this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
253 points (94.7% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4620 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
253
Kamala Harris ‘listening’ to young people on Gaza, says fellow Democrat (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Reading Internet comments on this, the right has already made up their minds that she is basically going to roll out a red carpet for Hamas, and the left already thinks that she is going bomb children.

She’s on record saying that she supports Israel’s right to defend itself, AND that Israel is killing and starving innocents civilians. As far as I know, in the week that she’s been the candidate, she hasn’t stated what “support” looks like and how or if she plans to disincentivize their offensive campaign that’s killing and starving civilians / continuing the circle of violence.

[–] wagesj45@kbin.run 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

supports Israel’s right to defend itself

Yeah, that's not wrong.

AND that Israel is killing and starving innocents civilians

Yeah, also not wrong. Because in this instance Israel isn't defending itself. They're not taking out imminent threats; at least not exclusively. They're using an attack to justify imperialism and genocide. We even have a very recent example of how that's usually a disaster for everyone involved.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is utterly unsurprising that large swathes of the internet is rejecting what seems to be a reasonable stance that'd provide the best outcome for everyone.

In this case the leaders of both these nations are dumpster fires and there are extremist elements present in both... but most people just want to live and have guaranteed access to clean water and social services.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Also, Russia has massive propaganda efforts in place to affect public opinion online. Deepening the divide everyone is definitely in their favor; especially while they would definitely like us to not pay attention to Ukraine.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The left has also made up their mind after 9 months of gaslighting by Biden pretending he was going to be tough on israel, and then sending them more bombs to drop on schools when they ran out.

"Trust me bro" fingerwagging isn't enough anymore. We need concrete promises and real action.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Those of who didn’t like Biden’s actions in Gaza, but were still voting for him, were doing so because we viewed other issues on the ballot as even worse.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Also because Trump wants to be even WORSE on Gaza. Really simple calculation.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If she’s listening, then she can’t pick Shapiro or Kelly as VP.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think Shapiro's Israel stance would be poison. Kelly would probably blunt momentum, but maybe the cool factor of being an astronaut could get him through it without bringing the ticket down.

From a progressive standpoint, I actually kind of like Buttigieg. Like Harris, he started out as vaguely progressive but turned toward the moderate lane after realizing the progressive one was stuffed full, but he hasn't done some of the performative centrism of the purple state elected officials and he's got some dynamism in both his policy (his supreme court reform was good) and conveys a different feel from trying to pick someone to signal that the Democratic party is also the home for conservatives. Plus you can put him in front of a camera anywhere and expect him to do a good job.

I wouldn't vote for him or Harris in a primary, but I can feel positive about them on a ticket.

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My issue with Buttigieg is that he used to work for McKinsey & Co, and apparently was their "Wiz Kid".

"McKinsey has assisted opioid manufacturers, tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and authoritarian governments around the world, and in each case has covered up its footprints. Again and again, McKinsey has come to town and left people worse off." (Source)

[–] killingspark 1 points 1 month ago

Hey sometimes McKinsey also helps people. Like when they explained to new York that maybe, just maybe, throwing garbage in bags on the streets instead of trash containers makes your city stinky. Still cost them a fortune that advice right there but...

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why are people continuing to say this? The VP has no say over POTUS. They are the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and count the electoral ballots in an election. That’s it.

[–] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're second in line. It's a liability.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It was a liability when the President was 81. I’m not so sure we should be focusing on vetting the VP for POTUS otherwise.

[–] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IMO we should always be vetting the VP for POTUS. Seems silly not to. Old age isn't the only risk.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As a backup, sure, but not a likely candidate. They are typically appointed to balance out the ticket. The more left Harris brings her platform, the more likely her nomination will be to her right.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago

If you think the VP's positions on things should be irrelevant to the left because Harris isn't going to die, why would their positions be any comfort to the right as a balance to the ticket? Either they're irrelevant and no one should care, or they aren't and anyone caring is doing so for good reason.

And this is all indulging in the fantasy that vice presidents aren't likely future presidential candidates.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 7 points 1 month ago

If the next president is a black woman, her life will constantly be in danger from the Trump cultists or other far right extremists. Or she could have an aneurysm randomly one day. People die all the time from a wide variety of causes that aren't old age.

The choice of VP is always important.

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I wonder if Ben would even accept her offer.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Ben hated Obama with passion, and I see no reason for him to have similar views of Kamala, as they have similar attributes that he cares about. We'll see the next few years lots of whining coming from him

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wrong person. Get educated, unless u be jokin

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course I b jokin. Life's too short to do anything else.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Damn dude. I'm buying. Can we b jokin around town together? Continuing ed and what not

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Most def we can b, a night 2 rememmer!

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Who knew young people would be so triggered by the slaughter of children?

I'm not young, and I'm pretty triggered by it. I guess there's something wrong with me? I've never owned any boot straps, so maybe that's it.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Man this would mean absolutely nothing if it was Harris herself saying it. And its not even her saying it.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Thats not how building executive consensus works. Especially when doing so as a current subordinate.

[–] Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Exactly, she can't really take a bold stance while holding a position cus her stance is toothless. It would be easy fodder to just say "than why aren't you doing something?" When she actually can't do anything. Even if/when she has executive authority over it, it's potentially counter-productive for potential peace talks. If you're able to present a plan where both parties feel like they have a victory, it's a harder sell if you've already "picked a favorite" before talks happened.

I think it's the difference between politics and governing. Being the adult in the room is important and I think the posture Kamala is taking makes me optimistic that she has the appropriate priorities. Which will evolve into political wins, when contrasted with Trump. I hope these winks to the left are done in good faith though and not a hollow effort to galvanize the base.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

I agree. I think Lemmy is full of very idealistic folks, so the concerns you described just don't register.

They think if they were her, they would twirl the wand and it would be just so.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

By young people they mean the donor class. We all sure as fuck know they dont listen to us, she directly has called pro-palestinian protesters Hamas supporters. And opposes our first amendment rights to free speech and protest.