this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
849 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19121 readers
4096 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 65 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

Where where these people of moral conscience when Bernie had a shot?

it's not like this shitshow sprung up overnight.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

They most likely voted for bernie

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I did, but most of his supporters did not follow through.

I really wouldn't bet on it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

They voted for Hillary, because the party decided it was her turn and made everyone else drop out and endorse her.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago

Hey, they were having brunch.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 171 points 21 hours ago (60 children)

I just don't get how people are looking at Harris' stance as being pro-genocide. Biden is the President and historically, foreign policy during the tenure of the President by the Vice President doesn't veer too far off from the President. That said, Harris has absolutely called for investigation into the suffering of civilians in the conflict.

Congress sets the budgetary amount of aid to direct to Israel and the President distributes the money via their diplomatic channels. There are very few options for the President to just suspend funding, which Biden has done twice for weapons under the rules established within 10 USC § 362 (a)(1)

Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.

But outside that, there's very little the President can do once Congress approves funding and that funding has been signed into law. This is why an independent channel investigation is required and is exactly what Harris has called for. This would allow the the US Government to establish their own inquiry into the human abuses. This would give the required evidence to cancel funding under Title XII authority. But none of that can happen overnight. It's not an easy path to override the will of Congress.

On the opposite side, Trump has indicated that he will absolutely turn a blind eye to the whole thing and allow Israel to determine solely the "best" course of action for their current conflict. Trump has literally stated in his rallies:

From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel's hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire

Trump would not see a cease-fire as a required condition for the on-going conflict.

Harris and Democrats historically have called for a two-state solution. Trump's plan which has been broadly adopted by the Republican party in general would:

  • Give Palestinians only about 15% of their original territory
  • Jerusalem would become Israel's undivided capitol, meaning all claims by the Palestinians to the eastern half of the city would be tossed out.
  • Allow Palestinians to "achieve an independent state" via a means that is not clearly defined in the plan but indicated that Israel would have a final say in that process.
  • "No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes" indicating that the territory that Israel has already colonized from their current conflict would become Israel's.
  • Would put Israel and Jordan on equal footing for the administration of al-Haram al-Sharif, which will absolutely ignite a conflict.
  • Any territory allocated to Palestinians would have to undergo a four year "wait" period, but there's no protections from Israel obtaining that territory if done so during conflict. So Israel could provoke someone to fight them and that would give them justification to take the land during this "four year wait period".

Trump has all but given up completely on a two-state solution. Which means, he's for a one state solution. And people are fooling themselves if they believe that Trump would seek a "peaceful" one state solution. He has told Netanyahu directly, "Just get it done quickly". Now we can play a game as what manner is used to "get it done quickly" means, but only idiots are the one's thinking that doesn't give a tacit nod to ethic cleansing.

I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don't think they are thinking at all. You have one solution that is long, stupid, and required because we are a nation of laws. And you have the other solution that is "fuck it, firebomb them all and call it done". It is difficult to imagine that there are truly people this blind and ignorant to this reality. But yet, here we are.

The notion that we might get a 3rd party into office like twenty years from now if we start today, helps nobody if the people we're trying to help are all eradicated over the next four years. Going down this "third road" only ensures an outcome where we are fifteen years too late to help.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

I'm trying to understand how this system works and came across this article from Al Jazeera which, if I'm reading it correctly, is saying that the US did determine gross human rights violations but the Biden administration is refusing to apply the Leahy Law. Doesn't this mean that Biden does have the authority to stop sending military aid but isn't, or am I misunderstanding something? Also, aside from Leahy Law why can't he veto the military aid?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (59 replies)
[–] [email protected] 81 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Hey look, Bernie right on it. Again.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

Are people really claiming Trump isn't worse? I think it's more that people think that Harris may be better than Trump (pretty low bar there), but still too bad to vote for. Voting for the lesser evil only goes so far. At some point the lesser evil is still too far from one's own ideals that voting for them isn't an option. Different people will obviously draw that line in different places and if I lived in the USA, I'd probably begrudgingly vote for Harris in the coming election.

Democrats basically slandering anyone who refuses to vote for their candidate as Trump supporters is fucking stupid and will hardly convince anyone to change their minds. Especially when it seems democrats have had nothing to offer the left other than "the other side is worse" for as far back as I can remember. If they want the left's votes, they need to earn them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›