this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
756 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3386 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 93 points 1 week ago (8 children)

All the one-issue voters: uhh... what now?

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Two days before the election with no substance?

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (4 children)

With no time for AIPAC to completely rat fuck the election and get Trump elected. Give her some time to help prevent the destruction of democracy and if she doesn't move on the issue then she'll reap what she sows.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This was my thought as well. I get the feeling she's been fairly quiet on the subject until now due to the power AIPAC has in our politics. If she spoke out this whole time, I'm sure they would have thrown all their financial and political power against her.

I hope we're right.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Me too. Although even once Harris takes office, AIPAC would still have a lot of power and influence. But I'm choosing to remain optimistically hopeful here.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All we need to do is freaking STOP standing in the way of the UN. How many times has the US vetoed the UN in attempts to assuage the horrors being visited on these Gazan people.

Yep, hopefully Harris will be able to direct the US reps at the UN to stop doing that much.

Unfortunately it seems there's a law that requires the US to defund where the UN recognizes Palestine as an independent state (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/unesco-votes-to-admit-palestine-over-us-objections/2011/10/31/gIQAMleYZM_story.html / https://archive.is/67xzK ) but I don't think that applies to the scenario you just discussed.

(I also don't get how that law works with the US supporting a two state solution - how can the US support a two state solution, one of which being Palestine - and defund those who recognize two states too?)

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago

You're not dont worry. But heres hoping she somehow wins either way. Otherwise we're fucked.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

and if she doesn’t move on the issue then she’ll reap what she sows.

But the next election will be the most important election ever and Republicans will be ready to commit N+1 genocides if elected.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Even given that, "end the war as soon as possible" is an open ended statement. The war would end if everyone in Gaza was dead, and that could happen pretty quick if all the gloves came off.

Still, saying something is nice.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Making peace by making a desert

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 week ago

yawn thats magical thinking. If that was the case she'd have committed to enforcing America's laws on not arming genocidal forces if she was serious about. All she did was trot out some tokens and say the same thing she's said the entire campaign.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo....

This seems about the same

Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won't look so much like pandering

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners ("detainees") in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it's highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn't want to move any of them to the US, because they didn't want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???

The president isn't supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we've allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago

He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It's one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Who can blame the president for ruling over a hidden torture camp full of innocent people? It's out of their hands. That's just how USA works. \s

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

It’s out of their hands.

Uh, yeah, it literally was. Unless you're saying that you want the president to be able to do whatever they want, even when a majority of congress and courts say no.

This might give you some better idea of what happened.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That might all be true but it only really illustrates my point - this too isn't deliverable. But lying can buy some votes

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

It's not lying under any conventional definition of lying though. Saying something is a lie usually indicates deceptive intent, along with a knowledge--or a reasonable belief--that something you're saying isn't accurate. If I believe that the earth is flat, and I say so, am I lying? Or am I just wrong?

Biden said that he would cancel student loans; he's done everything in his legal authority, and a few things that weren't, to try an cancel them out. Do you think that the fact that SCOTUS prevented him from doing so makes it a lie? Or was he unable to follow through due to factors that he couldn't directly control?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago

For fuck sake... HE TRIED

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It's hilarious how libs think this is any different from what genocide joe has been saying for the past year.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

genocide joe

Oh shit, breaking out the hits! Can we throw a "Brandon" in there and get real sentimental about it?

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nothing? This is nothing new from her. Its no commitment..its vaguely worded trash.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How does Trump's "You've got to finish the problem" sound? Because to me that's not vague at all.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

Sounds like a problem of you vote for him. Im certainly not 😂 nor is my state.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

As someone who is frequently called a single issue voter over a number of different issues:

Ummm what? Her statement was insultingly empty (the entire article is air) and the title contradicts what she's been saying for 6 months. I'm not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn

[–] logi@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn

Do they have billboards saying "reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity"?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Do they have billboards saying "reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity"?

They should. The overwhelming majority of Biden voters voted against Trump more than for Biden and I'd bet the farm that, while probably to a significantly lesser degree, Harris is going to win in the same way.

The Dem leadership hasn't updated the pillars of their electoral and policymaking strategy since 1992 and it really shows.

Even when Harris or Walz say something truly based that gets the Left hopeful for real change in the right direction (which has happened a few times), some apparatchik always takes pains to point out that it's "not part of the platform" 😮‍💨

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago

Press releases walking back good things she said was kind of the hallmark of her primary campaign in 2020 too.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah I really wish she had been saying this before yesterday.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Easy, they refuse to believe her.

After all, if she didn't sow discord by pointlessly undermining the president while an essentially powerless Vice President, she must love genociding brown people even more than Trump does somehow.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

they refuse to believe her.

I mean like, I would believe her if she rolled out a plan for how the US is going to stop funding Israel? Or a plan for holding the Israeli military accountable? Or maybe I would believe her if she didn't hold a press conference last week gaslighting us that Israel has to right to defend itself?

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I agree. I'm just hoping they've made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn't intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.

It's her or Trump, and there's zero chance Trump will make things better, so anyone who cares about Gaza and has a realistic outlook on the situation should support Harris.

[–] jezebelle@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 week ago

They still won't vote. They don't want to get off the couch. Gaza was just the lowest hanging fruit to pick and stay at home scrolling Facebook.