Bruhhhhhhh why the fuck couldnt you say that like 1 or 2 months ago? Why last minute?
In her defense she did say that a couple of times:
But then at times she also said they wont be supporting arms embargo on Israel. Still orders of magnitude better than a lunatic who says he is a actively supporting Israel on doing whatever they want to do:
The fact that some people equate these two candidates based on their Gaza politics is insane.
The only people i kinda get are those with families there. But at the same time my family still voted for the shitty opposition instead of the even shittier leading party when i still lived in hungary even tho their views on trans rights was, lets say, not perfect. This of course mattered because trans rights are the first dominoes and i have a trans family member. So yeah the better option is still better than absolute chaos. Idk why this is so hard to get.
And I am a prince from Nigeria who will give you money if you send me your information
If you just had said that two months ago, it would have saved me so mando idiotic conversations…
Nah, it would have just kicked the can down the road, leading to accusations that promises mean nothing. UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml is already doing so a post or two below you.
But yeah, she should have said that from the start.
I’m sure Netanyahu also wants it to end right after he gets his sadistic goals.
As of mid 2024 the lowest estimate I found was >7000 Palestinian children dead, as compared to a highest estimate of <100 Israeli children dead. Any child dead is too many but it shows that this is not a war, it’s a slaughter.
I voted for Harris because any alternative is asinine, but we should expect that the arms shipments to Israel will continue unless we pressure our politicians.
Biden sure said a lot of things, but how much did he actually do?
Presidents are not kings. Congress is still required for much of the government to function and Republicans are determined to dismantle it instead so it benefits only the rich and corporations.
The supreme court disagrees
The same Supreme Court that struck down many things Biden tried to do without Congress?
Do you mean the ones beholden to Trump, or are we talking about different Supreme Courts?
She will do that by giving Israel more money. Soon Palestinians will be all genocided. Then the war will stop; because there will be no one else to fight against.
deleted by creator
Kind of a day late dollar short scenario
I mean I already voted for Harris because I don’t wanna die in a Trump Brand Concentration Camp, but, she really couldn’t have said this any fucking sooner?
Good thing no Palestinians have been turned to ash in that time
She isn’t personally doing the genocide, so it’s not like she can stop it. All she can do is call for it to end.
Did she call for the USA to stop sending arms to Israel or at minimum set some red lines
Nope, she repeatedly called for a cease fire and two state solution instead.
Wow the protesters were dumber than I thought
She had to wait until the day before the election so that AIPAC doesn’t have enough time to ratfuck her for it.
Unfortunately, that’s how things work here if you’re critical of Israel in any way.
Instead the majority of people who oppose genocide have seen how she has continued to pledge her support. They have seen how children, women and men have been blown to shreds and burned alive with weapons the Biden-Harris administration has sent.
This reeks more of a desperate attempt to peddle to voters now that she realizes genocide is indeed a red line for some voters
I really don’t want you people to have to find out the hard way just how fucking stupid all of this anti-Harris shit is so close to the election.
Because that would mean that millions of Palestinians would be killed when the current genocide is turned up to 11 after President Trump gives Netanyahu a blank check. I really don’t want that. Stop trying to get Trump elected please.
Not to mention the fact that a Trump win would be catastrophic to climate action. The actual number of lives on the line here is in the hundreds of millions. Anyone who can’t decide to vote for Harris just simply cannot be trusted. They are not our allies, and we should remember who they are long after this election is over, regardless of who wins.
With AMOC collapse happening actively, she is probably our last hope. We don’t have more time to “protest” vote or whatever. We need her now.
8 billion people and all megafauna and megaflora and pretty much everything in the ocean is relying on this election. Gaza is sad, but those people will die to horrific climate change anyway if Trump is elected.
Removed by mod
I’m not voting for Israel, I’m voting against the guy who is trying to prevent a ceasefire.
Removed by mod
That’s because ending weapons shipments is something we can objectively do, and should do.
It’s not like the president can just say “I declare a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine” and it magically happen. All we can do is advocate for it.
Harris has been clear in her commitment to doing whatever it takes to reach a ceasefire. Trump has been having multiple calls a week with Netanyahu trying to prevent a ceasefire.
There are only three options in this election:
- Harris: Support of a ceasefire.
- Trump: Support of genocide.
- Anything else: You don’t give a shit.
We demanded for almost a year that the Democrats need to stop supporting genocide. Instead Biden, Harris and the other party elites would rather hand the US to Trump than to stop more Arabs being murdered. Maybe she proves us wrong and actually puts Israel in check. But everything action so far has been the opposite of that.
Answer one simple question: Do you honestly believe Trump will be better for Palestinians?
I believe the US is a white supremacist empire, founded on a settler colonial genocide, which is part of why it now supports another settler colonial genocide.
There will be no change to that in the current political system. It requires a fundamental political change, probably revolution, but certainly the dismantling of the current political parties to change that.
Maybe Trump will speed up the genocide of Palestinians, but the Democrats are equally committed to it, as they have thrown away every chance to end it, while taking every chance to perpetuate it.
So your floor here is “throw gas on the fire”. Got it. You admit at best he’ll be the same, and you’re advocating for it. Your stance doesn’t seem sane for someone who wants less pain and suffering.
Removed by mod
Didn’t answer the question. The choice is binary at this point. You can support the one person who’s actually said they’ll try and stop it, or you can throw your support in the trash and help the opposition that’s said “Finish the problem” when referring to the people of Palestine.
Trump Brand Concentration Camp is very apt. It succinctly expresses that the whole thing exists only for his personal monetary gain and he’s escalating to extremes for his grift.
I don’t know. Election day is tomorrow (Technically today as I’m typing). For sure late, but maybe not too late.
Most states have early voting
Yeah, but most votes don’t happen early. She’s also said this before. It’s not the first time.
Trump would do the same thing but in his case it means letting Bibi level Gaza and then buying some land to build a tacky resort on it.
Yeah stopping the slaughter is better than completing it.
It won him some Muslim voters though. Yesterday, I saw one interviewed on TV, paraphrasing: “He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, started no wars and promised to end the war in Gaza.”
Is it stupid? Yes. Is it what a potentially tipping demographics thinks? Yes.
Source:
We’re not in a vacuum. Two things can be true. She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose power, work to end the genocide, and find a two-state solution - that is, if Hamas and Bibi will allow it, which they won’t.
This binary all-or-nothing, zero sum bs is just toxic and ignorant.
Yeah it’s clear she wants a two state solution.
She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose
I’m not invested in the Likud Party losing if the war continues to expand and drag on.
The issue isn’t with her “pro-Israel” policy, it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy. That’s what’s driving the protests.
it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy
What pro-genocide policy? Name one Kamala Harris, pro-genocide policy.
Because it seems to me that she just stated that her goal is to end the genocide. Seems like a pretty counterintuitive way to be “pro-genocide”…
And if you knew anything about politics in Israel, then you would 100% be invested in the Likud Party losing.
Sending weapons to the army committing the genocide is a very clear endorsement of it. Judge politicians by their actions, not by their promises.
And not only was sending those weapons a clear endorsement of the genocide, it is illegal by US law. The whole administration and majority of congress should be under investigation and in jail.
And who is the current President of the United States?
Is it Kamala Harris? No?
So my question stands: one “pro-genocide policy”
Who is current vice-president?
Her entire campaign was based on the fact that she is the continuation of Biden. Having proper primaries after Biden dropped out was argued against, saying she is already on the ticket. Her team is largely Bidens team. Distancing her from the administration she currently serves in and saying she is the continuation of that doesn’t work.
Frankly if she was opposed to genocide the only decent thing would have been to resign from her position in the current administration. You cannot be against genocide while serving a genocidal president.
Then stop serving Trump. You can’t be against any of the things he stands for, including genocide, if you’re trying to swing this election in his favor.
And that’s the rub. Is she really ‘pro genocide’? That is the question
“Hey, i have murdered some 40.000 people, most women and children. Can you send me more weapons?”
“Well sure, here ya go. Need any more troops deployed with it, so no one in the region can try to stop you?”
More clear of an endorsement isn’t possible aside from going there personally to murder the women and children herself.
But the question remains, will things be better, worse, or the same under Trump?
Like it or not, at this stage of the game there are effectively two candidates. To paraphrase South Park, you can vote for the douche bag or the turd sandwich. Neither is a very good option but one is certainly worse than the other if you’re paying any attention at all. Abstaining from voting for Harris in a swing state is tantamount to a half vote for Trump.
So sure, continue letting everyone know what the current administration is doing wrong. I’m all for valid criticism of our government. Post facts, link sources, and post ways that people can voice their displeasure to their elected officials.
Trying to sway votes away from Harris is not the answer. Because again, like it or not, the shitty choice that we’ve been handed in this scenario is bad or worse. Please stop advocating for worse.
Left-wing accelerationists will always vote for the worse result, because they’re convinced the only route to the world they want requires burning society down. That Queer and PoC communities will be exterminated in the process is of no concern to them, because they don’t actually care about real human outcomes, they just want their fantasy Communist society to emerge from the ashes of fascism’s cremated victims.
They literally think that letting Fascism win and destroy society will open the door to a communist revolution. At best they are stupid, at worst they are malicious and explicitly want Fascism. Regardless, they are enemies of progress, friends to Fascists and Christian Nationalists, and have no problem throwing marginalized people to the wolves in a bid to accomplish nothing.
I don’t even know how to respond to this. It’s filled with so much hyperbole that there’s nothing factual to refute or discuss. All I can say is that I vehemently disagree with your opinions on the matter.
Apparently no one in the comments has been paying attention. She’s been saying these same lines about Gaza since the convention speech.
There’s been a lot of FUD about it and .ml has been running wild denying anything even remotely pro peace from her.
At any rate literally all we need at this point is a president that tells Netanyahu he either accepts a negotiated return of remaining hostages and withdraws or he loses our weapons support.
But Biden is also doing his best to pump up their ammo supply so the next president actually doesn’t have the influence Biden could have had. It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames. They’ve been shamelessly giving Israel our best military technology with no regard to their political situation. College students called this as the most likely path 2 decades ago, and here we are appearing to be caught by surprise.
Fun fact, there’s a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.
It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there’s never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
Fun fact, there’s a 2008
What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can’t find that law.
I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.
It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames.
We did learn. Just all the wrong lessons. Iran taught us that you can ride a wave of hate for 50 years. South Africa taught us that you crack down on the BDS movement day one and keep the media on lock for your Apartheid friends.
What did South Africa do to BTS?
Boycott Divest Sanction
I hate that you’re right. I want to live in a country that’s actually moral.
Then you need to find a different planet.
Removed by mod
Yup I was born yesterday, and I’m wholly incapable of reading.
Removed by mod
The genocide in Gaza.
It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide
Fucking liberalism in a nutshell.
deleted by creator
What so you mean?
So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.
As opposed to? Conservatism? How do you expect that to be different? Because in terms of president, those are your two options right now.
As opposed to?
Actual leftism. Liberalism is a Conservative movement.
How do you expect that to be different?
State level electoral reform to replace first past the post voting. Introduce competition into the voting system.
No, it’s utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn’t even a political position.
No idea how you plan to achieve your goals when your first step is Holocaust denial.
I will wait until she gets elected, and then if she continues to refuse to call it a genocide, then I will hold her accountable then.
But first, the existence of Palestine as contingent on her winning. Like literally.
I will hold her accountable then
By… what mechanism?
Genocide and war aren’t mutually exclusive. The Holocaust happened during WWII.
I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.
But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.
But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.
I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.
But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings
This is something that a lot of people don’t think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn’t much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they’re even more spineless than I realized. For all the “Trump isn’t fit” gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don’t care about compromise, and in fact they don’t want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that’s what gives them so much power.
On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.
It sucks, it’s not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I’m not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.
I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.
But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.
No, unlike your argument, I’m not arguing we split hairs over semantics.
she will never reach the vast majority of those people.
Unless.
She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.
No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.
Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It’s time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris’ words is not useful.
Way to stay on message
This reads as a joke but it’s actually true 😂
Bibi hates her, so that’s a good start.
Considering that him and Trump talk all the time, I would say he isn’t excited for Harris. He knows when the war is over, he is fucked. Remember, he tried to remove their supreme court before the war.
I’ve already voted for her, but I don’t believe her.
This is a vague plea for peace without any indication of what things she believes (and more importantly, publicly acknowledges) would be “in her power”. Is the limit of her power sternly worded letters, arms embargoes, or intervention? Because I’m pretty sue she’s not opening the door for US peacekeeping troops in Gaza, though that would be in her power (at least for a short term).
But like, with Harris we get to see if she’s willing to do anything meaningful, and maybe as public sentiment continues to turn against Israel she’ll be embarrassed enough to do something. It’s not a hopeful position to shoot for, but it is technically better than the alternative, and there other issues at play where the difference is not so limited.
The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience. In places like Michigan they’re doing this, but outside seing districts they’ve been banging the war drums for Israel.
So the lack of faith in the messaging isn’t without warrant.
The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience.
Yes, it’s this shady practice called, “campaigning”.
No disagreement that the campaign is, in fact, doing the campaigning thing.
A good campaign presents their intended policies consistently and favorably. It sells the electorate on casting their vote.
A poor campaign favorably presents inconsistent policies in a vague manner. It erodes faith in what the electorate is voting for.
Yes specifically when they think her ads in different states with different messaging are not going to be shown around.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364100748112
She represent the regular two faced career politician, which should work in regular election, but the Israel genocidal work in Gaza and war crimes expose these politician.
You linked to faux news. So i will not click the link nor does anything that you said have any meaning.
This is just a stupid take because almost all news agency are own by someone trying to push different agenda.
Yes okay a biased “news agency” would be fine. But faux news is just that, fake news.
It’s completely in her power to stop whitewashing a genocide and creating false equivalences by calling it a “war”.
Not if she wants to get elected. I’ve said since the convention that they’re trying their best to not piss off either side and that’s mostly been their strategy. Even when she’s releasing statements on the death of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders she’s very careful to say, as an American leader, I’m glad this dude, who killed Americans, is dead.
Of course that was evidence of her being a flaming Zionist to people who want Trump elected.
Removed by mod
You may already be aware that tone policing is a major component of .world moderation, so incivility is liable to get you censored or even banned. But it also creates a lot of user reports which fill up our report queue, even though we don’t admin .world.
Yeah, no. Just not true. 6 point bump lol you fucking clown. I don’t think you understand how much power the Israel lobby has here. She would 100% lose if she came out strong against the genocide.
Wait until she is elected, then criticize her if she refuses to call it a genocide.
Just to clarify, elected? Or inaugurated?
I’d like to see her take an appropriate position soon, but am not optimistic.
Removed by mod
AIPAC - they throw their weight around and a candidate is in big trouble.
Most of those Democrats aren’t campaigning on BDS either and the polling is inconclusive. It turns on how exactly the questions are asked. The only concrete thing we’ve actually seen from them is that Americans want their president to negotiate a peace as soon as possible.
She’s not negotiating anything yet. She’s working with cards dealt by someone else. And she will be doing so as President too because that’s the life of a third party mediator.
If you want someone who will wave a magic wand and expect results, vote for Trump.
Removed by mod
I don’t know what country you think she’s running to be president for, but Netanyahu is not going to be her subordinate. She cannot simply order the end of the Gaza war. She also doesn’t get to choose the representatives in Congress. This isn’t a party system where representatives are pre-approved and seated in order. She gets the representatives that each district sends. Obviously there’s some influence there but there’s also limits, as the entire ordeal of being primaried shows.
So I don’t know what else to say except welcome to American Civics 101. Pocket constitutions are on the table on the right, and political sports regalia on the left table.
Removed by mod
I really hope you aren’t American because you don’t actually have the first clue as to how we elect Congress. She can’t even refuse to seat representatives. There’s 435 districts that elect their own representative, and they’re the only ones that can fire that representative. She could remove support for their next election but the party would need to make sure to line up a replacement and gear up to support their replacement in the inevitable primary fight. They cannot do that 215 times. They can’t do it 4 times. It took AIPAC to unseat one of the 4 left most Democrats. Their entire attention is on districts that are threatened by Republicans. And if you think they’re going to primary a proven winner in a purple district then you’re really smoking something.
So when the House party leader speaks. The President listens.
Nor have you considered that Israel could easily continue the food blockade under the guise of a continued war, without American bombs. It doesn’t take the US to manufacture bullets. That’s why the end of the war, and not just weapon shipments is desirable.
How much are your Mossad handlers paying you to type this?
Not until after the election. She’s walking a wire trying to get nonMAGA republicans to vote for her in order to save Democracy. They need to at least pretend to believe she won’t completely abandon Israel. If she can beat Trump, she’ll then be free to call a genocide a genocide. In any case, Trump wants to end the war by letting his buddy Bibi nuke Gaza and just fucking kill all the Palestinians. A “final solution” as it were.
Seems a little too little too late for it to move the needle much, especially given how much early voting has happened. Harris’s position on Israel has been so bizarre, pretty sure Israel has even been actively working against Democrats this whole time anyways.
IIRC she said she wouldn’t remain silent, and then didn’t really say anything committal or concrete.
Way to late and it’s ridiculous she waited till desperation to take a good stance.
It’s basically the same pattern Biden followed. Even when he did fits and starts of good things, it was way too late and only felt like he was doing it for political reasons, not because he had a change of heart.
Biden very clearly was saying things to try and keep a lid on domestic unrest. He literally parroted, (and still does) whatever Netanyahu says. Then he always blames Hamas for Netanyahu tossing in a known deal breaker at the last minute, (occupation of Gaza), even though Biden said he doesn’t want that either.
Biden’s entire conduct over Israel has been in bad faith.
Harris could not possibly have the same line as Biden so far because she doesn’t have control over weapons shipments or negotiations. All she can do is call for peace, and yeah those calls get tainted when your boss is saying the exact same stuff in bad faith. But if we aren’t smart enough to realize she cannot possibly be operating in bad faith at his level until January 20th, then we deserve everything we get.
Peace has always been her call. We have yet to see how she would work for it because she isn’t in the hot seat yet. We have a choice between someone calling for peace, but not really pro Palestinian, and someone calling for ultra death squads.
Grow up.
With early voting and the roar of everything this is too late to make a huge wave difference I think.
What’s up with the grow up comment. I’m just talking about the strategy being ineffective. It’s completely random.
Because your comment reads like the standard .ml stuff trying to tie her to Netanyahu no matter what she says.
There is somehow always a moving Boogeyman in here.
And yet it’s everyone else that has to grow up.
I was told to grow up the other day for simply pointing out why Muslim/Arab voters may be struggling internally with voting for Harris. Just, y’know, applying empathy and putting myself into someone’s shoes who has way more involved in that than I do.
When I pointed out that this is why Democrats lose voters (they’re condescending and dismissive to their own party because their issues/concerns aren’t “convenient” right now) I’m screamed at for supporting Trump and how much worse it would be.
100,000 voters cast protest votes during the primaries in just Michigan alone over the Palestinian genocide, it’s clearly an important issue to your constituents and they deserve to be treated with respect. Not condescension and insults, as if they can’t possibly comprehend their choices here.
If Trump wins, don’t look to the liberals you hate to swing Trump to the left on this one. Eventually, under Christian Nationalism & Fascism, there won’t be any Palestinians or their supporters left, so I guess it’s a self-resolving issue.
