this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
94 points (88.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7114 readers
370 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"I'm unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel's defense and its ability to defend itself, and that's not gonna change," said Harris, recounting the horrors of the Hamas-led October 7 attack. "Israel had a right, has a right to defend itself."

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Makes sense. Biden was given the most money by AIPAC ($4m) and she's Biden's VP. I am not at all surprised that she's honoring whatever agreement came attached to that money. I think anyone who is surprised that she is continuing Biden's support of genocide isn't paying attention.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I hope she is such passionate about all rights. Like the students right to protest.

Lesser evil, but still evil.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

genocide is brat

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

"Israel had a right, has a right to defend itself."

Obviously I know the answer, but why is such an easily disproven lie uncritically repeated? Does literally no one in the mainstream media have the guts to call it out?

No. You do not have a right to defend yourself from your own illegal occupation for fucks sake.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

This is a bog-standard propaganda tactic. It’s the same reason that US corporate media always qualify Ansar Allah (A.K.A. “the Houthis”) with “Iran-backed.”

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Defending yourself should be things like building up border fences and increasing border security. Not invading another country and shooting people.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

The entire country of Israel is just land they stole from Palestine, and the campaign of genocide, eviction, and an attempt to erase the Palestinian people from the face of the earth.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If only the situation were even that "good" for Palestine. It's been an occupied territory by Isreal for years - long before last Oct. There already are "border fences" - Gaza has been under blockade by Isreal for at least 2 decades, restricting any movement of Palestinians. I recommend having a look at a map to see just how dire the situation is for Palestine when they have Isreal right in the middle and all around simultaneously.

Palestine isn't even recognized as a country by several, including - conveniently - Isreal and the US.

So, neither of those proposed alternatives would really be a good argument to Israel I'm afraid.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What if they flood your border security with thousands of soldiers?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Idk, given that Israel is a settler colony ethnostate with one set of rules for Israelis and another rule for the people who are occupied. The people they are killing have lived there for generations… it seems like we are handing military gear over to the baddies. But that makes sense given that we are also a settler colony.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who even are the two dozen centrists that she thinks she can court?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

The donor class, A.K.A. the capitalist class that funds political campaigns.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Welp. It was nice to feel some hope for a couple of weeks. I'll cherish the memories. I don't think I'll be feeling that emotion again for a very long time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

could be all a facade to get some votes from the centrists, we can't know yet

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Feeling represented yet?

I'm sure Ukraine needs what the zionists are throwing at civilizans. Maybe the democrats don't care about Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

So genuine question what does this mean for the protestors come election day. Is there only choice to vote Democrat or Republican? Can they vote for an independent? How would it work?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

They can:

  • stay home - this results in whomever gets the most votes from everyone else getting the electoral votes for that district/state. In many districts, this benefits trump
  • write in someone else - more clearly shows protest, but what that actually does or if anybody really counts it, I have no idea. Effectively the same as option 1 for the outcome of this particular election
  • vote for a third party - basically the same as the above, though certain things do happen if a party gets some percentage of the vote, but not until the next election. The outcome for this election is the same
  • vote for one of the two major candidates - self-explanatory

How much not voting or protest voting impacts the actual results kinda depends upon the district and state. However, even in a seemingly secure district or state, enough people protest-voting could actually have a negative impact in that particular election (though I find that fairly unlikely). I vote in a rural district that supports trump. Since he's objectively worse in basically every way and has indicated that he's willing to let Netanyahu's government do whatever they want, I feel it unethical to do anything but vote against trump which, given what I wrote above, basically leaves Harris. If I know that trump will be worse, and I know that doing anything other than voting for Harris in my district helps cement trump, then I must vote for Harris or I'm just helping trump.

We are here because nearly everywhere uses first-past-the-post and voter turnout isn't great, particularly by voters in local and regional elections. I vote as progressively as I can in local elections and advocate for ranked choice or rated voting wherever possible. People in power tend to hate ranked choice voting or similar because it removes what almost always just becomes a two-party fight which often leads to tactical voting rather than properly representing people. The state in which I vote also has a huge gerrymandering problem, but that's another story.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They work towards passing state level electoral reform in their respective states so they are free to vote for who best represents them. All while secure in the knowledge that their vote would still be counted against the republicans.

It is possibly to late for this election without a general strike. But possible it remains. In fact, Alaska and Maine have already done away with First-past-the-post voting.

Democrats believe in democracy right? If so, why do the vast majority of blue states continue to use First Past the Post voting?

Tell any blue conservative that you are considering voting 3rd party and they will show that they understand the mathematical flaws of our voting system. Yet they do nothing to fix the issue between elections. Curious.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

They have a choice of staying home and not vote

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They can vote for anyone on the ballot in their state, or in states that support it, write in a name of their choosing.

It would essentially be a protest vote, telling the big 2: “you might have got this vote if you’d had a better stance on Israel.”

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Protest votes are also a terrible idea.

Not only is this not the only issue in the world, but even just on this issue, with both (actual) options being bad, it's still the case that one side is orders of magnitude worse than the other.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Protest votes are also a terrible idea.

Just want to make the point that this was the exact logic we had to stick with the grand malfeasance which was candidate Biden.

So no. Wrong. False.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If I had the option to vote for someone else in the primary (not counting brain worm or antivax, but even they had dropped out by then) then I would have.
My options were Biden or not vote in the primary. I wasn't happy about that, but I still would have chosen him over Trump in the general election of course.

Not voting or voting protest in Nov would still help Trump. That's just how the math works.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's election season brother you'll never outbark them blue dogs. I do appreciate it even so

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Idk mang. I'm pretty fucking loud.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Vote independent of course, I'd propose you should vote for Claudia de la Cruz from PSL if you live in the states where they're on the ballot, and probably either Green or write in/don't vote if they aren't.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Canadian here so voting may be a little problematic :).

This is for an independent president, yes? Can you vote for an independent member of congress?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Oh lol I also am outside of the US so I don't vote (except I'm voting for Trump by not voting for Kamala, as I've been told very often)

There are quite a lot of independent representatives and a handful of independent senators, though for what it's worth there are still some congresspeople and senators in the Democratic Party that aren't as disgusting as Harris herself. Many were successfully primaried by AIPAC sponsored candidates this election so they'll have to run as independents, however.