this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
71 points (92.8% liked)

politics

18791 readers
4809 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
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
71
Here's what Kamala Harris needs to do to win over Michigan's uncommitted Democrats (www.freep.com)
submitted 1 month ago by gAlienLifeform to c/politics
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240725232934/https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/khalil-alhajal/2024/07/25/michigan-voters-joe-biden-out-kamala-harris-democrats-2024-palestine-gaza/74539526007/

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovingHippieCat 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm a little confused what the delegates are asking for. Early in the article it says "Activists say they don't expect a full-throated embrace of their platform — for the U.S. to stop selling arms to Israel — but say she must give them some indication that in a Harris presidency, U.S. foreign policy would shift." Which could mean that they want a ceasefire or that they want Harris to say that she will stop sending arms if they cross a line. Harris already supports a ceasefire and talks about the humanitarian crisis actively going on and how that needs to stop, two things biden has been much more coy about. Is that not a sign that policy would shift some under a Harris presidency?

Then later in the article they say "We’re just asking that the nominee of the Democratic Party espouse a foreign policy agenda that isn’t hellbent on killing people we love," said Abbas Alawieh, a Democratic strategist from Dearborn who led the campaign. "It’s actually a pretty reasonable ask, to stop killing my family."" Which, again, could mean a ceasefire, which Harris is already supporting, or could mean to stop supporting Israel, full stop.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, Harris supports a ceasefire. She has also said she supports Israel and their right to defend themselves and exist at all. I just want to know what the delegates fully want. What actual policy change could convince them to vote for Harris. Cause she's already showing more support for a ceasefire than biden did. This could be a failing of the article, or it could be the delegates not actually having a thing they will be satisfied with. Probably the article.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Based on the quotes my guess is they want the end result and don't actually know what action they want to get there or don't want to box themselves in by stating something too specific.

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

I feel like she literally did exactly that yesterday. She had an entirely separate meeting with Bibi, and shortly afterward her public statement had the very strong implication that her policy was very much not going to be the carte blanche that Biden seems ok with. She specifically mentioned Palestinian casualties and refugees. She’s not disregarding Israeli civilian welfare either. I’m not sure what else could be asked for, in this context - a context where you must be a bit cautious of pissing off AIPAC because you don’t want them to open the floodgates of their very deep pockets against you.

[–] LovingHippieCat 2 points 1 month ago

I thought so, too. I'd be interested in seeing what these exact people think now that she's said all that. Will that be enough for them? Or will they still refuse to vote for her. The article was written before she said what she said, so I imagine we will find out eventually. There's also people who vote for Republicans actively trying to sew discontent in democratic voters about it. A month or so back, I read another article that was similar to this one where one of the campaigners for the uncommitted movement was a republican strategist. In that article, as well as this one, there's the quote that they won't be convinced to be scared of a Muslim ban when their families are actively being killed right now. Some even saying that Trump could just randomly decide not to support the genocide because he's unpredictable. And that, if they have to choose between a ban and a genocide, they'll take the ban. Which, I get the thought process, but it's still short-sighted not to realize that their families will have a harder time surviving under a Trump presidency. Feels like a bad faith argument.

This topic is genuinely frustrating and could very well decide the election. People willing to throw away decades of progress because they don't want to compromise. Some viewing it as themselves "remaining pure". Incredibly frustrating.