it genocide (with the exclusion of some Israelis)
Now you bring up what America did in ww2. And yeah, that actually constitutes a warcrime. But when the Japanese surrendered, that was accepted and people moved on. Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.
It’s pretty clear at this point what’s happening and that it needs to stop.
Almost everyone from the region
you mean the middle east? So arabs? Muslims? The exact group of people that would be vehemently opposed to literally anything slighting them in the least bit? (no shade, i mean catholocism has done about the same)
although tbf, idk much about the middle east, or it’s culture, but from what i do understand, it’s not the friendliest to people who don’t follow expected social norms.
Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.
i mean, this specific conflict is close to 100 years old by now. While i’m sure that didn’t help, and there are definitely arguments to be made about warcrimes in general. it’s pretty hard to have a complete and total view of the war, and every little indiscretion possible.
So i’m not sure that
It’s pretty clear at this point
is being said in good faith here.
Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.
And a reply like this is why I’d never believe you’d question it in good faith. Cause you say, i dunno about the issue or the circumstances, but it’s not genocide.
You don’t look, you just say you have a problem with what others say about a topic you admit you don’t know about.
Go find out or listen to what others have to say
Go find out or listen to what others have to say
i mean is this not what i’m currently and actively doing, and have been previously doing? It’s not going very well lmao. Can’t say i didn’t try at least. Not that i’m going to continue doing it, because it doesn’t seem to work lol.
🙄, sure. That’s what you’ve been doing.
i’m not sure how much better i could be getting the perspectives and understandings of other people other than talking with them about things, and getting them to speak about them in a productive manner (circle jerking does nothing unfortunately)
so far i haven’t seen many if any good propositions surrounding these sorts of things. it’s been rather underwhelming to be honest.
perhaps you could guide me on this adventure.
Going deep into the legal definition of genocide is missing the point. What category it falls under doesn’t change what’s happening there and the support the US is giving it
Going deep into the legal definition of genocide is missing the point.
oh ok, so we shouldn’t consider the legal definition then, well let’s see what the colloquial definition is.
“Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people.”
as per the first wiki line. The whole rest of the page provides a more academic definition, and argubaly a very legal one, but we aren’t talking about that.
"genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. "
as per brittanica, one of the sources of all time.
well if we’re basing this entire feelings thing off of this definition specifically, i see no resemblance to this conflict in significant part. I see no reason to believe that israel is doing this SOLELY because muslims (or arabs or whatever)
and sure, we could consider the academic definition of it. But academics used to believe that the earth was at the center of the solar system, and that plate tectonics, wasn’t a thing. And now we do. You shouldn’t treat academics as a source of authority (this is a fallacy btw), their works, if tried and tried, proven to hold up against the rigorous test that is the universe, can be said to be, to some extent. When it comes to things like philosophy and sociology, it’s literally just write your own story line adventure game. Everyone says different things, and in some capacity, everyone is right.
We could talk about history, which would arguably be more relevant. But considering this is an active conflict, good luck trying to parse that one, you’re only going to get historical contexts with that one. Which to be fair, would help a lot.
What category it falls under doesn’t change what’s happening there and the support the US is giving it
well yeah no it would, because that’s the whole point of the legal definition, is to give it an actual conceptualization that isn’t purely based on internet conjecture and shitposting. But again, we’re not here to talk about the legal definition.
just to repeat myself here
Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.
i guess you forgot to read this part.
Ah yes, opposing genocide is a radical far-left position. Of course.
Dude seems to think they’re part of some secret grassroots movement of genocide haters that no one else has ever heard of or something.
Congratulations! You’ve just proven the meme.
Your inability to understand the complexity of the situation and your desperation to boil it down into a small, singular point demonstrates it perfectly.
Everyone here knows you don’t care one whit about genocide, BananaBrain.
You aren’t raising money for any political action group or charity. You won’t go door to door or work a phone bank to raise awareness. You won’t do ONE. SINGLE. THING. to actually make a difference.
Each night you go to bed, you’ll smile thinking about all the comments you wrote on Lemmy that day, and how many people must be so impressed by your noble anti-genocide stance, all while Trump turns the remaining Palestinian territory to glass.
Ah yes, this is definitely a simple conflict with an easily identifiable black-and-white solution.
First and foremost, this isn’t a 1000 year war. It’s a bit over 100 years at most. The colonization of Palestine started around 100 years ago. Israel was founded in 1948.
Secondly, Kamala isn’t working towards achieving shit. Her government is literally still sending weapons to Israel as Israel is shooting at UN peacekeepers, burning people alive, attacking five different countries, and much more worse.
Removed by mod
The jews are not Israel but Israel definitely wants people to keep conflating them that way.
There are still indigenous Palestinian Jews in Palestine (and some are still anti-Zionist), and the “non-Jewish” Palestinians are for the most part simply the descendants of Palestinians who at some point converted from Judaism to Christianity or Islam.
“Land without a people” my ass.
I agree. Those who care about Palestine should vote for Kamala because Trump is fully pro-genocide; but implying that Kamala has a valid plan, or even an existing plan, to help Palestinians, is untrue. She’s going to do nothing or as little as possible.
The choice is between evil and more of the same, it’s not between good and evil.
This breaks rule 2. “No misinformation” Israel is not a 1000 years old it is less than 100 years old
Stop killing Palestinians is such a far left position man. I can’t even. Americans are effing weird.
“Stop killing Palestinians” is a pretty popular Democrat position.
“I will hand the country over to someone who wants to kill more Palestinians faster” is a Leftist position.
This is just pro Israeli propaganda. This specific conflict started in 1948. The whole UN has voted against Isreal. And you’re telling me that that region will have all out war if Israeli troops stopped killing children? GTF outta here.
I think OP might be paid by AIPAC at this point with how much they won’t stop talking about how justified and moral the government is to bomb more brown people. (/satire at OP)
This is classic liberal brain worm nonsense.
Blue maga cultists world rather blame leftists than get your shitty candidate in line with her genocidal policies.
It’s not a difficult situation to resolve: stop supplying Israel with weapons and support.
In southeastern Michigan I have the luxury of voting for candidates at various levels of government who do oppose supplying Israel with weapons.
In the presidential election, where is the leverage?
“Blue MAGA” is Russian propaganda. “Cultist” is GOP projection lmao
This isn’t what’s happening, though. The Dems and Reps are aligned on Israel because it isn’t a moral issue, but economic, which is why Biden has given Israel everything they want, including approving the invasion of Lebanon. The US supports Israel as a settler-colonial project because it helps the US secure power in the region, securing the Petro-Dollar as the world currency. This is how the US exploits the Global South, through predatory IMF loans, aka Imperialism.
Read To Stop Marx, They Made Zion. The genocide of Palestinians is for economic reasons, it cannot stop without a One-State Solution.
Kamala might fund genocide in Israel. But Trump will fund genocide in Israel, and genocide here.
We can be ideologically pure when we don’t have fascists at the doorstep. Thousands of children just FUCKING VANISHED during Trumps term. What’s going to happen during his second? Texas was (is?) putting barbed wire in the river on the fucking border. Trump will give free rein to murderous politicians (Texas is also about to execute another innocent man btw). People are going to die here.
I watched the presidential debate between Harris and Trump, and one of Harris’s main talking points was that the Republicans weren’t doing enough at the border.
Exert*
More like:
Will solve conflict in the Middle East by letting Israel kill whoever they want, and take any land they want, with full support from the US
vs.
Will solve conflict in the Middle East by letting Israel kill whoever they want, and take any land they want, with full support from the US
I’d tack on:
but explained in a more presidential, civil fashion.
to option 2
“Muh bothsidez!”
