131
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
131 points (97.8% liked)
World News
32491 readers
762 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
"We will push them left once we elect them!"
Something something Trump is worse.
Trump absolutely will be worse, but yeah, that doesn't absolve Genocide-Joe of funding genocide
No doubt he would be on a lot of topics. My comment was just mocking all those people that kept insisting people who cared about Palestine (primarily Arab-Americans) should vote for Harris simply because Trump is worse. It was such a hollow and shitty endorsement given all the escalations Israel has gotten away with the past 14 months.
Voting is not an endorsement. We had the choice between a candidate that was bad for Palestine, and a candidate that was even worse for Palestine.
It's a pretty simple argument that someone who cares about Palestine should vote for the less bad candidate.
If there was a chance to save them don't you think the Arabs in America would have taken it? It's not like they're any strangers to voting for the lesser of two evils on this topic. Democrats were insistent on letting Israel have a free reign just like Republicans would. So they decided to say a big fuck you to the electoral system and vote third party.
Kamala was not insistent that Israel have free reign like Trump was. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. In the context of these two candidates, they are clearly not the same.
Voting third party is not a "fuck you" to anyone. No one who matters gives a shit about a third party vote.
A third party vote is a waste of a vote and no different from abstaining. A third party vote is simply shrugging in the face a fascism. Trump loves it, because it opened the way to his election.
Yes, just like Biden. And we all saw what he actually wanted, didn't we?
Yes it is. It's a big fuck you to the Democrats who campaigned on thinking people would vote for them automatically because they're not Trump. That failed epically.
So we might as well just let Trump win and kill the Palestinians faster. What a champion of Palestine you are.
Tell me something. What in the past 14 months has led you to believe that Biden was holding Israel back?
You are changing the subject instead of defending your position.
Biden has nothing to do with it. He wasn't running for President.
Kamala's position was to strive for a ceasefire, and Trump's position was to give Israel whatever they need to get the job done.
By voting 3rd party, you've taken the position that these two options are identical in your eyes. Either Israel continues with likely similar reluctant support, or Israel continues with encouragement and unlimited support. Which do you think will lead to more Palestinian deaths?
On top of this, this was Kamala's weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you're willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too. All of this so you can be on your high horse and pretend to be morally superior while enabling the worst future for everyone. Good job.
No I'm not. Harris is part of the Biden administration and she's made it clear she wasn't going to deviate from the current position that America currently has under Biden's leadership. That means the same empty platitudes along with unwavering support for Israel no matter how many escalations Israel has. She didn't strive for a ceasefire. That's just meaningless rhetoric given she had no actual plan for it and coupled it with being insistent that "Israel has a right to defend itself" or Walz's "I support Israel's right to expand it's borders" as they perform the wholesale slaughter of an entire ethnicity and culture.
I acknowledged how bad Trump is in my above comment. I know what Trump means for a lot of minorities in America as well as the international political stage. I wasn't talking about endorsing Trump. I said that the whole strategy of getting the Arab-American vote by saying "Trump is worse" was a very shitty strategy that backfired horribly. It's common knowledge that a political candidate is not entitled by a vote simply by being the better of two options. You have to make people want to vote for you. As evidenced by the results of the elections. If she wanted the Arab-American vote, a key demographic in a critical swing state, she should have worked towards it. Not simply say "Well Trump is worse, so vote for me", as she supports the slaughter of their people. It's just an incredibly tone deaf and cruel thing to say to a population that is facing what they are facing.
None of that changes the fact that you had a choice between one possible future and a worse possible future, and you opted not to choose and to allow the worse future to arrive.
I'll make it simple for you by reframing my position, the position you were attempting to mock, as a simple syllogism:
Premise one: Kamala's policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump's.
You've asserted without evidence that Kamala's stated policy is not true and that she would follow Biden's established policy of providing unconditionally continued resourcing. Even if that is true, it is still better than Trump's policy of providing even more unconditional resources.
Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.
You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.
Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election
You've also not refuted this in any way
Conclusion: Because Kamala's policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.
Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.
I'm not American. I didn't choose anything. America chose Trump. They chose Trump because Harris led a shit campaign where she managed to lose to the most despicable fascist wanna-be dictator we've ever seen, wrapped in an incredibly hated platform (Project 2025), and while campaigning with the most disliked VP in American history. That's my point. That's been my point all along. Democrats ran a shitty campaign by simply thinking that they're entitled to votes simply because of how bad Trump is. That's not how elections work. Anyone with two brain cells knows this. She lost the Arab-American vote because she not only ignored them but actively silenced them. This caused her to lose Michigan, and potentially even Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania because of this.
Premise 1 is factually incorrect. Saying Harris would have worked towards a ceasefire is not a logical conclusion given her refusal to admit it's a genocide, her unwavering support for Israel, and her work as a VP in the current administration. I'll freely admit that Trump is worse in every other policy. But on the topic of Palestine they are the same. Both offer Israel unconditional and unwavering support and protection. Just one openly admits it. Until you are actually capable of answering the above question of explaining why you believe the Democrats have been holding Israel back for the past 14 months or how the Arabs would have voted for Harris if it meant they could save the Palestinians then this fact holds true. And before you repeat the line of "That was Biden this is Harris". She could have distanced from Biden's stance on this but she didn't. She made it very clear that she will continue what Biden started.
Premise 2 is an incredibly cruel and callous argument to make to people who are losing loved ones to the conflict. To paint you a picture of what I mean there is a woman in Minnesota who lost over 40 family members to a single Israeli airstrike. Just one. And this happens daily in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. And then her Governor, Tim Walz, went on the National VP debate and the only comment he could muster about Israel was that he supports Israels right to expand it's borders. And you expected these people to vote for Harris/Walz? With their unwavering support of Israel? This is not an idea that is rooted in reality. We aren't talking about a diplomatic argument, some immigration policy, or some foreign trade agreement. We are talking about the complete eradication of an entire nation through violent means.
Premise 3 is irrelevant. No one expected anyone else other than Trump or Harris to win. Like I said above, Arabs just wanted to send a big fuck you to the Democrats for making it seem that not arming a genocide of their people is too big an ask.
Ah, you aren't even American and you are arguing American politics. No wonder you are full of shit. You don't have to face the consequences of a Trump presidency directly. No wonder you are so fucking privileged.
Stop trying to influence American politics and stick to your own. I'm done with you, there's no point to this.
And it was an obvious lie, because she wouldn't commit to an arms embargo or sanctions or any kind of consequences. She was just lying so that liberals could pretend like they weren't voting for genocide.
Quite impressive how you can read minds and see the future.
"Ceasefire" was turned into a joke to mean "a temporary pause to get the Israeli hostages back" and there were zero commitments to making Israel face any consequences for it's crimes. Furthermore, she basically pledged to be exactly the same as Biden and Biden is vehemently against an arms embargo. On top of all that, the administration condemned the ICJ and more recently the ICC.
Dunno, seems pretty obvious.
We had two candidates that were both pro-Palestinian genocide.
They were not equally pro genocide. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. These are not the same, one is clearly better.
She wanted a ceasefire, but keep sending them arms unconditionally.
Regardless, lite genocide is still genocide.
So might as well let the worst one win then? If there's going to be a genocide, might as well be a good one? Gross.
No matter who won, Palestinians are being genocide. There is no "worse one" here. Genocide is genocide.
Right, so a genocide that kills 1 million Palestinians is the same as a genocide that kills 2 million Palestinians, for example?
Just because two things share a characteristic, doesn't make them the same. One genocide can absolutely be worse than another. You are completely lacking nuance and reason.
Tell the families who are dead and asked to vote FOR genocide that they lack nuance when they refuse to support either of the people who want their people genocide.
At what point does genocide cross the line for you?
What does it mean to cross the line? Does it mean that you just give up and stop trying to use your vote to push the world toward the better future than the worse future? Then never.
If I can choose between a better world or a worse world, I'll choose the better world every time. I won't sit on my hands while the fascists choose the worst one, and it's despicable that you did.
At what level of genocide do you say "I can't support this"?
I never claimed to support genocide. I claimed that it is better to vote for the better option of the two. You are moving the goal posts.
I'll make it simple for you by reframing my position, as a simple syllogism so maybe you'll stay on topic:
Premise one: Kamala's policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump's.
You've asserted without evidence that Kamala's policy is the same as Trump's. That is factually false. They may be close, but they are not the same. Even if Kamala lied about her policy and continued Biden's policy of providing unconditional resourcing, it is still better than Trump's policy of providing even more unconditional resources.
Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.
You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.
Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election
You've also not refuted this in any way
Conclusion: Because Kamala's policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.
Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.
Whether or not you can "support this" is irrelevant. Whether or not it "crosses a line" is irrelevant. Voting is not endorsement, nor is it support of a candidate or all their positions. It is one of your few ways to peacefully influence the direction of the country. You want a viable party that is anti-genocide? Me too. That option didn't exist. Go run for office. Go make that party. In the meantime, stop rolling over for the fascists and letting them get their way.
I voted for Harris too.
However, none of that discounts that she was pro-genocide, just like Trump. And it's hardly reasonable to ask families of people your genociding to vote for you.