Literally all Kamala has to do is announce a plan to stop war crimes and gain these votes back. The fact she won’t is on her, not on the people concerned over Gaza.
By the way, I don’t support Trump, I don’t think you should vote for Trump, but if you want to protest by supporting third parties until Kamala changes her policy you have my full support
Why doesn’t Trump have to announce a plan to stop war crimes?
Why does Harris always have a higher bar to overcome than Trump? A protest to save lives has failed if more people die because of the protest.
My California vote won’t affect the federal election in any way except to ever so slightly budge the needle on third party popularity. If I were in a battleground state or hell even a battleground district I would take a different approach.
Because everyone knows that Trump is not going to move on this issue, or really do anything good at all. Dems are supposed to be better than Trump, or at least they certainly insist that they are. People holding Kamala to a higher standard are taking the Dems at their word.
Then they objectively know Trump is the worse option. With the polls as close as they are, the protesters are willing to let trump win which will lead more gazans to suffer and die. These protests feed trump and netanyahu.
The protestors want an end to the US facilitating genocide. Most Democrats want fewer, if any, aid to Israel, yet Democrat leadership refuses to budge.
You blame voters for “being willing to let Trump win”. Why not blame leadership for hurting their own chances at election by going against their own base?
I do blame the leaders, all of them who’ve been complacent in getting meaningful legislation passed to fix the structural issues in our democracy, but now is not the time to risk a fascist getting in to power when there is a very real risk that he will provide more aid to Isreal, possible send our own troops to fight for netanyahu, or worse.
The counter-argument to your point is that now is the best time, as voters have the leverage to elect democrats or not. In theory, Dem leadership wants to be elected and requires votes to achieve that goal. Biden met with progressive activists shortly after taking office and promptly told them to fuck off as, since he was already president, they no longer had anything to offer him.
That said, I hear your point and am torn about how I will ultimately vote. I don’t live in one of the nine (arguably three) magic states where my vote will actually count, though, so it’s a bit of a moot point.
What? Yes, lots of people are protesting and have been for over a year. I don’t know precisely how many of them personally call their reps, I know I have been, but I think the massive, widespread protests combined with polling Democrat voters about their views on the matter makes the message pretty clear. Politicians have had plenty of time to respond.
Even if Kamala does announce this, does she have the support of Congress to do so? And would Netanyahu even listen if they did? The stuff happening in the Middle East has been going on for decades and I doubt it’ll stop anytime soon, unfortunately. Even without Western arms.
Kamala doesn’t need the support of Congress. All she has to do is enforce any of the numerous laws already on the books that make it illegal to send arms to a country engaged in genocide.
It’s a million times more effective to protest by getting ranked choice voting as our voting system so we can end the duopoly and actually have control over our government when we really need it, like to stop genocides.
Let’s imagine a world where we stop sending weapons to Israel. What does a disarmed Israel look like, in your imagination? How will it affect the geopolitical situation in the middle east?
All of them, frankly. It’s against US law to provide weapons to a nation that is using said weapons to commit human rights violations. My expectation is that the US follows its own laws.
Okay, I can work with that. Do you think ceasing all weapons shipments to Israel tomorrow would create a situation in which more or fewer people would die in the middle east in the next 10 years, and what is your reasoning behind that belief?
Obviously less, to the extent that anyone can predict geopolitical events that far in the future. I think the only counter-argument is the idea that an Israel that isn’t receiving massive amounts of US aid will be invaded, but I don’t find that argument convincing. It’s an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, and even if the US stops arming Israel tomorrow I don’t think Iran or their proxies are dumb enough to think that the US won’t come rushing right back in if Israel is invaded.
Of course. But a mature adult likely wouldn’t have injected the term “disarmed”. Like we were enacting an arms embargo, which we do to dozens Of countries around the world.
Sure, complete adherence to the Geneva conventions is a baseline requirement for any future military aid.
No aid that would affect the long-term health of human habitants such as mines or depleted uranium munitions.
Independent war crime investigations to be performed concurrently and concluded concurrently with internal investigations until some bar of accountability is established. With outstanding penalties to aid for proven falsification in these investigations.
If I had my druthers I would also like an end to mossad spying inside the US and AIPAC funding of our politics.
I pretty much agree with your positions 100%, in broad strokes, and will continue to send letters to that effect to elected officials.
I also believe that there are likely a slew of very complicated and interconnected factors within geopolitics that I’m unable to consider or include when formulating my opinion due to the classified nature of much of the world’s foreign policy. For that reason I also try to rein in the part of my mind that tells me I know best what should be done.
The world is so intensely complicated and I struggle to not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, as I did in my 20s and 30s. It’s very difficult to do when we’re talking about death and destruction no matter what path is chosen.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know.
Obviously Israel would stop killing Palestinians if they knew we wouldn’t support their existence. They know we’ll continue to support them, so that’s why they’re still killing Palestinians
“How dare you protest!!!”
Literally all Kamala has to do is announce a plan to stop war crimes and gain these votes back. The fact she won’t is on her, not on the people concerned over Gaza.
By the way, I don’t support Trump, I don’t think you should vote for Trump, but if you want to protest by supporting third parties until Kamala changes her policy you have my full support
Why doesn’t Trump have to announce a plan to stop war crimes? Why does Harris always have a higher bar to overcome than Trump? A protest to save lives has failed if more people die because of the protest.
… Because Trump’s base doesn’t give a fuck?
How does this need to be explained
So you know that trump will be worse for Palistinians. And yet you’re willing to risk him winning to prove a point to Harris and democrats?
My California vote won’t affect the federal election in any way except to ever so slightly budge the needle on third party popularity. If I were in a battleground state or hell even a battleground district I would take a different approach.
Because everyone knows that Trump is not going to move on this issue, or really do anything good at all. Dems are supposed to be better than Trump, or at least they certainly insist that they are. People holding Kamala to a higher standard are taking the Dems at their word.
Then they objectively know Trump is the worse option. With the polls as close as they are, the protesters are willing to let trump win which will lead more gazans to suffer and die. These protests feed trump and netanyahu.
The protestors want an end to the US facilitating genocide. Most Democrats want fewer, if any, aid to Israel, yet Democrat leadership refuses to budge.
You blame voters for “being willing to let Trump win”. Why not blame leadership for hurting their own chances at election by going against their own base?
I do blame the leaders, all of them who’ve been complacent in getting meaningful legislation passed to fix the structural issues in our democracy, but now is not the time to risk a fascist getting in to power when there is a very real risk that he will provide more aid to Isreal, possible send our own troops to fight for netanyahu, or worse.
The counter-argument to your point is that now is the best time, as voters have the leverage to elect democrats or not. In theory, Dem leadership wants to be elected and requires votes to achieve that goal. Biden met with progressive activists shortly after taking office and promptly told them to fuck off as, since he was already president, they no longer had anything to offer him.
That said, I hear your point and am torn about how I will ultimately vote. I don’t live in one of the nine (arguably three) magic states where my vote will actually count, though, so it’s a bit of a moot point.
I disagree. Your voice is your vote, no? So you’re going to speak on Nov 5th without giving anyone a chance to respond, thus letting Trump be elected?
If not Nov 5th with your vote, then surely all of these antiwar types are protesting in the street and pinging their reps about it?
What? Yes, lots of people are protesting and have been for over a year. I don’t know precisely how many of them personally call their reps, I know I have been, but I think the massive, widespread protests combined with polling Democrat voters about their views on the matter makes the message pretty clear. Politicians have had plenty of time to respond.
Do you want Trump to win? Because that’s how you get Trump to win
Even if Kamala does announce this, does she have the support of Congress to do so? And would Netanyahu even listen if they did? The stuff happening in the Middle East has been going on for decades and I doubt it’ll stop anytime soon, unfortunately. Even without Western arms.
Kamala doesn’t need the support of Congress. All she has to do is enforce any of the numerous laws already on the books that make it illegal to send arms to a country engaged in genocide.
That’s obviously not true since Raegan stopped bombing in (I believe) Lebanon with one phone call
I didn’t realize Netanyahu was in charge during Reagan’s presidency.
It’s a million times more effective to protest by getting ranked choice voting as our voting system so we can end the duopoly and actually have control over our government when we really need it, like to stop genocides.
Let’s imagine a world where we stop sending weapons to Israel. What does a disarmed Israel look like, in your imagination? How will it affect the geopolitical situation in the middle east?
Is there any middle ground between “not receiving 20 billion a year in weapons” and “disarmed”
The centrist mind may never know.
Of course there is. The US has already stopped sending certain weapons aid to Israel over the situation in Gaza.
I’ll mostly ignore the childish insult, but you can do better at discussing the world like a mature adult, I’m sure.
Oh you mean that one weapons shipment that Biden very publicly refused to send, before he sent many more weapons?
Yes. I do mean that one, and I agree that is was not enough. What additional stoppages do you think should occur?
All of them, frankly. It’s against US law to provide weapons to a nation that is using said weapons to commit human rights violations. My expectation is that the US follows its own laws.
Okay, I can work with that. Do you think ceasing all weapons shipments to Israel tomorrow would create a situation in which more or fewer people would die in the middle east in the next 10 years, and what is your reasoning behind that belief?
Obviously less, to the extent that anyone can predict geopolitical events that far in the future. I think the only counter-argument is the idea that an Israel that isn’t receiving massive amounts of US aid will be invaded, but I don’t find that argument convincing. It’s an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, and even if the US stops arming Israel tomorrow I don’t think Iran or their proxies are dumb enough to think that the US won’t come rushing right back in if Israel is invaded.
Of course. But a mature adult likely wouldn’t have injected the term “disarmed”. Like we were enacting an arms embargo, which we do to dozens Of countries around the world.
Okay, so let’s discuss the level of armament withdraw you think would be appropriate, and the affects varying levels might have.
Sure, complete adherence to the Geneva conventions is a baseline requirement for any future military aid.
No aid that would affect the long-term health of human habitants such as mines or depleted uranium munitions.
Independent war crime investigations to be performed concurrently and concluded concurrently with internal investigations until some bar of accountability is established. With outstanding penalties to aid for proven falsification in these investigations.
If I had my druthers I would also like an end to mossad spying inside the US and AIPAC funding of our politics.
I pretty much agree with your positions 100%, in broad strokes, and will continue to send letters to that effect to elected officials.
I also believe that there are likely a slew of very complicated and interconnected factors within geopolitics that I’m unable to consider or include when formulating my opinion due to the classified nature of much of the world’s foreign policy. For that reason I also try to rein in the part of my mind that tells me I know best what should be done.
The world is so intensely complicated and I struggle to not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, as I did in my 20s and 30s. It’s very difficult to do when we’re talking about death and destruction no matter what path is chosen.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know.
Obviously Israel would stop killing Palestinians if they knew we wouldn’t support their existence. They know we’ll continue to support them, so that’s why they’re still killing Palestinians
What makes you so certain of that outcome?