67
Time is running out for Kamala Harris to break with Biden on the Gaza catastrophe
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
67 points (78.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7192 readers
1 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[deleted]
The "two-state solution" has always been a comprador-negotiated position to establish Bantustans and the Zionists won't even implement that because they are too bust doing land grabs and genocide.
The only liberatory solution is a single state without apartheid.
They've purposefully keep trying to make the two state solution impossible. I hope it bites them one day, making a one-state solution where everyone can live in there peacefully and equally the only option.
So long as the resistance fights it is certainly backfiring in that way. Though I forgot to mention that Zionist settlers never really planned to establish two states, they wanted an expansionist status quo and are getting it. But if they ever actually advocated for two states and worked on it, it would be as Bantustans. Zionists could never tolerate Palestinians as equal neighbors on "their" land.
even if she did, which she won't, at this point it's probably too little too late tbh. I hope all the moderate republicans she courted were worth it.
If Kamala wants to be the First Ever FEMALE US President while ALSO Saving us from the Second Coming of Hitler all she has to do is Denounce Genocide?
Well we had a Good Run!
Nah, it's too late for that. She could do a 180 on everything she said she supports but we all know it's election year politics and that none of it is true.
Nah, she also has to promise not to continue enabling this genocide. Obviously an absolute no-go.
Time already ran out. Her opportunity to performatively appeal to the voters that consider Palestinians to be people (PS if you vote for Harris that is not you) was at the DNC and she snubbed them and then insulted them by having an Israeli speak.
I think Palestinians are people and don't deserve a genocide, and I am voting for Harris
These are incompatible statements.
[removed by mod]
No, it is true regsr of that. But the single issue is genocide, which is why you decided to be euphemistic about it.
[removed by mod]
”Nuh-uh!”
Do you find this to be an effective debate tactic?
You provided a nonsensical one-liner with no supporting logic. Telling you that it's wrong is sufficient, yes. I did not invite you to expound on it because you were already adopting defensive posturing.
Case in point: you just invented a quote and then conveniently ignored the other point I made. Let me remind you: the alleged single issue is genocide and I surmise you are reticent to speak openly about it because you know just how awful your dismissiveness of it will sound. But rather than confront such an inconsistency, liberals will paper over it. If they didn't do that, they might cease being liberals.
You should not support genociders.
And I was making a general statement, not referencing you specifically.
My response works either way and I didn't assume you meant me specifically. I am not sure what you are even referring to here. I made no references to myself.
More bad-faith assumptions and disinformation, now coming directly from you.
We are now having discourse about something you have apparently imagined and how I am various bad things in this imaginary scenario. Please return to reality and engage with what I actually say rather than making up quotes and ignoring half of what I say.
[removed by mod]
Not liking my comment doesn’t make me wrong
I think we may need to go to square 1 on discursive thought. I did not say or imply that not liking what you said means you are wrong. You are using an informal fallacy known as a straw man, which is where a person replies to an allegation by staying or implying something that was not said on the other person's behalf because it is easier to contend with.
This is a fancy way of telling you to stop relying on making things up. I have never implied what you alleged. Please do your best to stick to what I actually say instead of using bad faith posturing.
and the “conclusions” you draw are obvious proof that you’re in no position to criticize the “logic” of others
Then deny them. What was I wrong about? What was bad logic?
And I don’t need your permission to comment here.
I didn't imply that you did. That's 2 straw men already in just this comment.
If you’re too scared of your comments being scrutinized, perhaps you should post your comments on the wall of a toilet stall rather than to a public forum.
I would not consider this series of inventions and clichés to be scrutiny. At the moment there is a struggle to get you to respond to what I actually said instead of making things up. I will be excited when I finally get some scrutiny!
That was your point. I summarized.
It was about the same length as my original sentence. The purpose of the misquote was to mock because you'd like to imagine me as like an obstinate child than acknowledge your own fear of even saying the word genocide - as you are complicit in one. No need for you to try explaining, it was obvious.
Again, of you don’t like being scrutinized, don’t post in a public forum.
Yet again you have skipped over the other point I made. Isn't it getting conspicuous!?
It’s cute how you blame others for your own actions, even when you have to make the reasons up by pretending to be psychic and reading my mind.
I don't know what this is referring to. What did I do that I blamed others for?
And I don't need to be a psychic, just aware of tropes and behaviors. Notice that you are already confirming several of them accidentally!
Yet, somehow, you still act like this is a rational position…
What is the position I present as rational? That you should be against genocide? That you should work against genociders? Personally, I thought that would work as a shared baseline. I think the barrier is a set of chauvinistic talking points handed to you by the political class as well as a learned helplessness. And obviously an approach to discourse that is so defensive it permits repeatedly inventing things from whole cloth.
[removed by mod]
Whether you regret being called out as so, remarkably wrong or not, I can’t say, but you don’t get to do over just cause you lost an argument.
I haven't lost an argument here and am not attempting any kind of "do-over". Please do your best to reply to what I actually say rather than making things up.
You’re arguing in clear, bad faith
No, I am being forthright and honest.
and you’re using disinformation to do it
Such as?
If you regret what you said, just delete your comments.
Please reply to the things I actually say, such as the entirety of my last comment that you just ignored.
[removed by mod]
Pure word salad with no relation to what I said.
Please do your best to engage with what I say in good faith. If you cannot formulate a coherent response it is okay for you to take a break or simply not reply.
[removed by mod]
I can't fix the word salad for you, nor is it my fault that you are now behaving this way. Please do your best to engage in good faith.
[removed by mod]
Blaming me for your behavior Is irrational and bad faith.
I don't have any behavior requiring blame, my behaviot is good. I advocate against genocide, for example. I have never "blamed" you for what I am doing. I would commend you if you opposed genocide and responded germanely.
Unfortunately, at this point you are just repeating phrases in word salads.
Lying about what happened here
I have not lied at any point. Feel free to tell me what I have said that is even incorrect. This would fly in the face of your current behavior so I won't hold my breath.
just because I pointed out the flaws in your argument is also irrational.
I don't believe this conversion has ever gotten to the point of anyone making any arguments. I think the closest thing to an argument was the "this is complex" reference but rather than defend it you fell apart.
[removed by mod]
I will take this to mean you have no reply. I accept your surrender and will gladly ignore the inevitable bad faith response.
Voting for 3rd party helps trump win which means even more genocide so "voting against genocide" is actually voting for more genocide
Voting for genociders means supporting their genocide. Not voting for genociders means not supporting genocide.
Might want to check your math there, chief.
Well sorry but that's not how logic works
Our givens are:
- Trump or Harris will win the White House
- There is a 3rd party further left (supposedly because she declared her goal as having Harris not win the White House even though she can't win herself so her goal is effectively to help Trump) that is against the genocide that will not win the White House
=> Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)
=> The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.
=> Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening
=> Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green
=> Voting "against genocide" is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it) and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women
If you had a different voting system I'd agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don't have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism. So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.
Sorry for shoddy formatting I don't quite know how to fix it.
Well sorry but that's not how logic works
It is, actually. It's very simple: I don't support genocide so I don't vote for genociders. Perfectly logical. Despite your condescension, you have yet to point out a flaw in my logic, though you are making inaccurate statements about my positron.
Our givens are:
- Trump or Harris will win the White House
- There is a 3rd party further left (supposedly because she declared her goal as having Harris not win the White House even though she can't win herself so her goal is effectively to help Trump) that is against the genocide that will not win the White House
You have already failed to capture the basics of voting. You can also vote for other parties, write in a name in some states, and simply not vote on that line or at all. For such a condescending response we aren't even cracking high school civics territory yet. But you are revealing that you follow current party line talking points. The party in power, doing the genocide. Bad look, there.
Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)
Questionable. Manic JOYous appropriating genocidal neoliberal cop that gets no resistance from people like yourself vs. fading racist grandpa huckster that you presumably at least performatively might do something against.
The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.
Wrong. Many who vote third party have never considered themselves Democrats. Most Americans do not identify with either party.
Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening
Dems shouldn't commit genocide.
Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green
Trump would benefit specifically from votes (in swing states) for himself and a lack of votes (in swing states) for Harris. This can come from a number of premises but sure one of them is that someone that had planned to vote Harris votes for Stein instead. Thank you for this deep insight.
Voting "against genocide
Oh? Is it not a genocide? Is the Biden-Harrus administration not an essential piece of it? Why the scare quotes, liberal?
is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it)
Genocide is the systematic destruction of a people, it is as bad as it gets. There is no meaningful difference than the status quo and anything Trump could "accelerate". You aren't going to lesser evil genocide. Your genocider is also actually genociding, which should always be opposed, including compared to your hypotheticals. I could expound on how your framing is politically illiterate, including your normalization of genocide, but really this is not a complex situation.
and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women
To the extent that is true, it's already happening under Dems. They just pander to those groups at the same time they reinforce reaction and marginalization.
If you had a different voting system I'd agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don't have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism.
Wait, that's it!? I thought you were going to show me logic, not a series of barely-connected talking points. You didn't discuss the voting system!
Anyways I am correct regardless of the voting system. Though I will note that I have told you not to vote for genociders. I did not tell you to vote third party. I'm setting up a very low bar but liberals are so pro-genocide that they tend to fall to clear it.
So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.
That would be silly, as I would have voted for neither genocidal candidate. Blame yourself for normalizing genocide. For accepting a genocidal candidate. For advocating for a genocidal candidate during their genocide. Do you see how obviously complicit this makes you? I work against all of those things. Your "logic", which is to say bog standard lesser evil tropes, has gotten you to flip reality on its head.
I could expound on this topic but you would need to express curiosity or present a coherent case.
Ok to make some thing clear because you seem to misunderstand a lot of things. I'm not from the US, I vote greens in my country and despise the liberals of your and my country. When i put quotes around against genocide I do so because as I explain in the whole thing it's in effect not against genocide as it's not stopping it plus adding a genocide in your own population. I don't put the quotes around genocide without the word against because a genocide it is. You are so caught up in your whole spiel that you've built a boogeyman you assume me to be without actually reading the text which is already clear when you take my introductory sentence and complain that I've not provided the logic before the introduction. When my logic sends like standard laser evil tropes then that's because it is. I detailed the logic without buzzwords because so many people stop thinking about the why the moment they hear them. And you don't need more than lesser evil because lesser evil is all you have in your shithole of an electory system. You have no option to actually bring a 3rd party into power. Maybe I'll get to your other points when I'm actually awake and not lying in bed with a fever but probably not
Ok to make some thing clear because you seem to misunderstand a lot of things.
If you want to clarify any of my alleged misunderstandings I expect you to name what I actually got wrong and quote it if necessary. You made a series of errors in your response and are not in a position to project an sense of condescension.
I'm not from the US
I never said otherwise.
I vote greens in my country and despise the liberals of your and my country.
Greens are, generally speaking, liberals. Just because they don't put "liberal" in their name doesn't mean they aren't part of the liberal ideology of capitalism - in this case, via reforms like regulating energy production and expanding social programs. Buy they lose to groups like, say, AfD because they cleave to the liberal policies that degrade conditions and they embrace Imperialism just as willingly as any socdem party.
When i put quotes around against genocide I do so because as I explain in the whole thing it's in effect not against genocide as it's not stopping it plus adding a genocide in your own population.
I see, so they were scare quotes intended to denigrate the act of not voting for genociders. This is only slightly less shameful.
You are so caught up in your whole spiel that you've built a boogeyman you assume me to be
You are advocating for supporting genociders I do not need much in the way of assumptions.
without actually reading the text which is already clear when you take my introductory sentence and complain that I've not provided the logic before the introduction.
I read and quoted literally everything you said and responded to it directly. And no, you did not provide logic. I was correct in this. Your attempt at a lecture was disjointed and you did not tie the pieces together. I had to surmise the connections for you and point out the gaps.
When my logic sends like standard laser evil tropes then that's because it is.
Yes I know, these are tropes taught to children and sold to the politically illiterate. I have already said this.
I detailed the logic without buzzwords
You did not provide logic. Your premises were false and your conclusions don't follow from them or a coherent rationale. I did my best to respond to it by recognizing that these are not your ideas they are bits and pieces of very standard Baby's First Electoralism bits of partisan logic.
because so many people stop thinking about the why the moment they hear them.
Oh? So when are you going to respond to my criticisms? Do you think that you, yourself, may have actually stopped thinking about it? Instead detailing the bits that you feel you were right about and that I did not get right, conveniently ignoring the rest?
Again, these are not new concepts to me. You are not teaching me anything. I shared this lesser evil logic when I was a child and then I actually read history and politics. This does not make me special or better, but you have exactly the wrong posturing for this conversation.
And a good clue for how you are wrong is that instead of opposing genocide you are trying to get people to support genociders. That should have made you pause and go do some reading. You are doing a horrible thing. Don't you think you should have made sure you were right?
And you don't need more than lesser evil because lesser evil is all you have in your shithole of an electory system.
Incortect and I already addressed this. Please respond to what I have said rather than repeating your lecture.
You have no option to actually bring a 3rd party into power.
I have an option to spread consciousness against genocidal capitalists and their political parties. The greatest error in your "logic" is your framing and assumptions. We could get to that topic if you would actually engage with what I said and ask questions.
Maybe I'll get to your other points when I'm actually awake and not lying in bed with a fever but probably not
I'm sorry you have a fever. I suggest you rest instead of advocating for genocide.
The other candidate will put you in prison for that wrong think and send EVEN MORE aid.
Or straight up fucking kill you: https://feddit.uk/post/18652620
You should not support Hitler just because you think Goebbels is worse. You should work against both genociders, not be an advocate for one.
We need STAR instead of FPTP so everyone can vote their conscience.
Bourgeois democracy is incapable of substantially opposing capitalism, the capitalists will just pull a capital strike and hire thugs and PR people etc etc. Countries that voted in socialists found themselves, and particularly their left parties, under terrorist attacks and faced coups. Some outright banned anticapitalist parties. If you do not organize and arm yourselves, you will simply get murdered en masse.
But if alternative voting systems inspire you, I do encourage you to get involved IRL in organizing efforts. This will teach you a subset of organizing skills that are more widely applicable. You will get to see the patterns of your opponents, too. Of our opponents.
But I also recommend reading widely and critically, to challenge yourself with the material histories of left organizing and, even more importantly, its failures. Who fought us. Who won. What is GLADIO. Who is Suharto. What happened to Allende and why. What happened to the pan-Africanists, the pan-Arabs. Why is the US left so anemic? Why are the European "communist" parties so liberal? Etc etc.
Gonna be hard to work against anything when you've been executed for knowing a trans person and not reporting them.
Hitler talked about helping the "Volk" while supporting the system that kept them subservient to capital. The analogy here is not exact, but Democrat politicians are not exactly real trans advocates even if individuals sometimes are. He'll they allow big, loud transphobes to have plenty of voice in their party, they are courtkng Republicans, lauding endorsements from reactionary war criminals. As in the UK, trans people are on th3 chopping block of this faux-progressive party and it is extraparty advocacy that really keeps things afloat.
Work locally to support trans people. Build mutual aid networks, build groups that do direct action, make unions pro-trans, protect events that normalize being trans. Kamala Harris isn't doing shot for trans people except appropriation and a smile while yelling you that the naked transohkbia rampant in the party and everyday life is just the price you pay for freedom: or else.
You are correct.
and I would prefer to keep gays, trans, and women alive while we work at the local level in the meantime.
Voting for Kid Killer Kamala ain't doing that. And there is no meantime, organizing requires your help right now.
Oh so you think i should vote for Trump who will kill them himself?
You should vote for neither and should spend your efforts and time thinking about this to work against them and for our mutual liberation.
Ahhh, there it is. A Trump supporter in disguise.
Btw, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I wont be replying again, feel free to have the final word.
Given that I oppose Trump and am not voting for him, it requires a bit of dishonesty and mental gymnastics to call me a Trump supporter.
Please do your best to engage in good faith and directly address what I say. Sometimes we internalize the logic of our oppressors and this can lead to incorrect actions and prevent having the right positions and coherent solidarity with others. I think that is what is happening here.
Simple question: Who do you think would be better for the country as president? Neither isn't an option, because one is happening, no matter what. Equally bad isn't an option either, as no 2 people are completely identical. It doesn't matter is objectively false, as they will do things differently, and those differences are not equivalent.
The fact is actively telling Kamala supporters not to vote is indirectly voting for Trump, and vice versa, whether you yourself turn up or not.
If you truly believe it doesn't matter, there's no reason to tell anyone to not vote, as voting and doing the other actions you recommend are not mutually exclusive.
Simple question: Who do you think would be better for the country as president?
There is no meaningful discrimination within one's power to predict. Appropriating manic cop genocidal neoliberal jingoist suit vs. uncivil blowhard racist uncle geriatric con man. Is oppression better when it is packaged with a smile and a pander? What if we remove the pander and just point at the other candidate and say, "or else". Have you considered whether this question is a sufficient look at political action, with your pro-genocide vote filtered down as support for A or B genociders chosen for you by capitalist parties and their donors and subject to the electoral college such that if you are in 90% of states, including the most populous ones, it makes no difference in the outcome outside of you saying, "that's right I don't think of Palestinians as human"? Have you thought that thought? Or are you too busy explaining lazy high school civics like nobody's ever heard of the two party system?
Neither isn't an option, because one is happening, no matter what.
Cool well I'm voting for neither so account for that in your simplistkc game theory framework. I expect to see your homework in Game Theory 1}%, module 1: Baby's First Electoralism in by Thursday by midnight EST.
Equally bad isn't an option either, as no 2 people are completely identical.
Cool so you can quantity them? Normalized to 1 with a minimum if 0, what are their scores? Is it in the real numbers, rationals, fixed digits I.E. integers plus modulo a factor of 10? Us dummies need to know!
It doesn't matter is objectively false, as they will do things differently, and those differences are not equivalent.
O oracle, lend me your sight! Will the polite manic neoliberal that receives absolutely zero opposition from you be worse than the McDonald's Toy version of a memory of a whisper of Huckster George Wallace that you walk through town in a police-samctioned parade? Tell us!
The fact is actively telling Kamala supporters not to vote is indirectly voting for Trump, and vice versa, whether you yourself turn up or not.
Thank you for acknowledging that not voting for Trump is a vote for Kamala Harris so the previous questions are moot.
If you truly believe it doesn't matter, there's no reason to tell anyone to not vote, as voting and doing the other actions you recommend are not mutually exclusive.
Your vote matters in that you may normalize genocide with it. I would ask that you be a person that is against genocide and that you don't vote for it. And then that you recognize you are not sharing wisdom but tired and old talking points that do not justify your descension and that you should care a bit more about brown people than being snarky in a Reddit clone that exists solely because your app mind-for-tif got taken away.
Incidentally, you are from an Australian instance. Kindly go work in solidarity with aboriginal groups against your rampantly racist society and your imperialist AUKUS-promoting US subject state instead of advocating for American genociders.
