Bernie is such a good guy. The Dems have done him dirty so many times, they are currently continuing to support many harmful policies but he understands what’s at stake and he puts all of that aside to do the best he can.
He doesn’t have to do this. He’s 83 years old and while his cognitive health is outstanding for his age, someone his age doesn’t need to be on this grind for us. He probably won’t stop until he’s forced to due to his health. I love the guy and it’s a shame we weren’t given the chance to see him take the presidency.
That’s a bad headline. Watch his video, he makes a much more nuanced argument.
The fantasy world the zero-tolerance high-ground morality angels live in is as dangerous as the one MAGA lives in, and ironically has the same victims. They proudly polish their halos nice and shiny while they let the world burn.
Don’t support genocide, it’s as simple as that!
By the way: Voting isn’t actually support. The American system is not set up in a way where votes actually add to the power of the Presidential office. On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action, which could be genocide. This means YOU HAVE TO VOTE HARRIS IN ORDER TO NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE. The socialism angels are hypocrites.
there are two facts about this election
- there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
- both candidates have a bad stance on the genocide
so neither outcome will help with the genocide. acting like voting third party helps in any way shape or form is disingenuous at best. so what should you do?
my argument is that you should vote for the person you can hope to convince on this issue. phone calls, protests, social media, whatever means you have… which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
Harris might be responsive, and let’s be honest, she might not be. but you know for a fact that it’s definitely not the fucking orange turd. Natenyahu wants him to win. how can you ignore that?
which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
i only voted for kamala because she’s a woman and even though she’s an awful candidate at least we can get it out of our collective system, show little girls they can be president, and the neoliberal status quo is probably still better than Trump
i’m not entirely sure on that because I think Kamala is more likely to lead us into a war with Russia… but Trump is more volatile in general I think
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
This level of cynicism is unwarranted. Sure it might be low, but for Harris it’s at least 0.1%.
My argument is that the only good american is that dude who set himself on fire. You are a scumbag. You are no better than a german in the 30ies smelling the grilled flesh and thinking “this is fine, it’s still better than bolchevism”
lol I’m not an American, go Bolshevik yourself
You think you are not
you’re going dumber with every comment.
You are americanized, what can I say? You are either german, british or from a commonwealth country. I’m betting my left balls.
If you aren’t even American then shut the fuck up. You don’t really grasp how complex the politics actually are.
We do understand it pretty well. Sincerely, an ex-Hungarian.
Removed by mod
Nobody cares about your internal politics. Your external politics is always the same and seeing all of you idiots saying “BOTH SIDE ARE FOR GENOCIDE” leads to the conclusion you people have zero ethical consideration at all. You know, since you are overtly voting for extermination… again.
Fuck off
If there’s anybody this election cycle shows us, it’s that americans do not care about foreigners life at all. They would gladly throw entire countries under the bus if it means that they get to keep living their comfortable life putting their little ballot like cowards instead of actually fighting fascism.
Fuck off drag. The US dems are guilty of extermination and everybody who vote in this election are complicit. You can call them to throw foreigners under the bus for their own gain and security, since they are bullying people to vote for the genocide party just because the other side said they were gonna be worst.
When somebody commit a crime, you punish this person, you dont give them power because some other dude talked shit.
Don’t support genocide, it’s as simple as that!
Just say whatever the fuck you want while you do whatever the fuck you want, it’s as simple as that!
Then do not call to vote for the exact people who committed it.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-made-weapons-used-by-government-of-israel-in-violation-of-international-law-and-u-s-law/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091
Wish the push was to tell the Democratic party not to engage with genocide not to tell us we have to suck it up to vote for genocide anyway.
Put it a different way: if both candidates are willing to turn a blind eye to genocide, who do you think you’d have a better chance lobbying to change their stance? One support a cease fire and a two state solution. The other doesn’t think a two start solution could work, and that Israel needs to do whatever they need to do to get the war over with.
I’m clear both are for the extermination of Palestinians and will support Israel in all their wars. I think we’re kidding ourselves acting like the difference between the two on those issues is substantial at all. They both are lobbied to so much by Israel’s pac
Based on this i’d think its harder to lobby the Dems but I really think neither party is movable on their positions in respect to Israel.
Totally agree that Kamala will be better on everything else though. Just find it fucked that we’re told to suck it up on the pro genocide stances.
First of all, at this point people in the US should vote against Trump for their safety, and that means in the current political system they have to vote for Harris. That’s the reality they have to face. The Trump party has made fascist announcements that are real and people should expect them to be made into real actions.
The problem is that the Democrats frankly have abysmal messaging and are drifting to the right further and further while using Trump as a threat to their voters. They adopt anti-immigrant policies and are distancing themselves from pro-LGBT stances, saying it’s the states decision. Both these issues as well as demands for a ceasefire poll exceptionally well, but the Harris campaign seemingly don’t want the edge. With all this they are signaling that right wing worries about immigrants and trans people are valid, although that’s absolutely not the case, and leave people to decide for example “do I want anti-immigrant light or extra harsh anti-immigrant?” when everybody says immigrants are an issue. This is unacceptably stupid and risking the vote. And that’s ignoring the elephant in the room that progressive policy like health care is exceptionally popular and using that as counter messaging would win her voters.
We’ve seen how popular the Democrats got after Harris took over and Walz got nominated. It signaled change. Now all the Democrats say that it’s gonna be the same old as usual treading on and the same bad argument vote us or you’ll get a dictatorship. I’m not denying Biden dropping out had nothing to do with the surge of popularity, but back then we also had comments like here, basically declaring any dissent from supporting a decrepit old man as the candidate as heresy. Now there are again, only Yes men here saying if you criticize Harris you’re a bot or a Trump ass eater. What is wrong with you?
Finally, I have the creeping suspicion that Democratic establishment people don’t fear a fascist Trump administration themselves personally as much as the population has to. Trump announces he will go after his enemies, Latinos and trans people (probably all queer people actually). He has anti women’s health and rights messaging all over his campaign. But that doesn’t seem to be a risk for people higher up in the party. I suspect that when you’re rich you don’t have to worry about abortion bans or HRT access. And if Trump threatens them with violence they always have money they can throw at him. It’s much more comfortable to run a risky neo liberal and right wing platform against a fascist if you can jump ship later on.
I was a Bernie-or-Bust-er in 2016 because I was confident Hilary was going to win with or without my vote. I deeply regret taking that stance and feel like I let down every woman who’s lost rights to their bodily autonomy, every family who was separated at the border, everybody whose life was lost or ruined due to the Trump administration’s incompetent response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and everybody else who has been harmed by the Trump administration.
Don’t be like me. It sucks having to vote for the lesser of two evils but that’s how our system works and not voting or voting third-party isn’t going to change that but it does run the risk of things getting a lot worse.
Can I ask what state you were voting from in 2016?
Unfortunately Gaza is a non issue. The situation would only be handled worse under the other candidate. Along with just about every other conceivable thing.
Protest voting doesn’t work when the candidate you are protesting is the least worst option. Democrats that will not vote out of principle have been conned as badly as MAGA republicans. End of story.
I think you might be on to something. Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting? I mean, it does deliver two right-of-centre parties to power, over and over again.
Where the wheels are coming off is that one of them - and some people say both - are moving further rightwards, and this is destabilising society in America.
Pretend you’re a politician. You have two groups of people that want opposite things. One of them is reliable, donates and volunteers to help your campaign. The other is feckless and seems to always find an excuse to oppose you. Which would you try to please?
Some people say… Dems are generally shit but they have definitely moved left over the last decade. A lot of new people have run and while it isn’t a sure thing by any stretch, people have been able to and have the chance to continue to move the party and also just straight up infiltrate it to push it left. Whereas the repubs have been in full sprint to the right.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
It absolutely is set up that way. This may or may not have been the intent of our election system, but it is the outcome.
I think there may be some conflict in the interpretation of “set up”. When you say it was “absolutely” set up that way, keep in mind that many if not most would interpret “set up” to definitively include intent.
Washington himself warned of the dangers of a 2 party system…
He warned about parties themselves.
Fair distinction.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
Not everything is some conspiracy to keep you down. The people who wrote the constitution just weren’t perfect and had to make political compromises, which resulted in an imperfect system.
Also, the game theory that gives us insight into voting systems, telling us the current system leads to a 2 party system, did not exist when the US constitution was written.
The dynamic was understood, it just wasn’t formalized in game theory terms. Alternative voting systems weren’t in use though, and probably wouldn’t even have been practical without automation.
Are you American?
I hope he is not. At least he wont rot in hell.
Young people don’t get involved in the system and don’t vote, nothing special about the US on that level, so it’s not surprising their priorities aren’t the priorities of the political options.
Not voting for a candidate is not the only, nor the most effective way to push a party to change positions on an issue you care about.
Removed by mod
Once you are under dictatorship, you can’t vote to hold anyone accountable. Vote for Trump and you won’t have a say in what happens to Gaza. Or anything else.
yea, but you get to brag to all the other inmates in the political prison yard that you stood up for your principles by not voting!
They’ll be in the same political prisons as their primary enemies, the classic liberal Dems.
Am I allowed physical violence to the purported leftist idiots who land us there? I’ll piss on their cracked skulls while reminding them we have the same values but I’m practical and trying to survive to fight for them.
LOL i can’t wait to get in fistfights with them
Fuck the fist fights, I’ll be playing human shield with their corpses while I sneak out in the cadaver wagon.
Oh Lemmy. Don’t ever change ❤️
I’m not as enthused as you to vote for a system where innocent civilians have to die for political convenience, sorry. My morals say that killing is wrong, and I don’t like it.
LOL you guys never fail to illustrate my point in less than 5 minutes
If your point is “some people think that killing is wrong”, feel free to consider your point proven.
You’re choosing between “lots of people being killed” vs “LOOOOOOTTTTTSSSS of people being killed”
Based on your own morality you have outlined, ethically you would choose to vote Kamala then, as under her far far fewer people will die.
Removed by mod
No demon at all has created it; other humans have. You aren’t the sole person responsible for responding to it, but your actions will contribute to what happens next, non-action included.
You can say that this kind of situation implies someone else has done something wrong, leaving you holding the bag, and you’d be right, if nobody had done something wrong, we wouldn’t have a genocide to talk about in the first place- but saying that leaving you holding the moral bag was a wrong thing to do doesn’t change the fact that you are now holding that bag, along with all the rest of us. And about half of us (referring to the people of the US as a whole), if you haven’t noticed, have every desire of causing even more harm. “Neither” is simply not an option when failing to choose the least bad thing will result in someone else choosing the worse one. It’s not fair, it’s repulsive even, but the universe does not work in such a way as to ensure only fair moral choices exist. Morality is a thing we invented, the world doesn’t care about conforming to it.
Getting the best outcome you have with the bad options presented you matters more than whether or not you feel your own personal hands are clean- because metaphorically clean hands will not save the people of Palestine, and likely would doom some, and others elsewhere, that could have been saved. A clean feeling conscience bought by leaving people you could have helped to die is little more than a delusion of innocence.
i wish we were face to face. you’re pathetic.
What do you think about China’s Uighur genocide?
There is no genocide that I agree with.
Thanks, as a person with a trans gender identity, this really helps me to understand that nothing will change, because fear and oppression will be utilised to force people to rationalise harmful actions as inevitable.
A trans gender identity? That sounds like a broken English interpretation.
It’s a fucky word construction, but it’s correct and in wide use. Transgender and trans are different concepts. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Hey, I’m autistic, queer, and an immigrant. You can hate me if you want, plenty of people do.
My gender identity is trans. I’m also ethnically Ukrainian. Feel free to assume I’m Russian because I’m different to you. That’s what human society does, create ougroups and scapegoat them. I try to avoid doing it, which makes me an enemy of those who do, because I say impossible things like “can we not kill innocent people?” For practical purposes, that will not happen, and asking for it is naive.
I know that. But, although impractical and naive, that does not stop it from being the morally correct outcome. My autism shows itself in a very strong sense of justice, and I find justice to be more important than practicality.
How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn’t magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don’t hate you either. I can’t say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn’t you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?
as a person with a trans gender identity
I’m gonna go ahead and stop you right there chief. Transgender people don’t write “transgender” as two words. Big “as a black man” energy here, cishet loser.
Our posting buddy’s fucky word construction is correct and in wide use. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Also, if you’re still reading, please also add to your lexicon the absolute gift that is “cissie.”
As a non-binary person who is under the trans gender umbrella, without being transgender in the sense of having transitioned across genders, I am careful with my language. I am not transgender in the way people typically understand.
Feel free to participate in non-binary erasure, I’m used to it. Humans love creating outgroups so they can bully each other, that is why I find myself not labelling myself as human. I think gender is stupid, and I think humans are rude.
just STFU already
I’m voting so the state doesn’t kill my sister if she has complications in her pregnancy.
That is good. I would also like to be able to vote so the state doesn’t send weapons to enable one country to kill innocent people in another. Some of those people dying are sisters, and their siblings feel much like you might when they are without them.
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide.”
Removed by mod
It doesn’t take enthusiasm to make an active move toward harm reduction if and when you see the opportunity, especially when the consequences are this serious. I would love to see ranked choice voting and a diverse and motivated number of parties to challenge the dichotomy we have now, but I live in the reality of the viable options in front of me in this moment.
This isn’t about an acceptance or endorsement of the system we have now. Unfortunately for all of us, however, this is the system we currently live in. If my choices are between bad and catastrophic, I’m going with bad. Doubly so in cases like these. The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse while making multiple new groups of people suffer, too.
If Trump wins and things get as bad, or worse, than the scenarios that have been proposed on record, more people will continue to lose their homes, autonomy, and lives in the United States. Many people who are suffering from atrocities actively going on in places other than the Middle East will likely also be worse off under these policies.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it and chose to do nothing if we suddenly all find ourselves living in that world.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it
How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.
but I live in the reality of the viable options
Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve ‘innocent people are dying right now’. This bothers me.
If it’s the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say “The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse”. You’re saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?
Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.
Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.
Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.
Racist yank cares about american life first. But they are very different than MAGAs /s
My underlying point was the nuance of this entire situation, and you provided another obtuse black-and-white response. If you can’t radically accept the world and your life, it’s going to make it awfully hard to see it well enough to make changes.
There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it’s entirely appropriate to be angry that isn’t an option, but it isn’t the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn’t available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn’t been that black and white for a long time.
Removed by mod
Not voting is a choice as well. A choice that will make it so that your voice will not have an impact on whether the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less. Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care about those whose lives are being threatened, the opposite of what you seem to think it is.
the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less
The most infuriating thing about you nazi motherfuckers is you still have the fucking gall to believe you’re better than the other side
A great Canadian philosopher once said “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!”
It’s really not hard to rush to the polls
Honestly my ideology on it is the same as my parents and my grandparents, and even my great grandparents ideology.
I don’t care who you vote for, what you vote for, or your reasoning’s for doing do.
But if you refuse to vote, regardless of reason, you lose any say in complaining about what happens as a result, as you actively did nothing to help prevent it, meaning you have no right to removed about the outcome.
Not voting is a choice as well.
Yes, but I don’t have any other choice, myself.
Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care
No, it’s an announcement that I care so much about innocent people dying that I am morally conflicted about being asked to be part of a political system which condones it.
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
I cannot cast a vote in this election.
Not sure why you’re acting like you can vote on this in the first place
I’m acting like someone who is saying that they do not accept killing innocent people as a viable part of a political process that will make the human world better.
“In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.” - Trump
Right so people should vote Green to hold Harris accountable while they still can.
Exactly! Because when she loses and Trump wins… Hey… Wait a second…
Darn you are correct. We should not hold politicians accountable after all. Please downvote the person above me who suggested it.
Removed by mod
If you want to engage those bad faith accounts, don’t respond to the Gaza thing; that’s a trap. Instead, ask about other issues like climate issues, housing issues, food insecurity problems, etc. ask them what their third party candidate has planned for that and ask for evidence of these plans. They’ll move goalposts and attempt to get back on Gaza. Keep them coming back to those other issues that affect Americans daily. Many of those accounts are here to derail conversation. Derail them in turn and force the conversation back on track.
Or do what I do and downvote then block, then post the occasional reminder that most of those accounts are bad faith at best.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Your pro genocide stance has been noted.
Your pro genocide stance has been noted.
And they’ve been banned because they keep saying the same stuff, being banned everywhere, then making new accounts
Removed by mod
You said you support the slaughter of innocent people. I’m not worried about spies, this is a public forum.
Removed by mod
I know. I mean I’m not a huge fan of Harris’ Gaza stance. Honestly I’m not sure why it’s political at all to call what Israel is doing wrong. But come on, Trump will be 100 times worse. And that’s just on the Israel/Gaza thing. I’m not sure how you can look at these two and decide that Harris is wrong enough about the Gaza thing that you come to the conclusion that either a third party or Trump vote is warranted. Which makes me believe is not genuine and likely foreign agent spreading chaos and misinformation.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m not russian, idiot. Accusing peace activits of being a foreign agent always have been part of jingoist propaganda. Remember when everybody being against vietnam war was a moscow spy?
I’m just a regular dude who, like the rest of the world, is looking at america with contempt. At you too
“Peace activist…?”
Weren’t you wishing death on others, like, two posts ago? And you’re laughing at others for inverted values.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It’s because there is a large, internally-polled segment of the Pennsylvania electorate who are Jewish and sympathetic to Israel.
Harris can’t afford to not court them.
I have no doubt she vehemently dislikes Bibi and would wish to cut aid.
Removed by mod
Not only that, but AIPAC is a serious force that has demonstrated their willingness to aggressively smear every candidate who speaks out against Israel; they’ve already done this for a number of races.
Harris is basically trapped here. The best thing she can do is stay vague until after the election, when she might actually have the power to do something about it. No one on Palestine’s side has anything to gain from her losing votes over it.
Yeah this is basically my thoughts as well. Stuck between Iraq and a hard place (I had to do the Hot Shots joke here… too fitting).
But seriously, AIPAC has way too much power in American politics. And your comment about Palestine is spot on. She is walking a very thin line, but this is the nature of politics and nuance. That orange fucker has no clue about any of this.
It’s because there is a large, internally-polled segment of the Pennsylvania electorate who are Jewish and sympathetic to Israel.
Harris can’t afford to not court them.
I have no doubt she vehemently dislikes Bibi and would wish to cut aid.
I hope you are right. But, without evidence (if there is any, please share it), this might be wishful thinking. You might just be a more moral person than Harris. I might be being extremely unfair, but it doesn’t seem impossible for an elected official to be willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people in a country without American voters to gain power.
I think there have been some “leaked” info to reputable journalists how both Biden and Harris pretty much despise Bibi at this point. I think if you look at it in the aggregate in how they pushed for the ceasefire (as opposed to Trump speaking with Bibi to actively undermine it), in her comments after meeting with Bibi shortly after becoming the presumed nominee following Biden stepping down — there is a clear tonal change from, say, 6-months-ago even. So yeah, I think her hands are pretty well tied.
Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.
And everyone conveniently forgets that Biden did try to stop aid to Israel earlier this year. Congress blocked it. Is he trying hard enough? No probably not (I don’t claim to be an expert in middle east geopolitics, it is possible that the situation is an even more thoroughly fucked Gordian knot than it appears), but he did try. And the alternative this November thinks what he is trying is “too tough” on Bibi.
Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.
I completely agree with that. I admit to being impatient for change now, because innocent people are dying now. It is sad that elections (and electorates) get in the way of such important moral principles.
“Gaza is not the only issue” should not be the takeaway here:
“Even on this issue [Gaza], Donald Trump and his right-wing friends are worse,” Sanders said in the six-minute video, which he posted to X. He noted that Republicans have fought to block humanitarian aid to Gaza and that Trump — who has praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — has suggested Gaza would be a great site for beachfront development.
Yeah, when framed that way, it’s a reminder we’ve had to vote for compromise all along… And it’s fucking fine and we have a mostly functioning society.
Here come the tankies to call Bernie Sanders BlueMAGA in 3…2…
Somehow ‘tankie’ now means not wanting to send tanks to commit a genocide
Way to get out in front of them by casting moral consistency as a bad thing though. Devastating.
Here come the
tankiesRussian trolls to call Bernie Sanders BlueMAGA in 3…2…Fixed that for you
One is a moral/political position and the other is just reskinned antisemitism from the 1900’s
I’m not sure why people haven’t been saying this more.
It’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position. The people of Gaza matter, and we can be pretty sure that Harris will continue current Biden Admin policies on it. You can’t argue for the hundred other policies at stake without knowingly allowing genocide to happen with US approval.
But here’s the thing: there are two very prominent Jewish people who don’t believe for a second that both sides are the same. One of them is Bernie Sanders. The other is Benjamin Netanyahu.
Removed by mod
It’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position. The people of Gaza matter
Thank you for saying this.
If I were American, I would surely vote for Harris. But I would want to have been able to do more to keep people safe from state terrorism.
I have been. It tends to get downvoted by both extremes on Lemmy.
On my instance, the UI doesn’t even give a downvote option. There’s probably a way around that, though, not that I am interested.
Getting rid of downvotes is, I think, a good thing.
Getting rid of downvotes is, I think, a good thing
says the person who gets downvoted for all the asinine shit they say
I’ve been foolishly arguing with people for months on this topic.
We have been, everywhere we can.
Hey look, someone finally posted an article about this so the mods don’t remove it!
Here’s the link to the actual speech from Sanders: https://youtu.be/Vf5MThSniiY
I came to the Politics community 9 hours after it was posted to find discussion. Nothing.
Personally I feel an exception should be made when the news is literally just a video, why wait for a journalist to regurgitate it in written form?
Anyway
