133

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, fired back at pro-Palestinian protesters of Israel's war in Gaza as they interrupted her speech during a Wednesday night campaign rally in Detroit.

"You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking," Harris said with a long stare, drawing loud cheers from supporters in the crowd before chants of, "Not going back!"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 43 points 1 year ago

Well, Mrs. Vice President, if you don't want my vote in November, then say that.

[-] superb 35 points 1 year ago

The solution cannot be “don’t vote and let the other guys win” tho right? Kamala could have responded so much better, but that means we roll over?

I just can’t get behind this take. It’s like the religious people who actively seek out the end of the world so they can all be raptured.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 16 points 1 year ago

The solution cannot be “don’t vote and let the other guys win” tho right?

That is the risk the Kamala campaign is apparently willing to take.

[-] superb 10 points 1 year ago

We’re talking about your personal actions, but yeah go off king. Take no responsibility, your actions mean nothing

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

This genocide is our responsibility, because our tax dollars are paying for it. Our politicians are supporting it.

[-] superb 1 points 1 year ago

Correct. I was saying the person I responded to was not taking responsibility.

[-] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Kamala Harris has no one to blame but herself for supporting a genocide

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

The solution cannot be “don’t vote and let the other guys win” tho right?

It isn't. Keep trying. If she keeps refusing, vote for an anti-genocide candidate like Jill Stein.

[-] superb 6 points 1 year ago

Oh I’m sorry,

*The solution cannot be “vote for someone who has no chance and let the other guys win” tho right?

Seriously who the hell is Jill Stein? I bet if you asked most Americans they would have no clue. Can we have an ounce of realism here? We’re 3 months out from this election and finally got someone who is competitive with Trump. Jill Stein is not winning.

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Seriously who the hell is Jill Stein? I bet if you asked most Americans they would have no clue.

The lack of research skills of other voters is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to vote for the best candidate.

We’re 3 months out from this election and finally got someone who is competitive with Trump.

Then maybe she should try to keep that competitive edge by fucking listening when people are protesting a genocide! Genocide is wrong. If you have the power to end a genocide, you should do so. This is not rocket surgery.

[-] superb 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If people don’t know your name as a candidate, then it’s your own fault. Third parties have been completely unable to run an effective campaign. You can’t blame the voters for that.

I’ll agree with you on your last point. While I think Kamala can be pushed in the right direction, her response here was a huge misstep. It’s insane to me that this wasn’t even prepared for.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

you're trying to reason with a troll.

[-] Maestro@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago

My theory is that religious people want that, so they get into heaven without dying first. They are just afraid of dying.

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 4 points 1 year ago

I don't think you mean to say a movement that wants to end genocide is like those who seek the end of the world...

[-] superb 2 points 1 year ago

We can make comparisons to the behaviors of those within two different groups without comparing the goals of those groups. Ultimately they’re both self destructive and not going to accomplish their goals.

And because it has to be said, of course I’m against the genocide. I do not think the person I responded to (and others like them) will ultimately be effective in ending it

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago

I don't see how the uncommitted movement is self-destructive; they're the ones of families actively being destroyed from the outside. It's like we're asking them for solidarity in response to them asking for some to begin with. In that sense, their behavior is understandable and very much unlike the religious fanatics who support Zionism as a means to the second coming. Those people aren't begging for their families to be saved.

[-] Aurailious@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Regardless of what people do, either vote or not vote, a Democrat or Republican will be President next term. The only choice people have is if they want to affect which one it will be.

Is the argument that both parties will be the same? Is US support of Israel the only issue to consider?

[-] superb 1 points 1 year ago

My point is vote Democrat

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago

I mean...Do you want trump to win?

[-] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago
[-] ski11erboi@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

You're assuming her completely condemning Isreal would help her win the election but I don't think it's as simple as that. There's still a massive voting block of hard core Isreal supporters in the US.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 14 points 1 year ago

Is this massive voting block of hard core Isreal supporters who aren't just voting for Trump anyway in the room with us right now?

[-] Triteer@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

No, they're in Missouri voting out Cori Bush, and in New York voting out Bowman. But I guess if you just want to ignore the very real evidence we have, sure, there's literally no Democrats supporting Israel.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 1 year ago

You might recall that those were primary elections and AIPAC ran ads attacking Bush and Bowman for anything and everything. Unless they think Kamala is actually "stronger" on Israel, they're just going to support Trump in the general election anyway. Maybe her campaign thinks AIPAC can be appeased, but it still comes down to the apparent decision that they don't need anti-genocide votes. Shrimp and grits!

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Genocide is wrong. You have to oppose genocide. It is as simple as that.

"Oh, no! I can't stop the genocide, even though I have all the power to do that! It'll cost me votes!" Well, it's also going to cost you votes if you don't do that, so I guess we'll see in November.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. That's why I'm frustrated with Kamala for alienating anti-genocide voters so far.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago

Sure, but who are you voting for? Or don't you take any responsibility for your own actions like so many others who blame her for their vote?

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 1 year ago

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not running in the election. I only have one mathematically insignificant vote to cast. Meanwhile, the Kamala campaign can actually affect the outcome of the election by taking positions that attract or repel millions of votes.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

poor baby. can't have what you want, so, you'll just doom palestine because,

go cry

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, it's me who's dooming Palestine, some guy in New Jersey, not the feral apartheid state that's decimating Gaza or any of the countries providing weapons and financing for them to do so.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

again, any universe, where trump triumphs is a death-knell to a two state solution or any humane consideration for Gaza. So think.

what are you doing?

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Nobody wants Trump to win. Kamala doesn't want Trump to win. Which is why this reaction is so dismaying. It's her actions that are helping Trump to win, not the protesters'.

[-] GarrulousBrevity@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

There is no room for these things to be a topic of conversation if Trump wins. This way of thinking has no path to resolving the problem.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 16 points 1 year ago

Same excuse every four years.

[-] GarrulousBrevity@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

That assumes that things haven't changed, and that Trump doesn't represent the backlash to that change. The Dems don't change things as fast as you would like, but why is back pedaling better than that? I swear, this whole line of reasoning sounds like some astroturfing movement to get liberals to skip the election. The republicans only win when voter counts are low. You are talking like you want Trump to win.

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

this whole line of reasoning sounds like some astroturfing movement to get liberals to skip the election.

I'm not skipping the election. I'm voting for the candidate who is standing against the genocide, Jill Stein.

Dems need to learn kicking the can down the road doesn't work when scientists say the road ends in like 40 years unless we change big things.

[-] superb 1 points 1 year ago

Are we still talking about the genocide?

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 9 points 1 year ago

You must not have heard about the trolley problem. I'm sure if I logically explain why you should ignore the deaths of your family members you would go vote. /s

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

iF yOu WaNt DoNaLd TrUmP tO wIn

this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
133 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8529 readers
337 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS