What is it with you and finding articles with the most naively negative possible take on any given topic ?
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
21 points (59.8% liked)
politics
18862 readers
4332 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They have an agenda. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is ignored, and that's coming straight from ozmas own mouth.
You can tag this user (many of us have)
The article makes a lot of very valid points, and for there to be real change in Gaza it's going to take more than just hope. Real, sustained pressure is going to be necessary.
That said, there is, IMO, literally zero chance that we will actually see any movement on this issue until after election day. Until the vote is in the bag, Harris cannot risk pissing off AIPAC. Despite all the energy, this is still a very, very tight race. The author points out that for people in Gaza waiting until the election isn't really an option - Isreal isn't just going to stop killing them until America gets its shit sorted - but that doesn't change the political reality that the Dems are facing.
If Trump gets in, he will, unquestionably, be worse for Palestine. He will actively encourage Israel's genocide in ways we can't even imagine. If it involves killing brown people he's all for it. For there to be any possibility of an improvement in the situation there, the Dems have to win, and for the Dems to win they have to stay silent on this issue.
So what pro-Palestinian activists have to do is be ready to make Palestine the number one issue in America from the moment the last polling booth closes, and not let up until the last day of Harris' administration if that's what it takes. With the realities of the situation being what it is, that's the only way it's going to get done.
Edit (because I realise I phrased some of this badly): I'm not suggesting that anyone should shut up about this between now and the election. We should absolutely continue to keep the issue in the public's mind. Force Harris to leave the door open to real change. Just don't expect any real or meaningful change in the position of any part of the Democrat ticket until after they no longer have to worry about AIPAC dropping a sledgehammer on them.
Until the vote is in the bag, Harris cannot risk pissing off AIPAC.
Does it really not bother Americans that a foreign country can pretty much choose your elected officials?
I'd argue it certainly should. But I'm not an American myself, just someone who's invested in what happens there because - as this Isreal shit resoundingly demonstrates - what happens in America affects the whole world.
It's never been quite as blatant as it is now, but as long as I can recall, this is the way it's always been.
Harris is fully on board with the genocide.
Her husbands take on the anti-genocide protests: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/04/doug-emhoff-anti-semitism-college-campuses-00125384
If she actually were against the genocide this would be the best time to speak up to secure the muslim vote and yet https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/article-811309
In fact she literally tells protesters to shut up https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/harris-vs-the-hecklers
I read the articles you posted. 1- Doug Emhoff was speaking on the lack of distinction between Jewish people and the actions of the Israeli government. This is an actual problem, and he was citing instances of bullying based on this confusion without supporting the Israeli government. Unless I'm mistaken?
2- that's an article for the Jerusalem Post. One look at the comments tells me that she's not supporting Israel. She advocates for a two state solution and says that the conditions the Palestinians are in is unacceptable.
3- I think this could have been handled more tactfully.
-
Doug Emhoff is suggesting that the anti-genocide protests are motivated by antisemitism. His main points is to deligitimate these protests, not to draw a distinction between Jewish people and Israeli.
-
Harris' words are complete nothing-burger bolstering Biden's appearances of giving aid, or calling for aid or getting real angry with Netanyahu for the 16th time. There is nothing of substance there. "Please give the victims of your genocide some more food please?". Right now on the campaign trail is the time to call for actual action or promising it, to say something against the genocide and yet she is silent. I shared the article to show what she isn't saying.
-
Why is her response to "We won't vote for genocide" not distancing herself from Israel's crime, like instinctually? They're accusing her of being part of a genocide and instead of saying "woah I'm not part of that" her response is "well guess who would be worse!".
There is nothing to suggest that Harris wouldn't do exactly what Biden is doing. She can't even say she would do anything to stop Israel. Not even while she is trying to win voters on the campaign trail, a time when politicians makes the grandest promises. It's wishful thinking to believe that anything would change about the US stance to Israel and it's crimes once she is elected.
Shitposting agitprop won't save gaza, either.
Keep it up though, I love the laughs you give me.
Don't bother commenting on your posts, it's hard always being wrong about literally everything.
Ah, yes. I was completely wrong about saying "Biden will be replaced" months prior because I said they would replace him at the convention. My bad. It was before the convention. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯