politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I know. I mean I’m not a huge fan of Harris’ Gaza stance. Honestly I’m not sure why it’s political at all to call what Israel is doing wrong. But come on, Trump will be 100 times worse. And that’s just on the Israel/Gaza thing. I’m not sure how you can look at these two and decide that Harris is wrong enough about the Gaza thing that you come to the conclusion that either a third party or Trump vote is warranted. Which makes me believe is not genuine and likely foreign agent spreading chaos and misinformation.
It's because there is a large, internally-polled segment of the Pennsylvania electorate who are Jewish and sympathetic to Israel.
Harris can't afford to not court them.
I have no doubt she vehemently dislikes Bibi and would wish to cut aid.
Not only that, but AIPAC is a serious force that has demonstrated their willingness to aggressively smear every candidate who speaks out against Israel; they've already done this for a number of races.
Harris is basically trapped here. The best thing she can do is stay vague until after the election, when she might actually have the power to do something about it. No one on Palestine's side has anything to gain from her losing votes over it.
Yeah this is basically my thoughts as well. Stuck between Iraq and a hard place (I had to do the Hot Shots joke here... too fitting).
But seriously, AIPAC has way too much power in American politics. And your comment about Palestine is spot on. She is walking a very thin line, but this is the nature of politics and nuance. That orange fucker has no clue about any of this.
This is the correct reason and the reason why the genocide will continue no matter who is elected.
Aipac has bought enough of american politicians that it has rendered votes worthless.
People should vote on matters other than this for with any outcome US sponsored genocide is inevitable.
I hope you are right. But, without evidence (if there is any, please share it), this might be wishful thinking. You might just be a more moral person than Harris. I might be being extremely unfair, but it doesn't seem impossible for an elected official to be willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people in a country without American voters to gain power.
I think there have been some "leaked" info to reputable journalists how both Biden and Harris pretty much despise Bibi at this point. I think if you look at it in the aggregate in how they pushed for the ceasefire (as opposed to Trump speaking with Bibi to actively undermine it), in her comments after meeting with Bibi shortly after becoming the presumed nominee following Biden stepping down — there is a clear tonal change from, say, 6-months-ago even. So yeah, I think her hands are pretty well tied.
Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.
I completely agree with that. I admit to being impatient for change now, because innocent people are dying now. It is sad that elections (and electorates) get in the way of such important moral principles.
And everyone conveniently forgets that Biden did try to stop aid to Israel earlier this year. Congress blocked it. Is he trying hard enough? No probably not (I don't claim to be an expert in middle east geopolitics, it is possible that the situation is an even more thoroughly fucked Gordian knot than it appears), but he did try. And the alternative this November thinks what he is trying is "too tough" on Bibi.
Did he try? Biden could have cited the Leahy laws any time he wanted, and proclaimed that he beleived genocide was occurring. He did not do that. So I dont beleive he was trying. I think he was pretending.
Do you understand how that works? There are exceptions specifically carved out for Israel, which require Blinken to initiate that process.
Do you understand that Blinken is a member of the presidents cabinet and the president can fire anyone in his cabinet if they go rogue from his wishes?
Okay, then what? Israel gets weapons from their other allies and we lose any leverage we do have. It's almost as if this is a complex geopolitical issue, in fact so complex that "bringing peace to the West Bank" is a well established meme for an impossibly difficult task, and simple solutions have consequences not obvious to the layperson.