this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
745 points (95.6% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2270 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose

I'm not invested in the Likud Party losing if the war continues to expand and drag on.

The issue isn't with her "pro-Israel" policy, it's with her "pro-Genocide" policy. That's what's driving the protests.

[–] RalphFurley@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And that's the rub. Is she really 'pro genocide'? That is the question

[–] Saleh 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"Hey, i have murdered some 40.000 people, most women and children. Can you send me more weapons?"

"Well sure, here ya go. Need any more troops deployed with it, so no one in the region can try to stop you?"

More clear of an endorsement isn't possible aside from going there personally to murder the women and children herself.

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

But the question remains, will things be better, worse, or the same under Trump?

Like it or not, at this stage of the game there are effectively two candidates. To paraphrase South Park, you can vote for the douche bag or the turd sandwich. Neither is a very good option but one is certainly worse than the other if you're paying any attention at all. Abstaining from voting for Harris in a swing state is tantamount to a half vote for Trump.

So sure, continue letting everyone know what the current administration is doing wrong. I'm all for valid criticism of our government. Post facts, link sources, and post ways that people can voice their displeasure to their elected officials.

Trying to sway votes away from Harris is not the answer. Because again, like it or not, the shitty choice that we've been handed in this scenario is bad or worse. Please stop advocating for worse.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Left-wing accelerationists will always vote for the worse result, because they're convinced the only route to the world they want requires burning society down. That Queer and PoC communities will be exterminated in the process is of no concern to them, because they don't actually care about real human outcomes, they just want their fantasy Communist society to emerge from the ashes of fascism's cremated victims.

They literally think that letting Fascism win and destroy society will open the door to a communist revolution. At best they are stupid, at worst they are malicious and explicitly want Fascism. Regardless, they are enemies of progress, friends to Fascists and Christian Nationalists, and have no problem throwing marginalized people to the wolves in a bid to accomplish nothing.

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't even know how to respond to this. It's filled with so much hyperbole that there's nothing factual to refute or discuss. All I can say is that I vehemently disagree with your opinions on the matter.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy

What pro-genocide policy? Name one Kamala Harris, pro-genocide policy.

Because it seems to me that she just stated that her goal is to end the genocide. Seems like a pretty counterintuitive way to be "pro-genocide"...

And if you knew anything about politics in Israel, then you would 100% be invested in the Likud Party losing.

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

Sending weapons to the army committing the genocide is a very clear endorsement of it. Judge politicians by their actions, not by their promises.

And not only was sending those weapons a clear endorsement of the genocide, it is illegal by US law. The whole administration and majority of congress should be under investigation and in jail.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And who is the current President of the United States?

Is it Kamala Harris? No?

So my question stands: one "pro-genocide policy"

[–] Saleh 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who is current vice-president?

Her entire campaign was based on the fact that she is the continuation of Biden. Having proper primaries after Biden dropped out was argued against, saying she is already on the ticket. Her team is largely Bidens team. Distancing her from the administration she currently serves in and saying she is the continuation of that doesn't work.

Frankly if she was opposed to genocide the only decent thing would have been to resign from her position in the current administration. You cannot be against genocide while serving a genocidal president.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago

Then stop serving Trump. You can't be against any of the things he stands for, including genocide, if you're trying to swing this election in his favor.