Pfft.
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
160 points (67.7% liked)
Political Memes
5599 readers
2371 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Above all else I'm pro-civilian. When October 7th happened I was pro-civilian. When Israel began indiscriminately bombing Gaza killing 3-4 civilians for every Hamas in the best case scenario I was pro-civilian then, too.
Naturally if you have a paper-cut in one place and an arterial bleed elsewhere your time is best served focusing on the arterial bleed.
Does this change the fact that I think it's silly to protest Biden and Harris directly and misses the bigger picture of this election relative to the risk of wedge-driving Democrats and letting the guy in who won't even try to stop tie bleeding? No.
Anyone advocating for Palestinians is better served finding pro-Israeli voters and showing them the brutality of the IDF. When you then see a movement in the public polls, you'll see a movement in policy & platform.
I worry that showing the brutality of the IDF would actually encourage those voters to double down because they like what they see. Perhaps a better way is show the humanity of the Palestinian civilians.
I think PBS NewsHour has been doing a stellar job at this. They recently highlighted the father who lost his twins and his wife in a bombing. They then interviewed an American pediatrician who volunteered in Gaza. It certainly humanizes them.
I'd also remind them that IDF is so incompetent that they've killed more aid workers in this conflict than any conflict previously... Even when there is directly coordination with IDF command as instructed. They've even killed their own hostages who had their hands raised, unarmed, and with a white flag.
It's astounding. I'd never really fallen for the "IDF MOST MORAL ARMY IN THE WORLD" shit ever since I became interested in politics as a teen, but I took it for granted that they were at least somewhat competent, if gruesome. Turns out, no, they're both gruesomely immoral AND gruesomely incompetent.
Every time I see IDF officials talk I get big-time Kremlin rhetoric vibes. Now I'm not here defending Hamas in any capacity, but I just tire of IDF being elevated as "the good guys." If they're the good guys, then their standards should have been higher. Instead, just bomb a densely-populated building, killing scores of innocents and just say (without proof), "Oh well there was a high-value Hamas target so it's all good." They pulled the trigger and said that one target was more valuable than the dead children they knew they would kill.
Yeah, I despise Hamas and won't mourn the passing of the shitheads, but Israel's conduct in murdering Palestinian civilians has been nothing short of abominable.
And unlikely to end Hamas, for that matter.
This is what I don't get. Even if we take them at their word that they're finishing this for good, did they not learn a goddamned thing from 20 years of failed US military intervention attempting the same thing? Like... here I am just a Palestinian living in a slum exacerbated by blockades just trying to raise a family and unfortunately for me Hamas now controls the neighborhood I live in and I can't do shit about it because they're also being supported by outside nation-states no less. On the flip-side, it seems they're the only marginal deterrent from IDF simply annexing and bulldozing my house... Then Hamas does something stupid; but then Israel claiming to be the good guys levels my apartment and kills my mother, wife, and kids...
Yeah, you bet I would radicalize after that.
So ultimately, the IDF is further destabilizing the region, not even addressing the root causes of extremism, and sowing further October 7ths down the road when all these orphans grow up.
Worst part is, US attempts at counter-insurgency were largely destroyed by outside factors (namely, the fact that we managed to piss off half the world, and the world was right in being pissed, in invading Iraq after having acquired near-infinite goodwill simply by suffering 9/11). We developed fairly effective COIN strategies - and what's more, we offered experienced advisers in urban COIN specifically to Israel in the immediate aftermath of October 7th.
Our advisers left, frustrated, inside of a fucking week. Because the IDF had no interest in pursuing a counter-insurgency strategy. They were interested in pursuing their fucking old world blood feud.
Biden even warned Israel immediately following October 7th to not overreact and make the same mistake as we Americans lol.
It's like being handed a fucking cheat sheet of what not to do and gleefully and knowingly doing everything listed and more. It's insane.
Or it would be insane if one was operating on the premise that the Israeli government was interested in anything other than genocide as a final solution to the Palestine issue. What Israel has done is great for continuing to lock both sides into an insane war of annihilation that will not end well for either party.
If you account for the fact that Netanyahu is basically Israel's Donald Trump, it makes a lot more sense.
The hard-right government there wants there to always be chaos so they can remain in power indefinitely.
Most moral people would let 9 guilty men walk to avoid harming a single innocent
Exactly!!
This is the foundation for which all Western Judicial systems are built on: Justice Blackstone's, "Better that 10 guilty persons escape than 1 innocent suffer."
... And also the reason why these Prisoner Swaps with Russia make complete moral sense.
They are absolutely NOT the good guys. Israel is having a smaller scale preview of what we'd see if we had the same scenario happen under a Trump presidency. We should try to curb their worst instincts, but you have to win the bloody election first to do it, and somehow account for the fact that the majority of Americans do not give a shit about Palestine.
The last poll I saw on the issue, is that ranking issues from most important to least, Palestine ranked around #9. Behind everything from Immigration, Economy, Women's rights etc. And opposing them is one of the most well connected, well funded special interest groups that exist in the US today, in a country that loves money in politics so much that we legalized bribery.
It's not an accident that some of the most vocal Pro-Palestinian voices in congress were primaried.
In that political climate, the best you can do is to do harm mitigation and make sure Republicans aren't in the driver's seat come 2025.
Yes, I'm being pragmatic. And I'd fucking hope you would be too, when millions of lives are at stake. I donated to Palestine for 20 years. Even back when I was living on a shoestring budget while I was in college. Do the feel good shit AFTER 11/20. I'll be right there with you.
And for the love of god, vote.
Nobody gives a shit about nonvoters in this country. If you wanted to actually affect policy, a half a dozen congressmen that are willing to throw a wrench in things to get their way goes a LOT further than useless yammering about how you're not going to vote because 'both sides are bad'.
A couple of Blue Dogs managed to derail single payer healthcare. We could absolutely do the same for the Palestinian issue, if you could be bothered to get off your ass and vote.
Since being primarily concerned about the genocide is that unpopular of a position then why are you so concerned? If Harris made the decision that those voters are not as important to her then that's that. You can't have it both ways no matter how many self-righteous posts you make online.
Because elections in this country are often decided on fractions of a percentage point.
That's exactly why pivoting left on Gaza is critical if Harris wants to secure a Victory. Hundreds of thousands of likely voters all over swing states would be gained of Harris makes Israel a partisan issue
Many of the broad suggestions ("Ceasefire now, condition aid") end up polling poorly when specifics are brought up ("Pressuring Israel, removing aid until conditions are met"). People are generally not informed on foreign policy issues and vote on 'gut instinct', which makes propaganda, such as that peddled by AIPAC, very potent.
She's probably going to do her damndest to be "everything to everyone", not say anything that would upset Israel supporters whilst still trying to tack a more dovish position than the current Israeli position of "total genocide", as that's the old politician's trick on base-splitting issues.
I agree that Harris SHOULD pivot leftwards on the issue, both morally and because I see it as more likely to be beneficial to the campaign. But it's not a clear-cut issue in terms of electoral calculus. Whatever position she takes, including the aforementioned hedging bets option, it's going to be a gamble, and a big one.
Same poll I believe, but some different looks at the data
Over 55% support at least conditional aid, which is necessary to secure a ceasefire, which that yougov poll shows 64%/13% approval for US Citizens. Even a 50%/25% approval for Republicans according to that poll.
We agree that it's the right move morally and politically. Ultimately Harris needs to calculate whether AIPAC money or gaining all those votes and grassroots momentum is more important to win the campaign
Either it makes political sense for her to adopt her current position or it doesn't. You can't get voters on both sides of an issue but you can mark where you stand on it and have people vote accordingly.
What an astounding way to say absolutely nothing.
If they are decided by a fraction and you made the correct the political choice then you win. Hope this helps.
Sounds like you don't actually care about what happens and just want to feel self righteous and make some noise. So... the exact kind of person I had in mind making this.
You couldn't argue on the merits, so you went with, "Haha, sure, I'm doing bad things, but it won't matter so why do you care?"
Do you need me to spell it out for you to make it really obvious how dumb that argument is? Or were you just trying to be facetious?
Not voting for a candidate who is tacitly supporting a genocide on that basis is not "doing bad things" no matter how much bad faith spin you try to add. The candidate has to earn the vote and that applies to non-voters too. Some people care about certain issues enough to abstain from voting on that basis and others vote strategically because its not a team sport. You just want validation for your own voting decision by implying those abstaining from voting are directly or indirectly responsible for your candidate's opponent winning which they are not. If Harris wins or loses it will be based on her and her party's policy and campaign decisions.
If "She's not Trump" isn't all you need to know about how you should act in this election, I already know everything I need to know about how much of an actual ally you are as opposed to a willing collaborator who just doesn't want the stink of being an out fascist.
The other side are fascists running on doing fascism.
That is the entire discussion.
If that is not enough for you then you're just a fucking fascist, and you'll be regarded as such when the revolution you probably cream your jorts fantasizing about leading starts among the people your self glorifying behavior actually endanger.
Keep projecting
Did typing that feel good? I mean, if you're going to be playing 'fuck around and find out' with millions of lives, at least you should be getting something out of it, right?
Keep projecting your own insecurities
Yes, that was a great comeback. What would have been useful is a logical explanation of how your stance does anything to help Palestinians in the current political climate, but I guess that's a little too much intellectual labor for you. Turns out, I actually want the same thing you do. Which you would know if you actually bothered to read half of my comments. I'm just not being an idiot about it and ignoring reality.
If I didn't actually want to help Palestinians, do you think I'd be sitting here giving folks advice on how to ACTUALLY lock up the government to force them to deal with the Pro-Palestine lobby? The next debt ceiling negotiation is in 1/2025. You know, that thing we do every two years that we use to determine FUNDING? For things like sending money to Israel?
Just a couple of Pro-Palestinian congressmen in office, enough to keep the Democrats from obtaining outright majority (assuming they even win it back in the first place) could have been a game changer. But no, the few voices we had in congress lost their primaries.
Tell me more about how you shouldn't have to vote if you don't want to.
You're doing great, with whatever the hell you're doing. Keep up the good work.
If an army has to go out of their way to explain how peaceful they are..assume the opposite.
The incompetence goes even further as of May of this year 278 IDF were killed by friendly fire. I can only imagine that friendly fire death list has increase since the May reporting. The IDF seems to be shooting anything that moves, friend or foe.
The IDF didn't kill aid workers on accident. I refuse to believe that all, or most, are accidental with the number of absolute noncombatants (journos, aid workers, etc) that have been illegally killed (killing press workers and aid workers deliberately is a war crime).
Like others have said, it's a feature, not a bug. They're not incompetent - they know who they're killing AND DON'T REALLY CARE.
Republicans should never be in power ever again, period. Biggest reason isn't even what Trump would do if we had a terrorist attack.
It's global warming.
The US has a service economy and produces a quarter of all global waste/emissions. We produce that much waste without actually producing anything. At least China can claim that they MAKE stuff. We don't. We pollute for FUN.
Even if we completely reversed course and went 100% all in on renewables and climate change mitigation, we're looking at millions, possibly hundreds of millions dead in the poorest parts of the world in the coming decades because of our actions. And that's the best case scenario. The way we're headed, we're looking at the end of life as we know it.
The very least we can do is push the government towards addressing the problems we've caused, and to do that, at the bare minimum we need to make sure we never let a Republican step foot in the White House again.
Everything else pales in comparison to the kind of damage we cause every time we let a climate change denier control the direction of US policy on global warming.
I agree in principle with the idea that the ideology espoused by the current incarnation of the republican party needs to die forever.
But generally (not specifically) it's critical not to have a single party system.
If I was Sherman I'd perhaps say that the democratic party should never have power again. But obviously times and platforms change.
The fight is against ideology. As badly as I want the republican party to fuck off and die it's critical that they reincarnate as something else because in the long run a single party system isn't the answer
Absolutely disagree. Part of the criticism leveled at the Democratic Party is that it has internal disagreements - they don’t always vote the party line. That means the Republican Party as a single party would be devastating, but Democrats would only loosely keep their hold.
We’ve had far more people in recent elections wanting to vote for a third party but deciding against it because it would waste their vote. With one useless (R) party removed, that just becomes second party.
We've had that exact scenario happen before, where one party died off entirely. Within a couple of years, they split off again into two different parties. And that's exactly what will happen again. Democrats aren't some kind of monolith, they have everything from Corporate Dems like Pelosi that made millions with her inside trading, don't-rock-the-boat neoliberals that would be considered conservatives anywhere else, to leftists that would love to eat the rich and get money out of politics using just about any means necessary.
They're only grouped up now because the alternative is well... Republicans.
It's obviously difficult to reconcile the specific to the general, but as long as we're in agreement that the ideal number of political blocks is >1 then I think we're in agreement.