Bernie Sanders: Vote Harris because Gaza is ‘not the only issue’

submitted 2 weeks ago by Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca

forward.com/fast-forward/668878/bernie-sanders-…

897

Log in to comment

399 Comments

“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.

It’s not fine. It’s such a privilege on your part to claim that the status quo is lovely. I’ve been to funerals for people who had their relatives die in Gaza. It’s tearing apart the community watching bodies of Gazan children on social media and Harris saying she wouldn’t have changed a thing.

And it’s fucking fine

This is part of the problem with America. Centrists are so self centered that they will condone mass murder of nameless masses to keep their personal gravy train rolling.

I'm not a centrist. I'm a pragmatist survivor. The opposite of privilege. Academic bullshit costs lives.
You don't know my values besides this one comment.

I've literally led protests against genocide and violence. You don't know me. You people look for places to grandstand and project your defensiveness because you're either a bad actor or you know deep down your idealism is wrong.

That's a bad headline. Watch his video, he makes a much more nuanced argument.

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.

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 ❤️

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.

Oh hey everybody, it’s the toughest guy on the internet! What’s it like being so damn tough?

Yeah. I'd be enraged at someone for putting my family in an internment camp. How odd of me.

You'd fight us but not Republicans because we destroy the notion that you're the good guys. You both want to preserve the status quo, with libs preferring marginally less grotesque methods of enforcement, and superficially opposing the fucked up methods Republicans prefer to employ. Good cop vs. bad cop routine, and you hate us because we're pointing out that the good cop wants us imprisoned too.

Let's be real, in actual prison, you'd be making aliances with the skinheads and guards 15 minutes in, then call on them to do your dirty work instead of doing any fighting yourself.

Same dynamic you're employing right now actually: "Fall in line or I'll sic the Republicans on you!" while fantasizing about the left getting sent to the camps for daring to oppose your brand of status quo preservation...just like Republicans, but less honest about your intentions.

Dipshits of both lib and fash varieties fail to recognize themselves as allies in defence of capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy, *yet somehow you always instinctively know who is more important to fight*, the left.

The SPD voted for the concentration camps the KPD died in. Same dynamic will play out here.

You defended Biden for not closing the migrant camps, understanding that you would never spend a second inside one. We opposed them the entire time, not caring that they'd eventually be used for us.

Smart fascists understand how useful your brand of performative opposition is to legitimizing the system that keeps the treats flowing, so even if they throw did your ass in prison to appease their base (they won't), you'll be let go. You're too useful an idiot for keeping the real opposition (communists) from taking power.

I deleted a long personal rant. Tldr I've spent decades fighting the right. I am the left. I never fought "the left" until you useful idiots showed up in numbers. Only outcomes in reality matter. There is an objectively better reality for the 99%, out of our two options. Yelling and screaming, and opting into this victim role in an internet stranger's hypothetical about a group responsible for the end of society...dude wtf? Why does that have to be you? Just don't do that to us and you'll have nothing to be defensive about
Same victimhood porn as the right.

[deleted] 2 weeks ago

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.

I'm voting so the state doesn't kill my sister if she has complications in her pregnancy.

[deleted] a week ago

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."

I'd like to do that too, but sadly that's not on the ballot this year.

Only way I see our way out of these situations in the future is ranked choice vote and abolish the electoral college so 3rd party candidates are actually viable. I've been donating to fairvote.org and joined the forward party for that reason, but in the meantime I can only help damage control while I wait for the calvary of rcv.

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.

A great Canadian philosopher once said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!"

Maybe these people who are choosing not to vote are explicietly voting to end our system of government. Much the same way the far right is doing, but for different reasons.

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 bitch about the outcome.

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

[deleted] 2 weeks ago

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.

asked to be part of a political system

But, you're not being asked. You already are. You don't get to pretend you're not, just because you didn't give your permission. This isn't an opt-in situation.

And I get that maybe you feel that isn't fair, and I agree it isn't. Just like none of us asked to be born, none of us asked to be part of society either. But we are, and we have to deal with that now.

[deleted] a week ago

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.

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.

LOL you guys never fail to illustrate my point in less than 5 minutes

[deleted] 2 weeks ago

If your point is "some people think that killing is wrong", feel free to consider your point proven.

His point is that some people think killing is so wrong that they'll actively advocate for a course of action that will kill waaaaay more people.

You value your own moral purity over the lives of other people.

That's his point.

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.

What do you think about China's Uighur genocide?

So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?

[deleted] a week ago

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

[deleted] a week ago

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you want more death, got it. Abstaining from voting for the lesser evil is a choice, and you've made it. Blocked.

Exactly.

"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

If Harris wants my vote she should at least try the bare minimum to get it. Her campaign wouldn’t let Palestinians endorse her at the DNC. Her entire message to our community is; we make no promises at all but Trump is worse. That’s no comfort to those in my community who had relatives die in bombings by US-supplied weapons. “Trump didn’t kill my relatives. Biden did.”

Why is Harris so bad at this outreach? All she has to do is make some bland comments and it would win more people over, and she can’t even do that because she thinks being a hardliner against our community will win over a few Republican votes. Clinton tried that in 2016 and it failed.

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.....

oh-you-2135436703

Darn you are correct. We should not hold politicians accountable after all. Please downvote the person above me who suggested it.

We can always hold "we'll organize and push her left after the election" people accountable. If they're honest, then more people *will* organize, big win. If they're not, then they'll be so ashamed that they make new accounts.

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.

He is a leader.

I remember that old footage of him in Burlington in the 70's, talking to random kids in the mall, asking them what was important to them--drug policy, free speech, good schools--and just talking to them about how they could make a difference. From the bully pulpit, he would have been transformative.

I like one of the comments on that video. Some people do a filibuster in Washington and they read from the phone book or read a recipe book, Bernie talks about the law at issue, straight policy for 8 and 1/2 hours, and it's coherent.

Agree 100%, but he's not a god. He can be wrong, same as everyone else. I think he played this wrong.

He's always been a social imperialist and had the same murderous nazi foreign policy as the rest of the state. He was always a compromise for leftists.

Just look at how he acted during the recent coups/attempted coups in south america.

Its hard to be informed about that stuff without searching for it very very explicitely. Where do you get your news on the regular?

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

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.

[deleted] a week ago

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.

[deleted] a week ago

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.

I've been foolishly arguing with people for months on this topic.

We have been, everywhere we can.

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.

[deleted] a week ago

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.

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.

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?

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.

The system itself needs to change.

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.

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?

What exact issue do you disagree with from the feckless ones? What made it so hard?

You're not doing a very good job of pretending to be a politician if that's your answer.

so you can't point a single instance. got it. sounds like your hypothetical politician was an asshole not worthy of the job.

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.

People should vote how they want, but should continue to push to replace First past the post voting in their state so people can vote how they want and still count their vote against the republicans.

Electoral reform is such a no brainer, it's a shame the democratic party puts it's desire for easy wins over the security and stability of the nation.

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, violence-free lifestyle, putting their little ballot like cowards instead of actually fighting fascism.

Here come the tankies to call *Bernie Sanders* BlueMAGA in 3...2...

Here come the tankies Russian 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

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.

Tankie means anyone promoting actions that would have a devastating impact on America as a whole (e.g. Trump returning to office).

Gaza is hardly even an issue on the ballot, you're picking between slow genocide and fast genocide.

Slow genocide is better though. We all get that right?

Certainly gives us more time to try to do something about it, yeah.

Certainly gives us more time to try to do something about it, yeah.

The time to do something about it is during an election. Politicians couldnt care less what you think after they have your vote. They dont need your money.

If there was a part of the election to do something about it that time was the Primaries. The primaries that only like 30M people vote in every election. Right now your choices are between death and more death but also closer to home.

Harris could still change her mind at the last minute.

Slow genocide is better

Frankly no. Oppression like this is worse than slaughter. There’s a reason Gazans are telling reporters and social media they are relieved when their loved ones die, because they’re literally starving and in pain and squalor.

Which one should you prefer slowly genocide by starvation, diseases.

Or

Fast genocide by increased bombing and worse weapons.

I don't think this is a choice anyone would want to choose from.

Then we agree that Gaza isnt a partisan choice, but to answer your rhetorical I would choose slow simply because there will always be an avenue for justice as long as some of Palestine remains.

Gaza is not on ballot I agree. But trying to convince people who don't wish to participate in a genocide by telling them that their concerns don't matter is wrong.

Israel has declared if not by words surely by actions that they won't stop as long as Palestine remains.

If it matters to you then you should be making intelligent choices to reduce harm to an absolute minimum instead of getting angry and stupid enough to supporting NeoHitler, either directly or indirectly.

How different would he be from all the dictators and despots US has propped up elsewhere in the world. World will still turn, sun will still rise. All dictators die, all dictatorship ends. This is not end of the world.

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?

TX at the time. Generally regarded as solidly red. However, looking at the numbers in '16 and '20, I wouldn't be surprised if everybody in the state who had either voted third-party or not at all because of the belief that their vote wouldn't make a difference would have indeed been enough to potentially flip the state.

I'm hoping this will be the year we see Texas flip blue. That would be beautiful.

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

  1. there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
  2. 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

Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful

i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing. there's been so many women throughout history that could have been judith pulgars, politically speaking, and ended up getting pushed into more subservient positions

that's the main reason. i dont think that's an awful reason

as for the russian war thing, i rather like living in a pre-nuclear-war society.

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%.

with the current stranglehold the pro-Israeli lobby has on American politics (includes both GOP and DNC) even 0.1% is a stretch

AIPAC even brags about it: https://aipacorg.app.box.com/s/t8vvqt7evxvgkzn5jktpwejate6oxo0y

98% of AIPAC endorsed candidates won their election in 2022. if you are a politician and you say something mildly critical of Israel they will go to war with you and do everything so that your opponent wins

Israel has figured out how to hack American democracy. There is no going back at this point. We are a pro-Israel country for the foreseeable future, regardless of which candidate wins this election or the next one or the next one

lol I'm not an American, go Bolshevik yourself

If you aren't even American then shut the fuck up. You don't really grasp how complex the politics actually are.

They're really not though. You literally have two options and one is so obviously worse

You really think we don't understand your politics even though we see them being discussed every day all day online and they affect us all the time? I happen to have Mr. Putin as my neighbor, and if that orange shithead wins the election on the other side of the pond, I'm fucked. You Yanks really seem to underestimate the effect your politics have on the *entire world* and how invested everyone else is in them.

We do understand it pretty well. Sincerely, an ex-Hungarian.

"Vote for the candidate who will continue to fund a genocide to show you dont support genocide "

Man yall will do anything to avoid a socialist movement.

Voting isn’t actually support

On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action

Interesting. So, by drag's logic, a Trump voter isn't responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.

It's amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y'all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.

I see what you're trying to do drag but it just doesn't track.

What they think their vote contributes to:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the correct reason and the reason why the genocide will continue no matter who is elected.

Aipac has bought enough of american politicians that it has rendered votes worthless.

People should vote on matters other than this for with any outcome US sponsored genocide is inevitable.

[deleted] a week ago

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.

[deleted] a week ago

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.

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.

Genocide is against the law and punished by death sentence.

Deleted by moderator

"Peace activist..?"

Weren't you wishing death on others, like, two posts ago? And you're laughing at others for inverted values.

So you want to argue in bad faith.

It’s fine to debate the idea that Gaza should not be the most important issue this election, but if your plan is to troll people and do fallacious debate then you’re not helping anyone. If you want to sell out Palestinians for personal gain, just be honest about it.

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, violence-free lifestyle, putting their little ballot like cowards instead of actually fighting fascism.

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

You said you support the slaughter of innocent people. I'm not worried about spies, this is a public forum.

America voting for the lesser evil since 1792.

It's not the time to stop now. But I better see all of you on the streets with signs on November 6th.

Lesser-evilism has gotten us to where we find ourselves today: bargaining with genocide. If you don't stop now, I wonder what it would take.

We should have stopped when the alternative was McCain or Romney. We can have a chance to stop again when the alternative is similarly more sane than Trump.

We will never be going back. Lesser-evilism has led to incrementally more evil, not less. Trump and Trumpism are symptoms of the sickness, not the cause. Liberals love Obama, but after eight years of him we got Trump! What has our political leadership --our *democracy*-- done to address the problems that brought about Trump? Obama before, Biden in the interim, yet here we are. Everyone has moved to the right.

Obama and Biden have actually had the FBI working on right wing extremism. It's just kind of hard when there's effective immunity for it's leadership. And yeah, we might have to fight to change that and fix things. But you don't just do that for shits and giggles. It's not fucking Hollywood. You're not the main character. We don't have plot armor. So we work the problem in the best way we can until we're forced into that stuff.

For real.

Today, massive supporter for Harris.

Post-election, I shall go back to being a massive critic.

Shitty situation all around. Once heard politics are like public transportation. Won't give me a door-to-door ride to the destination I'm aiming for, so I'll take it to get as close as possible.

Boy just wait until I have zero leverage or voice. Then I'll show em

Anybody voting against Harris over Gaza is a moron. Trump may be even more pro Israel...

Ah yes he will give them unlimited weapons and money to bomb children. Oh wait

We know that Harris will let the zionists do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, no matter what it costs the US. Your saying theres much difference between that and whatever Trump plans is dumb. Is Trump going to double kill people and double steal their land?

Anybody voting against Harris over Gaza is a moron

I think war crimes surrogates are worse than morons.

You have good points and valid reasons to be upset in this election. If we don't see change in this administration now, why should we expect it going forward?

That said, I would like you to consider a perspective shift on the impact of voting. Put yourself in the shoes of a politician. What is your bottom line? It's to get reelected.

If you aren't in a position of power, you can't pass any bills. You can't push any agendas. You can't stop wars. You affect nothing. This is true for politicians, CEOs, Popes, dictators, board presidents, school principles, and homeowners association presidents.

In order to keep that power, you need to make your keys to power happy. In a democracy, there are a lot of keys- those are your voting blocks. The rich, the military, unions, families, students, different ethnicities, different religions- you need to calculate which blocks are most likely to get you reelected.

Now a lot of people wonder why is it that American election campaigns seem to go on forever. They take years. This is because candidates are looking to see who they can bring in to their side. Voters who they don't please go to their opposition.

Let's fast forward to after the election. You have won the presidency and are eager to get to work- but guess what, in 4 years you will need to do this all over again. This time, you look at the blocks who voted for you. These blocks were the ones who successfully got you in power, and you want to keep them happy. It's easier to keep voters than to flip voters, this is the incumbents advantage.

You look at your voting blocks, and you notice there is a large chunk of your previous "supporters" (not that they like you necessarily, just that they voted for you) who want to end arms sales to Israel. If large enough, this group will be pivitol to your next victory. You may have run on a pro Israel stance, but if your electorate needs you to change, you will change.

This doesn't mean protest sit outs aren't effective. Michigan had a large vote for Palestine in Biden's primary campaign. After that result came through, the administration took on more moderate rhetoric. It's empty, but a first signal nonetheless. If this happened in Illinois or Washington State, his campaign would have ignored it, but since Michigan is a swing state, they paid attention.

In this election, I'm voting for Harris. However, down ballot I'm voting for pro-palestine candidates. Trump's voting blocks clearly favor Israel, but Harris has a divide she needs to address, and if she sees enough voters voting pro-palestine down ballot, she is much more likely to change her course.

For a deeper look into power structures and how leaders are influenced, I'd recommend watching CGP Grey's 20 minute video on the rules for Rulers.

There is so much nuance in this discussion that it's difficult to put all counterpoints into a Lemmy comment while I'm sitting on the pot, but I hope this gives you some more questions to consider as you make the bridge between your values, ideal outcomes, realistic outcomes, and pragmatic strategies for getting that done.

You really think there's a complete carte blanche from either the current administration or will likely be under Harris? Don't get me wrong. Israel has gone way overboard, but me assure you it could be a lot worse.

Infact, the actions of Trump during his administration included moving the US embassy in an extremely controversial move and even the war criminal Netanyahu meets Trump personally - when he is not even President.

Are you saying that taking action like not voting for Harris, which will help enable a Trump victory, is the correct course of action to reduce Palestinian and Lebanese suffering? Your approach doesn't make any sense if your goal is to reduce suffering.

“It could be a lot worse” is ZERO comfort to my neighbor who lost relatives in Israel’s bombings. Do you honestly think that’s a winning campaign slogan to get him to vote for her? Or to me who personally sees this suffering?

Oh cool. Do you ever read the comments on the Israel times? You shoild check them out and look at who they exclusively want elected and see Harris's victory as a collapse of Israeli US relations.

Let's get Trump elected so Israel can get what it wants.

Hopefully your neighbor doesn't have too many relatives.

Hopefully your neighbor doesn't have too many relatives.

Ah, death threats of family members to motivate someone to vote. That will surely win Michigan for Harris. Have you considered phone banking?

Yes because there has been and she has said she will continue to do so.

But Donnie said Harris *hates* Israel.

Donnie says a lot of stuff. It comes down to whether you can bank on his hatred of jews vs his hatred of muslims and his love of bribe money. Its some comedic cold comfort to me that a large part of his base are anti semitic white supremacists and they are having a hard time squaring their vote with support for the state of Israel.

Comedy gold, made with the gold tooth fillings of dead gazan civlians. (to be fair, yes-- the dead babies and children are less likely to have fillings)

I can't wait for blue conservatives to blame Bernie Sanders for whatever fuckup they do next.

Gaza is not the only issue? Tell that to the main stream media.

Current Politics can be summarized into 3 things.
- Israel
- The Opponent
- The Election

Anything else doesn't exist in their eyes. My grandfather had his Fubo running last night, I kid you not 10 minutes of ads, and every single one of them was based off one of those 3 categories. I asked him why he's paying 95$ a month to watch smear campaigns and the same 3 topics over and over.

I'd really like to see *someone* who has the power to actually do something stand up to Israel and knock them down a peg or 2.

The information that I've seen about Israel's attack on Iran over the weekend has some outrageous levels of discrepancy. Israel claims it crippled all of Iran's air defenses and its ability to produce drones and missiles. Iran claims it intercepted the attack with limited damage (and a few confirmed fatalities). The truth is almost certainly between these 2 points with tons of propaganda and straight-up misinformation, but despite the "Iran Dome" bravado I'm not convinced that Iran's defense was particularly successful.

I am no fan of Iran by any stretch and would prefer a more benign entity to step in and do something, but seeing them keep Israel in check would have been a welcome change. I guess my mindset is that you never really want one group to have too much power over others because being able to act with impunity opens the door for the worst types of behavior.

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.

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.

Most of Lemmy thinks you should vote against Kamala on principle against genocide and if Trump gets elected and makes the genocide far worse than it would’ve been under Kamala that that is a preferred outcome and somehow they won’t have blood on their hands.

They think it's better to make things worse if you personally can avoid blame for it on a technicality.

Most of Lemmy is doing mental gymnastics just like this to convince themselves that voting for the person doing genocide makes them anti genocide.

I don't believe they're speaking in good faith. I think they just don't give a shit about human lives when they're brown and across the world.

a vote isn't an endorsement. Pretending the US system is some kind of idealic democracy where you are presented a platter of issues to vote on and can do those independently is delusional. We live in a perpetual trolley problem. Not pulling the lever is far more evil here.

a vote isn’t an endorsement

The sky is green

Politicians view it as an endorsement. When they get elected they say “the people have spoken” and act like they have a mandate. Bush pressed on with his Iraq war and privatizing social security after getting re elected despite those being unpopular and people voting for him in spite of those policies. Trump claimed the people supported him and hence wouldn’t release his tax records etc.

If Harris wins she won’t feel chastised on Gaza. She said she will continue Biden’s plan even though she was given space to say what she would do differently. Even saying something mild like “Knowing what I know now, I would not have said what Biden said about Palestinians lying about death counts,” and it would have mollified many people.

Again this a delusional view. No democrat has ever been like "oh I lost an election, better adopt more leftwing policies". Because nonvoting is not clear messaging it will never be effective messaging.

I disagree. The Tea Party tanked the 2010 and 2012 election for republicans but it forced them to go hard right ever since and they got everything they wanted.

Democrats put electability over all else and compromised their principles, which is why they are in a toss up right now against an unpopular Trump with unpopular policies. This should have been an easy win, but Biden avoided meeting any Palestinians whatsoever and Harris sadly kept that up. Even minimal pandering would help and she won’t even do that. It’s not so much that she’s doing nothing for my community but Biden actively would throw insults at it (“I have zero trust for Palestinians”) and Harris won’t even distance herself from those hateful remarks. Just say he was wrong to say that and she’d get a ton of votes, I don’t even think she would lose Zionist votes like she’s afraid of.

Yeah. You can protest against the politician you voted for.

You're protest doesn't matter to them, only your vote. It's not like you're going to vote for the Republican or third party candidate.

AIPAC has a stranglehold on our entire system of government and it wont let it go or allow that to change. Protest has become meaningless.

Everyone, including you, has a line, where you will say, "no more, I will not participate in this evil". Maybe for you its having American kids in the US lined up on a wall and shot if they shoplift, or something. For some people its having the Dem candidate openly support mass murder. The fact that your line doesnt match others is natural and is no reason to denigrate those other people.

You'll get to where we are soon enough.

Your actions will produce more harm than good if Trump gets elected. What a privileged life you must live to be able to make a stand on principle — even though that will produce a worse outcome for the people you supposedly care about. The additional blood that will be shed is very much on your hands.

You don’t get to just walk away from the situation absolved of guilt because of your so called principles.

1) Is it me or Harris who made the choice to support a far right wing war that so many dems are having trouble with? Its Harris. She has people on staff that tell her the odds. She is choosing this.
2) The focus of her ground game is courting republicans-- not progressives, and going to the right on issues to woo them. She's moving the party right and in doing so she keeps losing ground in the polls. Every day is worse polling for her. But its my fault huh.
3) You have no idea what my actions are.

hoohoooo, all the single-issue "progressives" and Bernie bros who have been screaming at me for saying the same thing have to scream at Bernie now.

that'll be funny.

They screamed at Bernie when he endorsed Clinton after she got the DNC nomination in 2016. They called him "sell out" and such.

Bernie supporters also ended up being one of the most loyal voting blocks for Clinton.

higher percentage of his voters backed Clinton than her voters backed Obama in 2008

From https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/did-bernie-sanders-cost-hillary-clinton-the-presidency/

As a Bernie bro that voted for Clinton in 2016, there is this very small number of very voca Bernie supporters that screech the loudest and give everyone else a bad name.

Bernie refused to call it a genocide as late as February. He showed his true colors a long time ago.

"his true colors", like you have a hint of cause to cast aspersions on one of the most consistent, sincere and moral American politicians of all time.

get out of here with your disingenuous vague hints.

not sure you're allowed in the first place

Your vote only actually matters if you're in a wing state. If you aren't you should be voting PSL or greens.

vote blue to start turning the state into a swing state. Definitely don't vote green as they are on the record of trying to make trump win

How will voting for the Dems make New York into a swing state?

Maybe the dems should think about that going forward then and fix their platform.

The problem of the US is that you might lose more voters by dumping Israel than you'd gain by supporting Palestine.

The problem of the US is that you might lose more voters by dumping Israel than you’d gain by supporting Palestine.

Not really. Jews generally are 1-2 percent of the population, split between dem and repub-- and not all jews beleive in this interpretation of zionism. Much more than half of the 335 million Americans want to at least be neutral in gaza. This would seem to indicate that thered be net votes to be gained by stopping the shipments. The rub is that theres a lot of money behind AIPAC, and usually whoever spends the most wins. It would be rational for Harris to pivot at the last second when money starts to lose its value to the immediate outcome. But it risks the monied donors lining up on the repub side for the next election. AIPAC funds both sides and doesnt care who wins as long as they get to puppet our government.

Is there actual polling to that effect?

As of september, 61 percent of 335 million Americans want to stop the shipments.
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/

There are some polls that show roughly 35 to 60 percent of US voters backing the sale of arms to Israel, depending on demographics, but there is a very clear divide between Republican and Democrat support so it's disingenuous to say a candidate will lose more support than they gain because that depends on which candidate.

A lot of these polls also use loaded questions like "who is responsible for this conflict" with the two choices being Hamas and Israel, which doesn't really capture any of the nuance of the situation or represent the beliefs of the person answering the question.

I dont have them on hand, but I've seen a few polls in swing states where 5 or so percent more undecided voters would be more likely to vote for Harris if she promised an arms embargo, as opposed to less likely.

No one actually votes with Gaza or Isreal as a core issue outside of NYC, and the state is eternally blue no matter what.

For better or worse the majority of America doesn't even acknowledge(or even care) the conflict as an issue outside of the terminally online.

Stop pretending Harris also doesn't have absolutely horrible immigration, environmental and police policies as well.

No politically viable candidate will have environmental policies sufficient to properly address climate change. We are so unbelievably behind the 8-ball on this.

*Record Scratch*

She doesn't.

I mean she does she supports police funding, violence against refugees and half arsed environmental policies hell she is pro-fracking for example.

Sorry Bernie but after Hillary ousted you and then Biden was shoehorned through the primary in 2020 I voted for Gloria LA riva and now I've written in Claudia de la Cruz / Karina Garcia. I think voting left of center or even a vote for that hack Jill Stein actually would show the DNC they are losing votes based on their continued shift to the right and I am even considering leaving the party on my registration over their antidemocratic primaries and their decisions to fund the campaigns of right wing extremists under the misguided notion that they're easier to beat.

Dont get me wrong, I hope Harris/Walz wins but I do not support them because their positions continue to reinforce the status quo and prop up a system that supports fascism today, right now, at home and abroad.

Otherwise im voting downballot blue except where there is a further left independent which in my area is viable for another statewide position. Thats the most practical support the " at least I'm not the other guy" strategy will get from me, and they didnt even earn it

No, no, no, you see, you should see Gaza as the only issue and ignore all the other issues because

The tactic is just about the same as the MAGA side, try to get people emotionally involved without thinking and lock them into a state so emotionally charged they are unwilling to back down.

Nazis used the exact thought terminating cliche, they just used 'Jews' instead of 'Russia'

try to get people emotionally involved without thinking and lock them into a state so emotionally charged they are unwilling to back down.

breathtaking irony

Unless you have friends and family there.
People here act like it's irrational or hateful to want byut to vote for Harris, and I get it, Trump is worse, but at the same time, this is literally the only way some of these voters have to influence the candidate and her platform.
I have stepped away from this conversation because I have changed my mind and think you should vote against trump, but also because it's full of trolls and it's impossible to have a reasonable debate.

I considered donating money with a note saying that it was for pulling Israel back in gaza. However, a friend asked me for help and I did that. I'm assuming if they got a number of donations from people mentioning gaza as an issue, it would have an effect.

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.

He's said this too... but of course you don't actually care about that fact.

Ok... Just saying it's sad. Do you not think it's sad?

Edit: actually no what the fuck is this reply? What fact don't I care about? That Bernie agrees that this is fucked. What did I say that you take issue with?

Jesus Christ. I'm so tired of you genocide minimizers

The reply is you will continue to say not to vote for even the best options for what you claim you want. It's stupid.

OK, in case you can't understand, I'll expand further. Your comment was:

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.

He *has* pushed to tell the Democratic party to not engage with genocide. He *should* be someone you support. Instead, you spend every opportunity undermining anyone who could give your movement legitimacy. However, because he is practical and says we should *also* support Harris, because it's the best move that we can make, he's wrong and you'll say things like implying he isn't against the genocide. It's pretty stupid.

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

Source for lobbying

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.

Yea for real the amount of myopic one issue voices must be that of the privileged or Russian propaganda because WE ALL KNOW that hardworking normal Americans struggle with more than one issue that is 5000 miles away.

one issue that is 5000 miles away.

What does distance matter? And are all issues the same? mass murder of innocents vs grazing rights on federal lands, equally important in your eyes? Both "single issues"?

[deleted] a week ago

struggle with more than one issue that is 5000 miles away.

Humans could be killing innocent people in another galaxy. I still don't approve of killing innocent people. Distance doesn't matter.

If you must sacrifice humans elsewhere for the good of your political system, kill me. I accept the sacrifice. I will die in their place. I will give Israel my address. If someone must die, I will do it.

I just do not enjoy hearing, every day, about children being killed in bombings. It makes me not want to be alive.

Statement: government in Ukraine changed in 2014.

Your response: that new government had the support of the people, therefore that statement is false

This is a non-sequitor. The government either changed or it didn't. Whether the people supported it or not doesn't fundamentally change the statement.

I'm starting to think you are a bot, someone with very low reading comprehension, or simply a malicious actor.

If you refuse to engage in this attempt to reach a set of facts we can agree on, then we will never move forward.

I could say the sky is blue and the grass is green and you would yell me I am justifying capitalism's embrace of carbon emissions and the death of the climate.

Holy hell, you liberals really have gone completely off the rocker in your corner of Lemmy, huh? I mean, Jesus Christ the shit I am reading in these comments is completely insane.

“Everyone I disagree with is a foreign agent”, say the people whose same views Israel are literally running bot farms about.

“Trump would be worse”, say the people who have admitted that the genocide of Palestine is an acceptable means to an end, as if queer folks are supposed to believe you won’t be their next tool of convenience to be discarded.

“Look at all these policy differences”, say the party who brag about being half Republicans and use their policies.

Y’all are going to lose, and it’s not going to be because of the 100 US leftists on Lemmy.

I’m sure you’ll blame us anyway though, because liberals have objectively abandoned reality.

Look at yourselves. You’ve become MAGA, and don’t even try to deny it. This is the shit you made fun of Republicans for doing for 4 years of Trump. I thought Democracy was about winning votes, not demanding them under threats of violence? Or is this another one of PugJesus’ cronies?

Ok gaslighter

Yeah, the US elections have a high chance of losing, largely due to large disinformation campaigns not unlike the one your comment forms a part of.

Holy hell, you liberals really have gone completely off the rocker in your corner of Lemmy, huh? I mean, Jesus Christ the shit I am reading in these comments is completely insane.

Nice one komrad! These stupid Americans can't fathom how far we can move the goalposts!

“Everyone I disagree with is a foreign agent”, say the people whose same views Israel are literally running bot farms about.

Da! DA! Sprinkle the truth in so they can't use it against us! This is why you make the best borscht!

“Trump would be worse”, say the people who have admitted that the genocide of Palestine is an acceptable means to an end, as if queer folks are supposed to believe you won’t be their next tool of convenience to be discarded.

Putin will be proud of your efforts komrad, I'm sure of it. Not only did you defend komrad Trump, but you tossed in a genocide grenade! These dumb Americans can't see through the web of lies you weave. It's truely an art from you. You even managed to attack the homosexuals, god bless you!

Oh blyat! I did not realize this is a public channel!

Counterpoint, you're a Russian bot, you hate freedom, you hate democracy, and you hate America :3

Only comment that make sense here

Is this going to be American politics for the rest of time: continually voting for least worst of two options which will cause observable harm?

If yes, it would be nice if that changes at some point, thanks.

Support single transferable vote ranked choice voting if you want more options.

Approval voting is also good. Really any of the alternatives create more representative outcomes.

STAR voting is pretty sweet, and is my new favorite voting system.

That's how it's going to be as long as we continue to use First Past the Post voting.

And since the only people who have the desire, and potentially the power, to change that are Progressives who caucus with the Democrats, vote Progressive in the primaries and Democrat in the general. If you're not willing to do that, then yeah you might as well get comfortable with the current system.

Not only, it's democracy at it's core. Because there is no "perfect " leader, it's an illusion that people like trump are more than happy to sell for the masses, but unfortunately even some progressive are buying it. Democracy is based on pragmatic nagotiations and gradual progress.

But there is a big difference between “perfect” and “beholden at all, in any fucking way, to their constituents.”

The DNC gets to refuse to run any progressive policies and say shit like “nothing will fundamentally change” because their entire policy is “at least I’m not Trump.”

Hence

Vote progressive in the primaries

Get enough Progressives and enough left-leaning Democrats together on the issue of rank choice voting, and it really could happen. Obviously, I'm of the opinion that it's the only way it *could* happen. So even if the chances are small, it's what I think we should shoot for.

I mean I wasn’t saying you’re wrong just pointing that the representation doesn’t need to be “perfect”

But also voting for the party that has sued to keep 3rd party off ballots & runs attack ads on third parties to hope that they eventually allow ranked choice or star or etc. is kinda not exactly looking probable but hey, here’s hoping.

Yes it sucks but that's reality. Until half of America stops being fascist sympathizers at best this is what you have to deal with.

You guys are looking at the choice between eating a salad and swallowing a cyanide pill and complaining that you'd rather have pizza. Unfortunately, pizza isn't on the table and if you do nothing that cyanide pill is getting forced down everyone's throat. Complain about it as much as you like but at the end of the day you better choke down that god damn salad before we all get completely fucked over.

“Vote to kill your family or kill yourself.” Is quite the uh… great democratic message that really says “DNC, vote for us, because we’re not (all) openly facist.”

Like I know you probably did not brain that whole thing through there but like fucking lol.

Anyways my point was a counter to needing a perfect representative. They don’t need to be perfect, just need to actually care about what their constituents want/need. Yeah it is bad. Duh. We know it is fucked up that’s why people are discussing alternative ways to vote that do not boil down to Evil and slightly less evil. We don’t need pure good as a candidate. Just… someone who listens to those they want to vote for them?

Like… not actively supporting and contributing to genocide would be a cool start? Public health care would also be nice…

I call it "defensive" voting. Not voting for actual progress, just voting to prevent further deterioration.

I put practicality over ideology, and in accordance with this have already voted for Harris. But I can still express my disappointment.

[deleted] a week ago

You are right, and this is what I would end up doing if I were an American citizen, however I am not, and have never even visited either American continent.

However, as someone who grew up as an abused child, harmed by a society that blamed me for being poor, disabled, autistic, and an immigrant, I cannot help but feel that I would gladly swap my own life to save even one innocent person harmed by state terrorism. It leaves me feeling like I would prefer to be dead that see this happening.

You work on changing it between and across elections. When in the ballot booth with fixed options, you pick the least harmful for the most at risk in the community, of the candidates that actually have a competitive chance of winning.

Thats the natural end game of capitalism, yes.

Not much you can do about it, it's human nature.

[deleted] a week ago

Not much you can do about it, it’s human nature.

I think there is time for humans to prove otherwise, but maybe not so much as humans would want.

The Forward - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for The Forward:

> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America

Wikipedia search about this source


Search topics on Ground.News

https://forward.com/fast-forward/668878/bernie-sanders-gaza-harris/


Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

Someone running for office should not be entitled to a vote simply because the opposition is bad. Even if they're as bad as Trump. I wish more people demanded better from their leaders, it would stop this ridiculous slide to the right the entire American political system has been going though for decades.

You fix that by pushing for ranked choice balloting, until then, it's your job to get the least objectionable person elected, which in this case is Harris.

I agree with the first part, not the second however. This situation of voting for the least objectionable person led us to this kind of election. I want more progressives to demand progress and making it conditional to their vote instead of just accepting the least shitty option because the other one is a fascist dickhead. MAGA won't go away if Harris gets elected, even with a majority of the house and senate. Until America demands better than their politics will just continually slide to the right. Ranked choice balloting would be a major gamechanger, I just don't see it happening at all. Not with the current political climate.

Ballots aren't where effective political action happens. Demanding better means organizing outside of election years, maintaining strong communities, and showing up to participate in political action that isn't just ticking one of a few allowable boxes. Demanding better sometimes means just doing better, regardless of the state's involvement. That isn't directly applicable to, say, genocide, but it does help build a real base of support that allows people to work outside the system to further that progress between elections.

I'm voting for Harris because I would much rather organize under her administration than Trump's. It's a dead simple choice imo, because demanding better means doing the work every other day than Election Day.

and definitely pay more attention to your local elections, those will more directly impact you and the people around you.

Fully agree. I wish more people actually voted uncommitted in the primaries for reasons such as this. To show that American voters want a progressive, not a moderate of an extreme far right fascist.

There was a democratic primary this presidential election?

That. Doesn't. Work.

Full stop.

Let's say for a moment that progressives and Democrats did that for whatever issue they personally felt strongly about.

First, we have to acknowledge that the Republicans ARE NOT doing that. So they're vote count doesn't change and they win

Second, people will disagree on the same issue. You can't capture everyone on every issue. Refer to the first point, Republicans win.

Third, there will be huge factions each with their own issue. A candidate cannot sway all these single issues groups. See the first point, Republicans win.

What first past the post representative democracy means is to vote for the viable politician that MOST ALIGNS with your political position. Not the one that EXACTLY aligns. If you build the third parties at the local and representative and Senate level. Maybe you can get there, but for now, this is the political system we have to work in.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. I'm just saying that an argument for a candidate on an issue should be a lot better than "better than Trump". It's a ridiculously low bar America has been forced to accept, and by extension the world.

"In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you won’t have to vote," he said. "Christians get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it’ll be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore." - Donald J. Trump.

Literally destroys your point of view. You will not have the opportunity if he gets elected. We're not just risking American democracy here, we're on the precipice of history. We're at the point everyone asks about regarding WWII -- the common question is -- "Why didn't anyone do anything?"...well, we clearly have people screaming at the top of their lungs that they should do something.

Literally nowhere in either of my comments did I advocate for Trump or anything of the sort. Im not sure what you're trying to get at here.

You fix that by pushing for ranked choice balloting, until then, it's your job to get the least objectionable person elected, which in this case is Harris. - Jordanlund

I agree with the first part, not the second however. This situation of voting for the least objectionable person led us to this kind of election. - Sundial

You did, by basically doing the "they're both the same!" argument.

How in the earthly hell can you not see that they aren't anywhere close to the same?

MAGA won't go away if Harris gets elected, even with a majority of the house and senate.

Sure they won't go away, but we can reverse their fucking DEADLY policies. They're literally talking about rounding up their enemies and putting them in camps.

This "both sides" argument is such trash, because both sides are clearly nowhere near the same.

This is privilege. You are accepting that a trump second term will be "ok" for you. I know that because if it wasn't going to be ok for you, you'd throw your vote to anyone who could possibly beat him in a few days.

I've got people who won't be ok. Minorities, LGBTQ, etc who are my friends, neighbors, or even just fellow citizens. They won't be ok and I'll do everything I can to help them avoid trump in this election.

I'm not in love with harris' platform but I'm not trying to get married, I'm just trying to keep my Muslim neighbor with a tough immigration situation, or my gay cousin out of trouble.

I never accepted or advocated for Trump. I just said people should be demanding better. Saying the candidate you want to vote for is better than Trump is an incredibly low bar. That shouldn't be the only argument to use to advocate for someone.

I've been consistent in saying I don't find Harris exciting or compelling. Low bar or not, it's the challenge at hand.

Why do people feel the need to publicly announce blocks?

Block me as well. Don't forget to reply to this comment that you blocked me, as is tradition.

Alright buddy, go to your safe little bubble.

Agreed. Chasing an electorate where the loudest shout they want more hate, which is what I (perhaps incorrectly) see happening from elsewhere in the world, is not good for the political system. It just legitimises hate.

Sometimes there are "issues" that we must absolutely not compromise on. "Why gain the world to lose your soul?"

Gunna vote twice, once for each candidate, so I double my chances of ensuring genocide. It's what america was founded on, it's what our forefathers would have wanted.

How very Russian of you considering that's exactly how their *last* election went.

No idea what you're talking about, I don't own a single tracksuit and I don't even like vodka.

No thanks, genocide is my biggest concern and you dont get to decide it isnt

No shit. Enjoy Trump again, guess liberals have learned nothing from 2016. If you have no progressive policies or stand for none of them, you will not win

One in ten Bernie Bros voted for Trump in 2016. So maybe let’s not talk about people not learning their lessons.

What a privileged existence you must lead to be able to have a single issue define you.

And you have privilege to say your issues overrule actual human lives. What’s another 50,000 dead Palestinians to you?

Personally I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night voting for someone who had a hand in that mountain of dead children, but you seem fine to ignore atrocities committed in your name.

Don’t blame me, blame Harris for being unwilling to even say something on the issue without walking it back. Nobody is stopping her.

Look at history. The 2003 Iraq war and subsequent occupation resulted in at least 150.000 deaths, at the absolute lowest estimate. The biggest estimate is over a million.

Afghanistan? 176.000

Gulf War? 50.000

Yugoslav war? 130.000

Vietnam War? 970.000 to 3 million.

And those are conflicts that the US was directly involved in with boots on the ground. Few people lost sleep over any of those civilian casualties. Could you even point to Kosovo on a map?

What’s another 50.000 dead Palestinians you ask? A rounding error on a footnote of history. It’s a statistic. And that’s ignoring the fact that this is happening in another country with only indirect US support.

People SHOULD care about the Palestinians. But it’s just not relevant to the day to day lives of average Americans.

This is as short sighted as the president in Don’t Look Up, who was more frustrated about how the giant comet heading to earth was disrupting her election and not about the impending extinction.

What kind of nonsense argument are you making? There were massive protests against these in the US, involving millions of Americans. Millions of Americans protested the Vietnam war, millions protested the Iraq war. There’s protests in every city about Gaza and wall to wall news coverage as it consumed the public attention. I’ve been to all these protests except the Vietnam one.

And it’s not “indirect” support. Biden sent troops into Gaza for that hostage rescue mission and increased troops in the region and has Air Force planes shooting down missiles. That’s also with the US shipping nearly all the bombs dropped in Gaza and using the UN to veto ceasefires. Anyone pretending the US isn’t involved is lying.

It’s sad that the millions of Arab Americans and Muslim Americans don’t count to you. This is a daily issue for us, I’ve gone to the funerals for relatives and watched as CNN aired that Ryan Girdusky character who said Mehdi Hasan should be blown up. That’s mild compared to what we have heard given the last year of Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism and surge in hate crimes. Again, you have such privilege and talk down to others.

You know what'll end it real quick? Electing a fascist who'll give Israel the OK to glass the entire fucking middle east *and* ship them the nukes to do it.

And you have the gall to call someone else short sighted, single issue voter.

What a privileged existence you must have to ignore a genocide

War in Gaza... Is Bernie still doing genocide denial?

Back then: "This will ensure we never tolerate genocide again!"

Now: mandatory genocide denial

The pure irony of shaming the people working the hardest to stop genocide by calling them complicit in genocide.

Is it complacency if he's forced to either deny genocide or lose his position to stop it?

Losing his position does the opposite of stop it. That's the problem.

She was then immediately threatened with expulsion with a quickly passing Censure Vote 234-188

https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-censure-resolution-tlaib-8085189047a4c40f2d44ada4604aa076

A censure vote has no practical effect but certainly sends a strong message of disapproval.

And for what, btw? Bernie has opposed arms to Israel at every turn, what difference does word choice make?

Your link says she was censured not for using the term "genocide", but for repeating the slogan "from the river to the sea". Your article quotes Representative Brad Schneider (D, Illinois) as describing as "nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews".

Did he? My memory is jumbled. It has Bernie full steam ahead defending genocide for at least three months

If you watch the video they cite he clearly does call for a ceasefire, and furthermore says, as is practically his catchphrase since a year ago, that "Israel has a right to defend itself and go after hamas but it does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people."

I don't know how you could misconstrue that as defending genocide in any way, shape, or form but if you are against his explicit stance in this case then you want war to continue and more civilians to die, so fuck you I guess.

For a year now he has been the biggest voice in "not sending Netanyahu another penny" unless proof that Palestinian human rights are upheld and aid is brought into the nation, which sadly has not been the policy stance of the majority of congress.

word he would be advocating the invasion of an allied nation which is grounds for expulsion from the senate

Citation needed. AFAIK, the Senate is allowed to discuss whether a nation should be considered an ally, and whether or not to invade a sovereign nation.

Or did you mean he would be "recalled" (by his constituents) rather than "expelled" (by his fellow senators)?

There is no real law or regulation for when the house or senate expels one of their own, though 17 people have been expelled historically, but there was recent talks of expelling Tlaib for using the word Genocide in May. Or did you want a citation for Genocide being acceptable cause to invade as it relates to the United Nations and International Law?

Tlaib wasn't censured for using the word "genocide" to describe Israel's actions toward Palestinians. She was censured for repeating the slogan "from the river to the sea", which has been described as "nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews".

She was only censured because a sufficient number of Democrats agreed with Republicans to issue a censure. None of those Democrats would support a Republican call for her expulsion.

My point is that Bernie is free to call it a genocide *if he wants to*. He's free to call for American military intervention against Israel if he wants to.

There is a huge constitutional issue with the expulsion of a legislator for making a statement that is well within the scope of their constitutional duties.

I don't need evidence of genocide being considered justification to intervene. I readily concede that point. My concern here is the constitutional issue that would arise if a legislator is effectively prohibited from representing their constituency, including a constituency that thinks Israel is engaged in Genocide.

You're out of touch with reality if you think Bernie will get nothing more than a stern talking to for asking for a foreign force to invade Israel. I get it, dude, I really do: I think the USA should depose Netanyahu and take control of the situation themselves, honestly, but support for Palestine is not universal and is in short supply in the US Congress.

Love you Bernie, but get bent.

the antisemites have to be clearly and succinctly told this, you see