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
3747 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
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.