406
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
406 points (92.1% liked)
World News
38634 readers
3121 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You know what would to be really, REALLY uncomfortable?
If Harris loses, there's a strong chance that it might be over this terrible war. What a stupid, stupid reason to have to live through another Trump presidency.
The harris campaign is openly hostile to the anti-war anti-genocide vote. They are not interested in trying to get our votes. If they make the calculation that they need the anti-war vote to win they will try to appeal to us but they have decided (so far) that they don't want us and don't need us.
Don't blame us for not voting for a candidate who doesn't want our vote and is actively hostile to our position.
I agree with all of that. Except for the part about possibly appealing to the anti-war voter if it would help them win. There are some -- Biden for instance -- who clearly would rather lose than do that. I don't know Harris well enough to judge.
I think it's sad that people complain when someone says that they won't vote for the lesser of two evils. It's sad because it shows a profound misunderstanding about how democracy is supposed to work, and what they're entitled to demand from their fellow citizens.
The largest voting block in every election is the depressed voter. And the reason is that our system is constructed to favor a broken two-party system even at the expense of civil participation that can solve our problems. Millions of people don't vote because they see no benefit in doing so. The problem to be solved is that the political system has failed these people, not that they aren't showing sufficient enthusiasm to do paperwork to satisfy the demands of people who feel invested in the outcome of elections.
The media falsely claims that each candidate has 47% support when really they each have about 30% support, and a larger number of people have not felt any interest in supporting either candidate. That's a massive failing in reporting and political process.
So you have three options, all having a bad outcome on the most important thing you care about.
One of the options maybe has better outcomes on some other things you care about.
Another option has bad outcomes in almost everything you care about, plus maybe even a worse outcome to your most important thing.
The third option is to leave it up everyone else to pick between the first two.
I know what I'd pick, what will you do?
You're absolutely ignoring their comment. If democrat voters showed a spine and conditioned their vote to an end to the genocide, the democrat leadership may decide that it's worth it to cater to these voters to win the elections if that's what they want. By enabling all their actions through "vote blue no matter who" you're just degrading the democracy further, and postponing the choice 4 more years during which nothing will happen.
"If we hold the country hostage, they'll definitely do what I want before the opposition makes everything irreversibly worse."
"let's blame voters for wanting to vote against genocide instead of blaming the party which is committing genocide and openly speaking of having the most LETHAL army in the world"
The only two real options are both pro genocide, pro military industrial complex which tells me this country is fucked there's nothing I can do to help that. All I can do is follow my conscience and my conscience won't let me rest if I vote for genocide
FTFY
No. It will be so much worse.
FTFY
Evangelicals like the genocide, brings their death cult closer to its end.
Except it really doesn't since that world already ended in the mid 1800s, much like the Green Sahara period ending, and The Bronze Age Collapse ended the world 6000 years ago causing them to write that apocalyptic fictive.
How many horse drawn carriages do you see on a daily basis? How many oxen plow your fields? That was the norm until the mid to late 1800s. That world already ended. They just refuse to accept their own books.
Nah, your boy trump promises to end the war in mere hours (with industrial genocide).
So let's not vote for kkkamala harriss because we care so much about Palestinians.
The genocide in Gaza is bipartisan, and the ongoing atrocities are taking place under a democrat administration.
Netanyahu is a Democrat?
If it's bipartisan then you are free to vote based on other issues.
"we can ignore genocide as long as it's bipartisan"
Go fight with Hamas if you're so emboldened to direct action.
You won't, of course.
Your "totally rational and justified" calls for voting differently surely will fix the situation on the other side of the planet. You're totally saving the Palestinians!
Not so far down the planet when it's your government funding the genocide, giving the perpetrators their political legitimacy in the international sphere, and literally shipping the weapons with which the genocide is carried out.
Go make a counter-reactionary terrorist insurgency or political group in the US if you're so concerned about the other types of rights you'll lose if Trump gets into office
Good one, troll.
Harris has promised to enforce the laws of the US. If she does do, then The Hayes Act would prohibit any arms shipments to Israel. I'm not saying that is definitely what she intends to do, I am saying that is the most diplomatic she can be in the current political climate of the US, and still win, with the intention of deescalation in Israel while still supporting Ukraine.
The party is literally in the government right now. Biden is a rotting corpse who is obviously not making the decisions for US international policy, so the arm deals with Israel are with the full consent and approval of all the democrat elites. Harris won't change this as it hasn't changed for the past 80 years.
Biden is a rotting corpse, but he's also a self admitted Zionist. Harris isn't.
Harris openly said in the DNC convention that she believes in "Israel's right to defend itself", while not letting any pro-palestinian talk in the convention (cops had a representative though). It's painfully obvious.
Oh no, the person running for POTUS didn't want protesters at her rally? Why could this be? She must love killing Palestinians because I can't fathom the image of protesters at a convention would sully her image and hurt her chances at winning.
Seriously, are you this fucking dense?
Ok, so if it hurts the party's image being pro-genocide, they can solve it very easily right now while they're in government
Israel wants Trump. They know that Trump will supercharge their campaign and they are counting on Jill Stein to siphon off votes from Harris. That's why they've upped their campaign like this. They are goading Stein to get more press and convince more liberal voters. Because they know that, due to the significant democrat base that unreservedly supports Israel no matter what they do, Harris will never pull her support while campaigning but they are sure that if she wins Biden and she will start playing hardball to get them to stop and they don't want to stop, they want to wipe out all Palestinians. This has been a stated goal of theirs. And Trump and the Republicans will help them do it more than Harris will.
The thing I find hilarious is Jill Stein had no coverage while RFK was still in contention. Then as soon as the handlers realized he wasn't going to work they pivoted to the next alternative.
I'm sorry, but this narrative so completely exonerates Biden and Harris for their direct responsibility for risking the election over this.
The notion that Harris is in a bind is an absolute fiction. The overwhelming majority of Americans want an arms embargo with Israel. It has broad bipartisan support, including with an overwhelming majority of Democrats. And in top of that, she chose to not even let a popular Palestinian American lawmaker from Georgia give a vetted speech endorsing her at the DNC.
She is risking this election. That is a personal choice. I hope she wins, but if she loses because she didn't have votes she made clear she doesn't want, that is not on Jill Stein, that's a Harris decision.
Red and blue serve the same interests
Getting worse means changes are required... Trump wouldn't make anything better but there is no reason to suggest Harris wants to make things better.
Hey at least he could never win again, silver lining lol. Then all we have to do is kill him when he tries to go dictator which honestly shouldn't be that hard, the nearest secret service agent may even do it...extrajudiciously.
(I have a pet theory that one of the functions of the secret service is to quickly turn from bodyguards to assassins if a dictatorial president does attempt a real take over. I mean, why not? if it isn't it should be.)
A world where Trump gets elected and then assassinated is a world where JD Vance is president of an America that elected Trump and then saw him assassinated. That's how you get Gilead by 2025. That is NOT something to fantasize about. That's a hell scenario. And it's why people who think that there's any solutions to our problem that come out of a gun are -- and I mean this with all due respect -- very, very dumb.
And to put a fine point on this: it's not that this wouldn't be a bad idea if not for JD Vance. It's illustrative of how political violence in real life almost universally makes whatever problem might've motivated the violence suddenly far worse rather than better.
I think if a VP helps aid and abbett a president's hostile takeover they go to prison, but I could be wrong I suppose.
In any case: well, if he gets elected and then does go dictator, because that's the hypothetical in which I said he should be shot, what would you rather do? "Just not elect him" isn't an option because again, in the hypothetical he's already dictator. If you have a better idea I'm all ears, but tbh it seems like the best way to deal with dictators to me, and tbf at least he's getting off easier then mussolini or ghadaffi(sp?), most dictators are dragged through the street and sodomized with brooms and shit.
Furthermore: Ok fine, so you shoot a dictator and that legally means his 2nd in command remains in power instead of prison (for some unlikely reason). Ok so shoot both. What's the goddamn problem here? If they literally go dictator, why the hell not? It's literally already punishable by death to take over the whole country by force I think.
The first thing you need to know is that if Trump gets elected, there is no discernible point between whether he "goes dictator" or not. People just use power and whether they're a dictator is a subjective exercise for historians.
Second: if Trump gets elected, everyone should actually be doing the same things they do if Harris gets elected, which are also the same things we should all have been doing under Biden, Trump, Obama, etc: which is building a base of local power to stand up for the most threatened among us and push back against authoritarian state power.
In practice, this means getting to know your neighbors. Knowing who serves as your mayor and city council and county council, and police chief, and local prosecutor. Then you need to organize with your local community to build political power to support democracy and oppose authoritarian power. And if you and the folks in the next town do this, you form a bloc of political will to do the same thing at the state level, and eventually the federal level.
This work still needs done if Harris wins. She is a better person than Trump, but the larger system both would command is a loaded gun. We cannot simply keep trying to keep the gun in the hands of the lesser of two evils, we need to remove the bullets. That means things like public financing of elections and ranked choice voting. It's not as dramatic as shooting politicians you don't like, but unfortunately, in the real world this is how dismantling fascism actually works.
Well tbf I don't disagree with that, but good luck with it (and especially in time for the next presidency to end, which is about 4y).
Tbh it seems more likely to me that either one would say "know what? I'm king/queen now" and get domed by someone who works "for" them who says "nope" than all the country comes together and builds support networks, but ya can't place all your eggs in one basket.
You mean like when he tried to overthrow the 2020 election by rallying his supporters to march on the capitol?
Keyword tried. Quite unsuccessfully, not even near the level where a secret service agent would be doing that if they are tasked with it (but I bet they were thinking about it being possible if they are.)
I mean really, if that is his best coup let him try again lol. Real quality coup you got there, less dead cops than Chris Dorner got by himself.
Nah fuck that. Trying to overthrow a democratically elected president is always wrong, and not taking him to task for it empowers him to try it again.
Sure, by all means take this as an actual endorsement rather than me making fun of him, lol.