999
“Extreme Danger”: Harris Earns a Stunning Endorsement Over Trump
(www.yahoo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
999 points (96.2% liked)
News
23282 readers
3731 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Man, I hope this changes some minds, but it might be too little too late. She's had a lot of opportunities to turn things around with the Arab community, and she's flat out ignored all of them. I'm really worried this will be her version of Hillary's, "I don't need to campaign in the Rust Belt," decision.
It's a major complication / fault with running a candidate who is in office already. They cannot deviate from the official position, tone, language, admission of guilt, etc.
I'm not saying I have secret info and Harris would 180 on Israel if she won, just saying she can't even build breathing room from Biden while being the sitting vp.
This is not an excuse for the administration's stance, just a reflection on the challenges of running while in office.
Yeah, when she first started running, I figured she was trying not to undermine Biden's ceasefire negotiations, but I assumed she would find some way to reach out to the Arab communities she needs for Michigan and Wisconsin. Now It's the 11th hour, and she hasn't done anything. I just don't understand why they're completely ignoring this demographic.
Why not? She's not the Secretary of State, and she's not running the administration like Cheney. She can differ from Biden. After all, she moved to his right when she said she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet.
Just have her hug an Arab child or something.
Why are they so bad at this?
Imo the Arab/Palestinian community would see that for the pandering that it is
Yeah it's really a no-win scenario. Probably why she's just avoiding the subject altogether.
Yeah, probably. She should still do it.
Her problem isn’t just with the Palestinian community.
There was a surge of enthusiasm among Democrats when Kamala was first elected because people thought she might take action on Gaza. That enthusiasm soon evaporated when it became apparent that she wouldn’t.
People are desperate for anything and she’s giving them nothing.
Yeah let's downplay EVERYTHING ELSE she's campaigned on and redefine democratic excitement to be focused solely on Palestine, and yeah you're right.
I’m not redefining anything. I’m telling you: Democrats are not excited about Harris.
“Sure, she supports genocide, but logically you should still vote for her for these other reasons” is not how you win an election.
If people aren’t excited to vote for your candidate, they stay home.
A: Defines Kamala Harris purely in terms of the war Netanyahu started, from an American client state for the last 40 years, which Biden then supported.
B: Points out that Democrats are hugely supportive of Harris, although her failure to break away from all of that and condemn the war in Gaza is a huge black mark, yes.
A: Defines Harris purely in terms of the war et cetera, but this time adding "I'm telling you."
Sterling.
"Excited: Having great enthusiasm, passion and energy."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excited
If Democrats don't know what "excited" means, that would explain a lot.
It's a complicated issue and explaining it to people who have been spending the last year consuming Iranian propaganda isn't going to get her anywhere. People want her to say "Israel is evil" and anything other than that will have them screaming "genocide Kamala" in the same way they scream "genocide Joe."
"We should condition weapons sales to Israel" is not complicated. Centrists love to pretend that anything they don't want to do is too complicated for feeble progressive minds to understand.
You DO realize that she can't campaign on that, right?
I know it's a little subtle for an American political scene that no longer uses such terms as waffler and carpet-bagger, but these used to be campaign-wrecking slurs.
She'd be labeled a waffler in seconds. And not only would we like her to change her position, but so would the gqp for the political damage. She can't change until she's achieved a 4-year contract.
No one is saying she has to do a 180 on Gaza, but she could have let a Palestinian speak at the DNC, or met with the Uncommitted leadership last month. It would take very little effort to make herself look more appealing to Arab Americans than Biden and Trump, but she just didn't do it.
It's the lawyer effect, they overanalyze everything and make "safe" bets. Trump is going out there and waving his bare ass around while the Dems sit above wringing their hands about what each micro group might think. They're too worried about stroking "group leaders" egos than actually addressing real people's needs.
Yeah, that seems right. I also wonder if they're chasing the wrong numbers. There was a WSJ article last month that said swing state voters were more confident in Trump's handling of Gaza than Harris'. It didn't necessarily mean that they would vote for Trump, and honestly, a lot of the impression that Trump is, "stronger," on military issues is probably just misogyny, but I could see an overreacting campaign look at and say, "we can't soften our position on Gaza at all, we need to close that gap!"
It's simple math: Jewish voting block > Muslim voting block
I don’t think that’s it. Jews tend to live in New York or California, which she has no chance of losing.
A lot of people have grandparents that fought against an antisemitic regime tho.
Except progressives and Muslims.
Citation needed
Not the way this works, you knob. You make a claim, YOU back it up. Don't go handing out homework assignments, this isn't 5th period civics.
Pro-Palestinian delegates say their request for a speaker at DNC was shut down
Kamala Harris Refused to Meet With Uncommitted About Gaza
Detroit Muslim leader ejected from Kamala Harris rally
Usually, when I'm presented with information I'm unfamiliar with, I take a minute to search it myself before I expose everyone to my ignorance, especially when the comment isn't directed at me. Anyway, the original commenter was being a bit hyperbolic, but yes, the Harris campaign has made some major snubs towards the Arab community, and she hasn't done any campaign events with Arab leaders.
Usually, when i make some kind of claim, i back it up with links without being pissy about it. But hey, you managed several little backhanded digs, so go slay queen.
You're right, let me be a little more front-handed; Harris' rejection of the Palestinian community has been in the news since this summer, and you and the other commenter are kinda showing your whole ass by going, "Harris excluding Muslims? LOL, source," especially since your commenting on an article about her struggles with the Muslim community that directly references one of the examples I gave you. People should be able to back up their claims with sources, but they're not obligated to explain the news to you.
All this because you're trying to hand out homework. Next time, just link your sources, the first time. I have no dog in this hunt beyond pointing out your smug superiority.
Yeah, once again, that wasn't me. If you looked at the profile name, or read my first comment more carefully, you'd know that was a different commenter. I just get annoyed when people demand sources when they clearly haven't even read the article their commenting on.
I get annoyed at people making some easily backed up claim, and then following up with "do your own homework." Fuck that. You (editorial "You", not you personally) took the time to type out the response, but expect other to locate and follow your trail of breadcrumbs?
And I think there's a difference between asking people to back up a fact or statistic and asking people to read the news for you. If someone is going to do the latter, then they should at least start with a polite (or at least neutral) inquiry before jumping to skeptical demands for sources.
"They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets."
"Show us your source."
"I saw it on tv."
Same shit. The polite things to do is provided your source with your claim, not demand that people go and confirm your claim for you. That's backwards.
Where's that quote from? Citation needed.
An example is not a claim. But keep trying, you'll get there.
The original commenter did give an example. They referenced the DNC not allowing a Palestinian to speak (which, again, is cited the article that we all presumably read before we started commenting). That example was met with, "citation needed."
Anyway, I'm not familiar with the quote you gave, I feel no obligation to look it up, but I do feel entitled to your time and energy. Provide me with a hyperlink proving it's real or it never happened.
Fact is that no matter what position Kamala takes on this, she'll lose votes somewhere and win votes somewhere. Most Jewish people vote for Democrats. Trump just straight up does not care about Palestine. That's a much more simplistic take.
Well, first of all, I would be very careful equating Jewish people with support for Israel and their attacks on Gaza. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists support Netanyahu. I don't know the numbers for sure, but I would bet that Evangelicals and military hawks make up a larger base of pro-Israel voters than the Jewish population.
The thing is, Biden's policy, from a material position, is essentially, "There is almost nothing Israel could do that would limit our military support," while Trump's position is, "There is absolutely nothing Israel could do that would limit our military support." If you're the kind of voter that would be put off by any criticism of Israel, you're probably voting for Trump no matter what.
Like, sure, I'd Harris started chanting, "From the river to the sea!" and demanding the immediate decolonization of the Israel, yeah, she'd lose a lot of voters. But if she had taken a position like, "Israel has a right to defend itself, but the bloodshed in Gaza has gone on long enough, and we must acknowledge that the Netanyahu administration has been a major obstacle in ceasefire negotiations," she would have been massively more appealing to Palestinian supporters, and she would have only risked hard-liners who, again, almost certainly have gone for Trump anyway. Instead, she told Netanyahu that she would, "not be silent," on Palestinian suffering, and since then, has been mostly silent on Palestinian suffering. It's like she was trying to appeal to no one on this issue.
Thing is that she doesn't really have to. She's already massively more attractive to Palestinian supporters than Trump or not voting. That's the problem with a two-party system with only two real choices.
Polling does not back that up; she's two points behind Trump with Arab Americans and in serious danger of losing Michigan. There is a very real chance that the her position on Gaza will cost her this election.
There has been a lot of talk to pressure Democrats on the Arab issue, including during the primaries. At the end of the day, the Democratic agenda is much more friendly toward Palestine than the Republican agenda. Most Arab-Americans are fully aware of that and it will probably show on election day. But they may as well try to get as many concessions as possible before the election by threatening to withhold their vote. Makes sense.
I get what you're saying, but that's just an assumption. You're assuming that they'll show up for Harris, just like Hillary assumed she didn't need to campaign in the Rust Belt. You may be right, but I wouldn't gamble the Presidency on it again.