505
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago

They're using synpathy towards people suffering genocide to try and coral people to the polls. I've seen this before. What happened with Roe V Wade? Why are kids still in cages at the border? Why is minimum wage still so low?

Madam Vice President, too little has been done on issues that were previously promised. I cannot take these people at their word.

Want my vote? End support now. It's been a year of genocide with you at the right hand of Biden. All those lives lost happened on your watch. I will not be duped into voting for someone who has been complicit in commiting genocide, who is now promising to stop that same genocide because it happens to coincide with their political goals.

I will not support a genocide, on the promise of it being ended, only to wake up on January 21st just to hear 'Well, the situation is more complicated than just simply ending support, but I vow...!"

You've had a year to end it, and too little has been done to stop it. I will not vote for a genocidal candidate. I will not say that I support genocide by voting for these people. I will not be an accomplice.

It's sickening to think that they probably allowed the genocide to continue just to use it as a carrot to lead people to the ballot box, all the while lining the pockets of the military industrial complex.

Fuck off with your promises, you're in the White House now.

load more comments (44 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

The easiest way to get back voters for whom this was a deal breaker, is for Kamala to pivot on the issue.

The rhetorical techniques from surrogates have been out there for months. They don't work when the candidate is out there eroding them by saying things like "nothing comes to mind". You can be angry at these voters, you can blame them, but what obviously isn't working is trying to move them by saying "Trump would be worse".

The only answer here that works is a pivot from Kamala.

[-] grubbyweasel@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

You lose way more voters than you gain on the issue by resorting to all out condemnation of one of our biggest allies, unfortunate as it is

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Maybe if Harris were running as a Republican.

But its not Republican votes she's leaving on the table. Its literally registered Democrats. And Democrats put the responsibility for the state of things on the Israeli government.

[-] grubbyweasel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Center right republicans are up for grabs here, idk if youve heard but Harris and Trump are pretty much neck and neck in every battleground state. She's trying to reach out to Republicans that are fully sick of Trumpian politics. It's not progressive voters she's courting nor should she

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago

And if she loses as a result? Then who are you going to blame? The Democrats who left her? the Republicans who didnt join her? Or harris for being so committed to genocide she lost to a literal fascist?

Keep in mind the longer she waits the more likely it is those historically democratic voters are lost due to early voting.

[-] grubbyweasel@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

It's her calculus man, not mine. The Harris campaign has decided this is the way to go, if she loses because of it then she loses because of it. I think it's the right way to go but honestly not really any point arguing about it, we're gonna find out real soon either way

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

indeed we are. but then you'll be stuck knowing you did jack shit to stop a genocide when all you had to do was lie a little bit to make her sweat it out. maybe follow through if your state can take the hit on democratic support. instead you decided your effort was better spent arguing with me and others like me instead of getting in on the game. =)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

You are literally arguing she make a speculative play to turn Republicans instead of going after registered Democrats that she's lost.

I'm highlighting this to demonstrate for posterity how patently absurd the apologist rhetoric was on this matter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I feel you. I completely agreed until sometime in spring, when Sen. Sanders first posted an argument very similar to OP's linked article. One of the major reasons I switched stances was environmental damage and global warming which is threatening horrible suffering for hundreds of millions at least. If for no other reason than that Trump must lose. Afterwards those who stand for ethics and proportional response can try to drag the Western leaders out of complicity with war crimes. Never stop criticizing such unethical and illegal policies, but if you're American please vote Democrat.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Exactly. For you, that rhetoric was sufficient. But whats clear in the polling is that there is a small portion of voters for whom that is not enough. Harris needs every single possible vote she can get to pull this out. The campaign needs to offer more than just "Trump worse" if they want voters for whom that rhetoric has been demonstrated to be insufficient.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago

I decide how I will vote based on whether the candidate is close enough to me across all issues. I don't support genocide, but Harris hasn't advocated launching strikes against Israeli military bases. That's a minus. I support aggressively addressing climate change, Harris is not aggressive enough on the issue. Another minus. I believe the government should set prices of goods based on the needs of the populace. Harris wants to impact the prices of some goods, but she supports free market pricing for others. Minus again. I believe in the rights of the innocent in our judicial system. Harris is a former prosecutor.

Harris doesn't check enough boxes for me, so I'm doing what I did in 2020 again. I'm voting for the only person who truly aligns with my beliefs - myself. Please join me by writing each of yourselves in for President in 2024.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
505 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3335 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

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

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS