We turn to Kamala Harris’s position on Israel’s war on Gaza, which many are calling a genocide. After she was asked about calls to condition U.S. arms shipments to Israel by CNN reporter Dana Bash, Harris refused to consider halting the flow of weapons and instead affirmed her support of Israel. This position violates both federal and international law, argues Palestinian American political analyst Yousef Munayyer, and, coupled with her campaign’s denial of a requested Palestinian American speaking spot from “uncommitted” voters at the DNC, he warns that “Harris could be worse than Biden” when it comes to U.S. support for Israel.
Maybe they just have a tendency to confuse the painfully obvious consequences of not voting or voting against Harris for your actual intended goals. Trump is clearly going to be worse for Palestinians since he outright said Netanyahu should just finish the job, so if you’re on a clear and obvious path to getting someone even worse elected, we can’t help but wonder if you don’t actually care about the Palestinians because for all the removed and moaning about Harris’s stance, you’re on your way to making the situation objectively worse.
I’ll admit I was mistaken given your comment was sandwiched between two people suggesting otherwise and given your suggestion that anyone tired of listening to those people try to discourage voting for Harris is pro-genocide. You may not be one of them, but you walk a very similar walk here, so I wouldn’t be so surprised by the confusion.
Consider for a moment that some of the others that you’ve written off might not be trying to discourage people from voting for Harris but might actually be upset about genocide.
You do understand that there are people in the world who genuinely don’t like genocide without ulterior motives, right? That it’s actually possible to find genocide objectionable?
Because it sure fucking seems like centrists on lemmy don’t want to hear anything that isn’t glowing praise in the face of the news that Harris will continue supporting genocide to the same degree that Biden has.
Dude this all started because top comment knew this post was gonna be full of people discouraging voting for Harris, and then you jumped in and accused people of being pro-genocide for it. This is what I mean when I said you walk a similar walk. Anyone who disagrees with your perfect view of the world MUST be an enemy who directly wants genocide.
None of us like genocide. We’re just tired of it being used to trash the candidate who’s objectively better on the topic, shitty as that may be. I, at least, don’t care if some posts about her are negative, but I’m real fucking tired of people trying to pretend that her failings here mean getting the objectively worse Trump elected on purpose or on accident is somehow a coherent idea, much less a good one.
Anyone who disagrees with your perfect view of the world MUST be an enemy who directly wants genocide.
And anyone who criticizes any Democrat’s support for genocide gets a fucking earful of “you want Trump to win” accusations.
None of us like genocide.
Ha. I wish we could link to specific modlog entries.
We’re just tired of it being used to trash the candidate who’s objectively better on the topic, shitty as that may be.
Objectively less bad. Let’s not pretend she’s good on the topic in any way.
I’m real fucking tired of people trying to pretend that her failings here mean getting the objectively worse Trump elected on purpose or on accident is somehow a coherent idea, much less a good one.
And I’m tired of the constant insinuations that anyone who thinks that no Democrat should be supporting genocide must be a trumper.
Neither fucking party should be supporting genocide. This isn’t perfect-world-everyone-gets-a-pony-and-a-blowjob-yes-even-the-women purity. This is the absolute bare minimum of what should be acceptable. It’s the most disgusting shit ever to see the “good” party willing to be complicit in the eradication of a people, and to be met with gross hostility from your own party for daring to call it wrong.
I wonder who the next entry on Netanyahu’s “then they came for” list is. Because one thing about genocide, it doesn’t end unless it’s stopped. It doesn’t end when it runs out of victims in one group. The genocidal stay in power by lying to the people that if they just get rid of those that they designate to be the cause of all the world’s ills, all their problems will go away. So when the victims are dead and the problems remain, they don’t admit they’re wrong; they’re politicians, after all. They just find a new scapegoat for all the world’s ills and continue as before. Ultimately everyone’s on that list except the genocidal maniac at the top.
She is arming a genocide and refuses to stop. How is that not pro genocide? If accurately describing her stance drives people away maybe she should change it
And if she didn’t change it, you don’t vote for her and Trump wins how do you think that plays out? You think he really cares and will save more lives than Kamala.
This is picking the least worst option and people are saying not to vote for her because of this. While Trump is saying if he gets in people will not have to vote again. Get the best choice in then protest the issue, but if Trump gets in it’s much worse.
Why can’t you just let people be angry about a genocide and the people that are responsible for it. We can’t help that speaking the truth about this enormous atrocity hurts the less evil candidate we have to deal with the fact that our government is supplying the means to murder children on a daily basis grow a fucking heart
Because addressing the problem the wrong way can make it worse. I don’t want it to be worse. Demonizing Harris and given Trump a better chance hurts everyone, Gaza included. I’m trying to step back and look at the big picture and far reaching implications.
You’re removed about shit that you refuse to try to change. You’ve already admitted that you haven’t done anything to change the course.
If you don’t tell anyone in power that you dislike a policy then no one will know you don’t like it. Most of you don’t want to tell anyone in power how you feel, so it’s just text in the wind.
Point of fact, I called centrists pro-genocide, not necessarily Harris. Though it’s not like calling Harris pro-genocide would make any centrist less likely to vote for her.
Not nearly as liberal as centrists have been for the past months with the “you don’t support genocide so you must be voting for trump” accusation. Which you don’t have a problem with.
Wow the amount of assumptions and speculation there. You’re not interested in an honest conversation huh?
I find it interesting that people like you, who are “anti-genocide” can’t help themselves from telling others how they think and feel. Might be a hint that your stance is dishonest.
Wow the amount of assumptions and speculation there. You’re not interested in an honest conversation huh?
Well, if you have a problem with the anti-genocide=trumper accusation, you’re certainly not raising that concern with those who are making it.
Might be a hint that your stance is dishonest.
If you have so much difficulty imagining having objections to genocide that you assume dishonesty, I don’t know what to tell you, and it’s not like you would believe it anyway since it comes from someone who has voiced opposition to genocide without immediately following it with “but.”
Well, if you have a problem with the anti-genocide=trumper accusation, you’re certainly not raising that concern with those who are making it.
Ok, so in the absence of you knowing my stance you feel comfortable making assumptions. Seems like a logical path to truth. Ffs…
If you have so much difficulty imagining having objections to genocide that you assume dishonesty
You toss all nuance out the window to build this straw man. Genocide isn’t the only thing in the world happening. And like I said in my last comment the “but” is because context exists. We could enslave them all and that would fix the genocide. I can only assume you’re in favor of that because it would stop genocide, no buts.
Maybe they just have a tendency to confuse the painfully obvious consequences of not voting or voting against Harris for your actual intended goals. Trump is clearly going to be worse for Palestinians since he outright said Netanyahu should just finish the job, so if you’re on a clear and obvious path to getting someone even worse elected, we can’t help but wonder if you don’t actually care about the Palestinians because for all the removed and moaning about Harris’s stance, you’re on your way to making the situation objectively worse.
I’m voting for Harris and have never, I want to stress this, absolutely fucking NEVER suggested doing otherwise.
You will of course completely ignore this because I dared to say that genocide isn’t the only thing in this world that gives life meaning.
I’ll admit I was mistaken given your comment was sandwiched between two people suggesting otherwise and given your suggestion that anyone tired of listening to those people try to discourage voting for Harris is pro-genocide. You may not be one of them, but you walk a very similar walk here, so I wouldn’t be so surprised by the confusion.
Consider for a moment that some of the others that you’ve written off might not be trying to discourage people from voting for Harris but might actually be upset about genocide.
You do understand that there are people in the world who genuinely don’t like genocide without ulterior motives, right? That it’s actually possible to find genocide objectionable?
Because it sure fucking seems like centrists on lemmy don’t want to hear anything that isn’t glowing praise in the face of the news that Harris will continue supporting genocide to the same degree that Biden has.
Dude this all started because top comment knew this post was gonna be full of people discouraging voting for Harris, and then you jumped in and accused people of being pro-genocide for it. This is what I mean when I said you walk a similar walk. Anyone who disagrees with your perfect view of the world MUST be an enemy who directly wants genocide.
None of us like genocide. We’re just tired of it being used to trash the candidate who’s objectively better on the topic, shitty as that may be. I, at least, don’t care if some posts about her are negative, but I’m real fucking tired of people trying to pretend that her failings here mean getting the objectively worse Trump elected on purpose or on accident is somehow a coherent idea, much less a good one.
And anyone who criticizes any Democrat’s support for genocide gets a fucking earful of “you want Trump to win” accusations.
Ha. I wish we could link to specific modlog entries.
Objectively less bad. Let’s not pretend she’s good on the topic in any way.
And I’m tired of the constant insinuations that anyone who thinks that no Democrat should be supporting genocide must be a trumper.
Neither fucking party should be supporting genocide. This isn’t perfect-world-everyone-gets-a-pony-and-a-blowjob-yes-even-the-women purity. This is the absolute bare minimum of what should be acceptable. It’s the most disgusting shit ever to see the “good” party willing to be complicit in the eradication of a people, and to be met with gross hostility from your own party for daring to call it wrong.
I wonder who the next entry on Netanyahu’s “then they came for” list is. Because one thing about genocide, it doesn’t end unless it’s stopped. It doesn’t end when it runs out of victims in one group. The genocidal stay in power by lying to the people that if they just get rid of those that they designate to be the cause of all the world’s ills, all their problems will go away. So when the victims are dead and the problems remain, they don’t admit they’re wrong; they’re politicians, after all. They just find a new scapegoat for all the world’s ills and continue as before. Ultimately everyone’s on that list except the genocidal maniac at the top.
Calling her “pro-genocide” might very much suggest to people that they should not vote for her.
She is arming a genocide and refuses to stop. How is that not pro genocide? If accurately describing her stance drives people away maybe she should change it
Ffs people are so naive.
And if she didn’t change it, you don’t vote for her and Trump wins how do you think that plays out? You think he really cares and will save more lives than Kamala.
This is picking the least worst option and people are saying not to vote for her because of this. While Trump is saying if he gets in people will not have to vote again. Get the best choice in then protest the issue, but if Trump gets in it’s much worse.
Why can’t you just let people be angry about a genocide and the people that are responsible for it. We can’t help that speaking the truth about this enormous atrocity hurts the less evil candidate we have to deal with the fact that our government is supplying the means to murder children on a daily basis grow a fucking heart
Because addressing the problem the wrong way can make it worse. I don’t want it to be worse. Demonizing Harris and given Trump a better chance hurts everyone, Gaza included. I’m trying to step back and look at the big picture and far reaching implications.
Your cold and unsympathetic demeanor has convinced me not to vote for kamala
Ok
You’re removed about shit that you refuse to try to change. You’ve already admitted that you haven’t done anything to change the course.
If you don’t tell anyone in power that you dislike a policy then no one will know you don’t like it. Most of you don’t want to tell anyone in power how you feel, so it’s just text in the wind.
You only have yourself to blame.
I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about
I’m not surprised.
Point of fact, I called centrists pro-genocide, not necessarily Harris. Though it’s not like calling Harris pro-genocide would make any centrist less likely to vote for her.
I feel like people are being very liberal with this “pro-genocide” term.
Not nearly as liberal as centrists have been for the past months with the “you don’t support genocide so you must be voting for trump” accusation. Which you don’t have a problem with.
Wow the amount of assumptions and speculation there. You’re not interested in an honest conversation huh?
I find it interesting that people like you, who are “anti-genocide” can’t help themselves from telling others how they think and feel. Might be a hint that your stance is dishonest.
Well, if you have a problem with the anti-genocide=trumper accusation, you’re certainly not raising that concern with those who are making it.
If you have so much difficulty imagining having objections to genocide that you assume dishonesty, I don’t know what to tell you, and it’s not like you would believe it anyway since it comes from someone who has voiced opposition to genocide without immediately following it with “but.”
Ok, so in the absence of you knowing my stance you feel comfortable making assumptions. Seems like a logical path to truth. Ffs…
You toss all nuance out the window to build this straw man. Genocide isn’t the only thing in the world happening. And like I said in my last comment the “but” is because context exists. We could enslave them all and that would fix the genocide. I can only assume you’re in favor of that because it would stop genocide, no buts.