300
In the past she had also wanted to be more vocal in previous speeches but it had seen it get watered down by the Biden administration. I think she will push for more than Biden ever did/will
Oh wow… ngl I am looking forward to hearing more from her. I know this is partially me being silly, but my vibe is weirdly slightly similar to 2008? Like, I know I'm probably just being overly optimistic, but at the same time… if she is now taking the gloves off because she’s gonna be the top dog… this is gonna be really interesting and potentially awesome to watch.
After a public letter condemning all protesters.
It's almost as if politicians (particularly at this level) often need to walk a rhetorical tightrope so as to avoid alienating large swathes of voters. Crazy.
Its almost as if the person you're responding to is saying that public letter condemning all protestors is alienating them. Crazy.
Yes, that is what they said. And...?
I believe the point they're making is that she alienated more voters condemning the protests than she would have by refusing to.
Are those voters likely to vote for Trump instead? Or do you think the centrists that Democrats tiptoe around during election years are?
Once she's in, once the immediate danger to the basic functioning of our government is over, I'll be interested to see how she handles it. Right now though? She seems to be providing criticism while walking a careful line and trying to play it safe.
If she doesn't come firmly down on refusing to materially support the IDF after the election, I'll be first in line to start making noise about it. But at the moment? We need to secure our ability to have future elections first or it's going to get a whole lot worse. I get it.
It’s almost as if politicians (particularly at this level) often need to walk a rhetorical tightrope so as to avoid alienating ~~large swathes of voters~~ [small set of powerful donors]. Crazy.
FIFY
The majority of the Democrat voterbase opposes genocide. She is continuing to drive Democrat voters to third parties by not taking a strong anti-genocide stance.
Lol mixed messaging. You literally just condemned people protesting him coming to the US
Do you think we're this stupid?
Protests themselves often tend to be less popular than the causes they promote. Politically it can make sense to distance from a protest, but still align with a cause itself that is more popular
It's strange, but ultimately the cause itself is what matters here
She's lying to both parties. This is hypocrisy, and its discrediting.
Ok genocide supporter
This is the equivalent of condemning the police officer who killed George Floyd, but also condemning the George Floyd protests.
And the message is also equivalent:
Please murder more people, but do it more silently so we don't have to pretend to care.
Correct.
Do you agree with her condemnation of hamas, and support for netanyahu?
She could've easily just ignored that protest, because it doesn't have anything at all to do with her. The only reason this is still getting democratic backing is because of institutional reasons. The rhetoric about, desert rose, shining star of democracy in the middle east, rings hollow when israel has done jack shit as a strategic ally for us for the past 70+ years other than get us wrapped up in multiple conflicts, use us as a weapons manufacturing base to keep the military industrial complex spinning constantly, and train our cops more and more poorly. I don't think your average democratic voter wants to keep hearing about this shit, I think your average voter wants to ignore this, or has bigger fish to fry in their immediate future, and I don't think outside of the republican party, which is swamped by doomsday cult evangelical zionists, there are any real hardline make or break "support israel or bust" guys in the democratic voter base. Maybe your super extremist brainbroken libs, but you're pretty much guaranteed to have their vote anyways, I think. It's that phantomic undecided voter that they always come back to. Real Hotelling's law shit, but they're like, stuck in a fucked up version of the centrism from the 80's, eternally, only changing the window dressing.
This is purely an institutional concern, and the more this comes up, the less time she has to actually show anything substantive to people. She doesn't understand how tenuous and ethereal her meme momentum is. People are satisfied with her now because she's not joe biden, and because she actually has a chance to beat trump, maybe, but after that satisfaction evaporates and the coconut tree and brat memes fall off with their half life of like, probably two weeks or less, she's gonna need something better than just "vote blue no matter who or else fascism will destroy democracy", or else it's just going to fucking beam us with the exact cynicism that's been the case for like the last two elections. She could even just fucking lie, and say as president she'll appoint more people to the supreme court, and reverse the reversal of roe v. wade, and even if she doesn't do that, the issue would probably still be a huge winner for her and help get her elected. But the more time she spends on israel's fuckups the more she's going to tread water, and if you're not moving forwards, you're sliding backwards.
I'm committed to posting this MLK quote as often as it is relevant:
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I'm at the point that I find this quote whenever I need it by opening my profile and sorting by controversial.
i hope you're right.
i haven't been able to vote democrat since obama's 2nd term and kamala seemed like it was possible again until i saw that distancing yesterday.
i also hope that it's not just lip service; but there's no way to know.
to all the people saying talk is cheap, calm down champs. she is not the president yet, she is still a part of the Biden administration and anything she does likely needs to be vetted by them. by saying such she accepts losing the support of certain lobbies which will give her more independence and leeway during her presidency I think. words matter more than you think, especially at the brink of an election, when pretty powerful organizations expect you to say things in a certain way.
This has Mueller energy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Talk is cheap. Do something to show you really mean it.
And what would that be?
Arrest Netanyahu while he's in America.
That would be great, but she doesn't have the power to do that.
They could if they wanted to
get in front of a camera and say "what israel is doing is wrong. when I am president I will ban all weapons deliveries to israel."
That just sounds like more talk. Your standard of comparison isn't talk vs action, it's talk vs more blunt talk. Not really saying you're wrong, but wouldn't somebody be able to comment on an article reporting your ideal headline "talk is cheap"?
I mean, talk that puts something of hers at stake, theoretically (hardline "we must support israel" voters, which I don't think really exist in the democratic party, israeli funding, military industrial complex funding, etc.), is talk that is, in and of itself, an action. It could still be a lie, sure, but then it's a lie that she's gonna get called out on later and then that's politically damaging, at least theoretically, especially because it ostracizes her from both the hardline group that wants to support israel and it ostracizes her from the people that actually wanted to do that. Most politicians won't lie so handily unless they're real pieces of shit, or unless they think people will just forget. Most politicians will instead try to waffle and weasel and say that oh well I tried to do that guys but it was just too hard! I tried but I couldn't do it! They try to save face. Taking a hard stance, making a strong commitment, that ensure that you're sacrificing your ability to save face later on to your voter base, which indicates that you might actually do something.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And that would likely severely impact her chances at the presidency. The attack ads practically write themselves. Trump would just bring up the October 7 attacks, opine that how dare she side with Hamas, and promise to not to abandon Israel. As horrified as many people are by the current war, most aren't ready to completely cut Israel off, especially if it can be framed against Hamas.
One of the reasons Biden was losing was his support for Israel. Supporting Israel does not win elections.
No, politicians have to walk a fine line. Biden hadn't put much of a restriction on use of US weapons and his sanctions against violent settlers in the West Bank are ineffective. Israel has mostly ignored efforts to reign it in. Kamala could lay out some far more concrete measures that would get certain weapons revoked if civilian deaths remain high. At the same time, keeping Patriot missiles well stocked would not impact Palestinians at all.
Bullshit. America holds Israel's leash. Israel would be nothing without American weapons.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I was going to vote Dem no matter what.
But I have multiple friends who weren't, solely because of Israel-Palestine (they weren't voting trump either, they were either going to abstain or write-in...useless)
But this has turned them around and, at least in my small circle, is meaningful.
Fingers crossed.
They got dissuaded just hours after the news released and only platitudes given? Yikes
Yeah, no one had ever even heard of Kamala Harris before a week ago, and she has no track record to speak of, so all we know about her are platitudes from the past few days /s
Its glorious to see Bibi fly all the way here for the dems to turn him into a basket for Kamala to dunk on.
When it comes to a high ranking member of the administration that's enabled this genocide, I'll believe it when I see it
Talk is cheap. Prove it and earn voters.
She didn't attend Bibi's Congressional political rally (it was mainly for the majority of Israelis who want Bibi gone), which is unusual for her. Then she punctuates her meeting with Bibi with this. Maybe it's just rhetoric. She will need to outline what sorts of consequences she's willing to impose on Israel.
God damn she might actually start to regain the trust of the Arab American Midwest communities that have recently been crucial to winning the election. It’s nice to have someone with a more modern and balanced stance. It’s not perfect, but it’s a LOT further in the direction of good than Biden on that point.
Fuck em up
Protests are wrong. Genocide is complicated.
One liners are
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
300 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7105 readers
260 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS