What’s the dilemma? Elect a candidate who isn’t great on the issue of Palestine, or the candidate who would be apocalyptic? Hmmm… decisions… decisions.
Additionally, there is nothing Harris can say on Palestine that would benefit her candidacy, either way she loses voters. I’m hopeful that she’ll be better in office, but even if not, I know Trump would be worse.
The issue is, it is already apocalyptic. It’s genocide, the extermination of a population. It’s going to be worse for Americans (and the world in general) if Trump is elected, but what if that world watched your family and friends die horribly, or helped kill them? As a Canadian I sure hope people can choke down the bile and keep fascism out of the white house, but we shouldn’t act like there aren’t groups of people who might think we all deserve whatever we get, regardless of it affecting them as well.
… but we shouldn’t act like there aren’t groups of people who might think we all deserve whatever we get, regardless of it affecting them as well.
Either Harris or Trump is going to be president come 2025, so pick the better candidate, or the lesser evil, however you want to look at it. Anyone who casts a protest vote or withholds support because of a single issue, is an idiot and I’m not going to handle them with kid gloves.
I’m not shocked Biden isn’t doing anything, and I’m not shocked Harris isn’t outspoken about it. I’m hopeful she takes action when sworn in. But people need to care about politics everyday, not just once every four years.
Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the congress and secretary of state are being bitches…
Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the parliament and secretary of state are being bitches…
He has sufficient authority to curtail aid to Israel. He can also fire the secretary of state. Congress, not Parliament. He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.
What duties does the secretary of state hold that would go unattended until a new one is installed? How long would that take? And would he be able to actually get the committee to approve a candidate of such (comparatively radical) inclinations? What political and social fallout would he risk?
My statement “locking down the entire government” was an exaggeration, granted. But firing senior members of cabinet is a minefield and political dynamics tend to be slow to change course and often highly speculative.
Quick changes require overwhelming and clearly visible popular support, particularly during moments both critical for a politician’s career and uncertain enough to affect their stance, and even then it may be counterbalanced by uncertainty and reluctance to change stance.
Congress, not Parliament.
My bad, I wasn’t aware of the distinction (or that parliament has a more specific definition than “assembly of elected representatives”). I’ll fix that. Thanks for pointing it out!
He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.
I don’t envy his position. It’s far easier for us to complain and point out problems - which I’m not downplaying, don’t get me wrong - than to come up with effective solutions. It’s his job to do that, he chose it and he must be held to that responsibility, but all the amenities of wealth aside, I doubt that I’d enjoy navigating this mess where your every move gets you yelled at.
Personally, I hate when people say X should do something. What’s the something? If you don’t know, maybe there isn’t anything that can be done. If you don’t like the options, then why do you want him to act. Politicians aren’t magic, they can’t divine a mystical solution, choices are tough and every option has its drawbacks.
If he’s that dissatisfied with Blinken he can fire him. But if that’s not palatable then he has to stick with him. I assume they talk and Biden has given him direction, so that’s what’s left.
Typically, Parliamentary systems employ a prime minister as the chief executive, so tend to be fundamentally different from the American system.
“We have more important things to worry about than your concerns, so stfu and vote for our people so we can go back to ignoring your concerns.”
That’s more or less what you’re saying here, and what the Democrat Party has been saying this entire election cycle. Anyone who is having conflicting feelings, regardless of where they may be coming from, is insulted, condescended to, or outright attacked because… They have concerns they want addressed?
Explain to me how that is unreasonable? And if it is unreasonable, I would then ask, why should they care about what you want? I pointed out on another thread, but if both parties are going to ignore you and kill your friends/family, and the only thing the people you thought were supposed to be allies will say to you is “Get the fuck over it, it’s not important enough, etc…”
Well, put yourself in their shoes, and ask yourself why the fuck you would care what happens then? If your family is going to be genocided either way, and one party is going to be worse, but the end result is the same… Why do you care? Your allies don’t care, so why should you?
The Republican party may be a party filled with hate, racism, misogyny, facism, and every type of cultural phobia there is, but they at least support each other. The Democrats are condescending and entitled, particularly towards their own constituents. Then they wonder why they always lose.
And I give Harris credit, to be clear, for coming out and saying there will be contingencies on weapons shipments to Israel should she win, and I hope she carries through on that (even if it’s just political showmanship). But if she loses, I will have zero kid gloves or sympathy towards anyone who didn’t think Palestine was important enough.
When people show you who they are, believe them, and the fact that Harris: won’t commit to stopping arms sales to Israel, just had Bill Clinton tell a crowd of Muslim and Arab Americans that Israel has to kill civilians because of Hamas, and rejected pro-Palestinian group’s requests to have Palestinian-American speakers at the DNC…
Sure seems the Democrats don’t like Muslims/Arabs much when you look at it from their perspective.
Well, if you’re not white, Trump’s party is not going to help you either. Have you even been watching the news these last eight years? How do you think fascism works?
This is exactly what I was pointing out, dude. You asked how there was a debate, I showed you the debate from the perspective who may be having it themselves (I’m not Palestinian, btw, I’m a white trans veteran, so I don’t need a lecture on fascism or any of your moral grandstanding, thank you).
Your response is to immediately dismiss all of it.
Have you even been watching the news these last eight years?
Have you been following the voiced and vocal outcry from the Arab community via their protest vote movement? Or any other actions taken to silence the voices of anyone who tries to publicly bring attention to the Palestinian Genocide? Actions taken against them during a Democrat presidential administration on both college campuses and public and private forums?
This is clearly something that is very important to people, and you’re doing exactly what I pointed out:
Condescending to me as if I don’t understand the two options, while refusing to understand why this demographic may not want to vote for a party that’s demanding their vote while giving them the middle finger.
I’m not attacking you, and I’m voting Harris, and will continue to encourage others to do so as well. But to act like “tRuMp BaD FaScIsM” is enough for the Democrats to keep riding on is delusional. If our issues don’t matter, what difference does it make what form of government fucks us over?
What’s the dilemma? Elect a candidate who isn’t great on the issue of Palestine, or the candidate who would be apocalyptic? Hmmm… decisions… decisions.
Additionally, there is nothing Harris can say on Palestine that would benefit her candidacy, either way she loses voters. I’m hopeful that she’ll be better in office, but even if not, I know Trump would be worse.
The issue is, it is already apocalyptic. It’s genocide, the extermination of a population. It’s going to be worse for Americans (and the world in general) if Trump is elected, but what if that world watched your family and friends die horribly, or helped kill them? As a Canadian I sure hope people can choke down the bile and keep fascism out of the white house, but we shouldn’t act like there aren’t groups of people who might think we all deserve whatever we get, regardless of it affecting them as well.
Either Harris or Trump is going to be president come 2025, so pick the better candidate, or the lesser evil, however you want to look at it. Anyone who casts a protest vote or withholds support because of a single issue, is an idiot and I’m not going to handle them with kid gloves.
I’m not shocked Biden isn’t doing anything, and I’m not shocked Harris isn’t outspoken about it. I’m hopeful she takes action when sworn in. But people need to care about politics everyday, not just once every four years.
Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the congress and secretary of state are being bitches…
He has sufficient authority to curtail aid to Israel. He can also fire the secretary of state. Congress, not Parliament. He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.
What duties does the secretary of state hold that would go unattended until a new one is installed? How long would that take? And would he be able to actually get the committee to approve a candidate of such (comparatively radical) inclinations? What political and social fallout would he risk?
My statement “locking down the entire government” was an exaggeration, granted. But firing senior members of cabinet is a minefield and political dynamics tend to be slow to change course and often highly speculative.
Quick changes require overwhelming and clearly visible popular support, particularly during moments both critical for a politician’s career and uncertain enough to affect their stance, and even then it may be counterbalanced by uncertainty and reluctance to change stance.
My bad, I wasn’t aware of the distinction (or that parliament has a more specific definition than “assembly of elected representatives”). I’ll fix that. Thanks for pointing it out!
I don’t envy his position. It’s far easier for us to complain and point out problems - which I’m not downplaying, don’t get me wrong - than to come up with effective solutions. It’s his job to do that, he chose it and he must be held to that responsibility, but all the amenities of wealth aside, I doubt that I’d enjoy navigating this mess where your every move gets you yelled at.
Personally, I hate when people say X should do something. What’s the something? If you don’t know, maybe there isn’t anything that can be done. If you don’t like the options, then why do you want him to act. Politicians aren’t magic, they can’t divine a mystical solution, choices are tough and every option has its drawbacks.
If he’s that dissatisfied with Blinken he can fire him. But if that’s not palatable then he has to stick with him. I assume they talk and Biden has given him direction, so that’s what’s left.
Typically, Parliamentary systems employ a prime minister as the chief executive, so tend to be fundamentally different from the American system.
“We have more important things to worry about than your concerns, so stfu and vote for our people so we can go back to ignoring your concerns.”
That’s more or less what you’re saying here, and what the Democrat Party has been saying this entire election cycle. Anyone who is having conflicting feelings, regardless of where they may be coming from, is insulted, condescended to, or outright attacked because… They have concerns they want addressed?
Explain to me how that is unreasonable? And if it is unreasonable, I would then ask, why should they care about what you want? I pointed out on another thread, but if both parties are going to ignore you and kill your friends/family, and the only thing the people you thought were supposed to be allies will say to you is “Get the fuck over it, it’s not important enough, etc…”
Well, put yourself in their shoes, and ask yourself why the fuck you would care what happens then? If your family is going to be genocided either way, and one party is going to be worse, but the end result is the same… Why do you care? Your allies don’t care, so why should you?
The Republican party may be a party filled with hate, racism, misogyny, facism, and every type of cultural phobia there is, but they at least support each other. The Democrats are condescending and entitled, particularly towards their own constituents. Then they wonder why they always lose.
And I give Harris credit, to be clear, for coming out and saying there will be contingencies on weapons shipments to Israel should she win, and I hope she carries through on that (even if it’s just political showmanship). But if she loses, I will have zero kid gloves or sympathy towards anyone who didn’t think Palestine was important enough.
When people show you who they are, believe them, and the fact that Harris: won’t commit to stopping arms sales to Israel, just had Bill Clinton tell a crowd of Muslim and Arab Americans that Israel has to kill civilians because of Hamas, and rejected pro-Palestinian group’s requests to have Palestinian-American speakers at the DNC…
Sure seems the Democrats don’t like Muslims/Arabs much when you look at it from their perspective.
Well, if you’re not white, Trump’s party is not going to help you either. Have you even been watching the news these last eight years? How do you think fascism works?
This is exactly what I was pointing out, dude. You asked how there was a debate, I showed you the debate from the perspective who may be having it themselves (I’m not Palestinian, btw, I’m a white trans veteran, so I don’t need a lecture on fascism or any of your moral grandstanding, thank you).
Your response is to immediately dismiss all of it.
Have you been following the voiced and vocal outcry from the Arab community via their protest vote movement? Or any other actions taken to silence the voices of anyone who tries to publicly bring attention to the Palestinian Genocide? Actions taken against them during a Democrat presidential administration on both college campuses and public and private forums?
This is clearly something that is very important to people, and you’re doing exactly what I pointed out:
Condescending to me as if I don’t understand the two options, while refusing to understand why this demographic may not want to vote for a party that’s demanding their vote while giving them the middle finger.
I’m not attacking you, and I’m voting Harris, and will continue to encourage others to do so as well. But to act like “tRuMp BaD FaScIsM” is enough for the Democrats to keep riding on is delusional. If our issues don’t matter, what difference does it make what form of government fucks us over?
I’ll save this; it’s too good.