this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
89 points (73.8% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4073 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
 

Activists from around the country told The Intercept that they will advocate for an anti-war agenda at the convention in August and withhold their vote in November unless an adequate candidate steps up, listing policy priorities such as support for a permanent ceasefire and standing up to the pro-Israel lobby as it intervenes in Democratic primaries. Even as the Biden campaign insists that he will not step aside, many Democrats appear to be lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris as an alternative candidate, with some Democratic governors being floated as well.

“My number one criteria for any candidate is opposing the genocide in Gaza,” said Saad Farooq, an uncommitted voter in Massachusetts. Farooq said it was unlikely that the Democratic National Committee would select any candidate who took a stance against Israel’s ongoing war, and that he would support Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she were to appear on the ballot in Massachusetts.

Will Dawson, an uncommitted voter in Washington, D.C., named several factors that could get him to switch his vote from the Green Party’s Stein to another politician. First on his list is a promise to call for an immediate ceasefire and fighting the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Congress.

“This candidate would also ideally work toward pulling further away from the Israeli colonial project over time, with the goal being repealing our absurd financial support, ending the foreign interest agency of AIPAC, and pushing for a nation-wide boycott a la [South Africa] during their apartheid,” Dawson wrote.

The candidate would also have to push to reform the Supreme Court, he added. “The candidate would have to promise to both push for justice impeachment, and expand the courts,” Dawson said.“If a replacement candidate met both of these requirements, I would absolutely consider switching my vote from Jill Stein. Hell, I might even knock doors/canvass for them!”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I think it should be pretty clear, right? It’s different because America is helping them commit genocide. It’s not like this is all happening separately from us and people are calling for some kind of foreign intervention, they’re asking that we stop helping the people doing a genocide.

That’s not to say it’s my only priority this election, but it’s definitely up there, because I, like many Americans, feel like I’m complicit to some degree.

Make no mistake, though, Trump would be far worse. I still know the score here, but I can understand why it ranks highly on people’s priorities.

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

I don't mind it being a priority, only it being the top criteria. Someone who says it's their most important priority displays a significant lack of awareness for what's happening in the country and in the world.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

I take your point and agree, actually. Single issue voters are always a nuisance though, and these ones are nothing new.

Also worth noting that we similarly have blood on our hands for a lack of support for Ukraine. All that time that the US political system was bogged down and unable to send aid meant they had to pay the cost to hold the line in manpower instead, so I can understand the frustration.

[–] GladiusB -5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

But there is a huge difference between intervention and stopping support for an ally that is RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA. Like do they even think that it's not a strategic decision? Is it the best take? No. Is it the best place to be in? No. But pissing off an ally we have had for 50 years is also a bad decision. Maybe weigh the options here.

[–] givesomefucks 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Except Israel has been talking about starting another invasion against Hezbollah...

Who have a defensive treaty with Russia, Iran, and a couple others.

An ally that starts wars isn't a good ally.

They're not providing a strategic advantage, they're dragging us into large scale multi-country war.

It would likely get tied up with Ukraine as well, and get us to a legit WW3.

Because Biden won't cut weapons to Israel and has spent 50 years saying there's no line that Israel could cross

Edit:

RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA.

I googled it...

Israel is 3,700 some miles away from Russia. That's wider than America

[–] BeBa -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unnm hezbollah is launching rockets at Israel

If one of those rockets hits the chemical plant in Haifa the whole city could go up. Pretty sure that’s valid provocation

But folks like to pretend Israel has no valid reason to protect itself, despite being under constant attack for the past 80 years

[–] Ensign_Crab -1 points 4 months ago

What are they protecting by committing genocide in Gaza?

[–] Ensign_Crab 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But there is a huge difference between intervention and stopping support for an ally that is RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA.

I really should start keeping a list of the reprehensible justifications for continued support for Netanyahu's genocide.

[–] GladiusB -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Because I am justifying killing people by saying it's more complicated than people like you are making it. Dumb take.

[–] Ensign_Crab 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You're making excuses for genocide.

And nothing else.

Hell, you're even downplaying it by referring to it as just "killing people." Though I'm glad you refer to Palestinians as people.

[–] GladiusB -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No I'm not. I'm saying it's complicated. Your inability to comprehend that means you are not smart enough to debate with me.

[–] Ensign_Crab 2 points 4 months ago

I comprehend your excuses just fine. I'm not buying them.

Concession accepted.