this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
757 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19134 readers
7459 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
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.

Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide

Fucking liberalism in a nutshell.

[–] brad_troika 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

So you're looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit "classical liberal." In this case critical of the "its not practical" preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.

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

No, it's utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn't even a political position.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No idea how you plan to achieve your goals when your first step is Holocaust denial.

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

I will wait until she gets elected, and then if she continues to refuse to call it a genocide, then I will hold her accountable then.

But first, the existence of Palestine as contingent on her winning. Like literally.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 4 points 1 day ago

I will hold her accountable then

By... what mechanism?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago

Genocide and war aren't mutually exclusive. The Holocaust happened during WWII.

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

As opposed to? Conservatism? How do you expect that to be different? Because in terms of president, those are your two options right now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

As opposed to?

Actual leftism. Liberalism is a Conservative movement.

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

How do you expect that to be different?

State level electoral reform to replace first past the post voting. Introduce competition into the voting system.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.

So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. "in my power" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she's committed to, let's say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.

But skepticism alone isn't analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over "Uncommitted" conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She's not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.

But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.

I hope she wins. But if she doesn't the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But if she doesn't the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings

This is something that a lot of people don't think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn't much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they're even more spineless than I realized. For all the "Trump isn't fit" gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don't care about compromise, and in fact they don't want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that's what gives them so much power.

On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.

It sucks, it's not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I'm not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump's chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.

But feel free to "neener neener" about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher

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

So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.

No, unlike your argument, I'm not arguing we split hairs over semantics.

she will never reach the vast majority of those people.

Unless.

She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.

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

No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes "splitting hairs" isn't just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.

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

Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It's time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris' words is not useful.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Way to stay on message

[–] Pacattack57 8 points 2 days ago

This reads as a joke but it’s actually true 😂