this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
758 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2883 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 92 points 2 weeks ago (38 children)

All the one-issue voters: uhh... what now?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Well, now Democrats will start coming up with excuses for why conditioning or ceasing arms sales to Netanyahu isn't within her power.

EDIT: I already voted for Harris.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It is within the President's power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

(While this could maybebe overruled by congress, it would be a huge blow to Israel in the interim)

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 34 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:

This bill specifies that no federal funds may be used to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services to Israel. Also, no funds may be used to pay the salary of any Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of State employee who acts to limit defense deliveries to Israel.

This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.

The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that's why the House pushed this act.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

It is within the President’s power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.

It is, yes. But Democrats are fucking outstanding at inventing bureaucratic hurdles to stand in the way of things they ran on but don't want to do.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Two days before the election with no substance?

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

With no time for AIPAC to completely rat fuck the election and get Trump elected. Give her some time to help prevent the destruction of democracy and if she doesn't move on the issue then she'll reap what she sows.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

This was my thought as well. I get the feeling she's been fairly quiet on the subject until now due to the power AIPAC has in our politics. If she spoke out this whole time, I'm sure they would have thrown all their financial and political power against her.

I hope we're right.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo....

This seems about the same

Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won't look so much like pandering

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners ("detainees") in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it's highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn't want to move any of them to the US, because they didn't want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???

The president isn't supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we've allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 83 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 73 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bibi hates her, so that’s a good start.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 52 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 63 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

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?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 2 weeks ago (22 children)

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.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 60 points 2 weeks ago

Step 1: FOLLOW US LAW AND STOP GIVING THEM WEAPONS

Let's see if she ever gets this far. I am not holding my breath

[–] Juice@midwest.social 60 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

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.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] leadore@lemmy.world 49 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

Apparently no one in the comments has been paying attention. She's been saying these same lines about Gaza since the convention speech.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 46 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

3rd party voters: "I'm not voting for Harris until she condemns the Gaza war!"

Harris: *says she condemns the Gaza war*

3rd party voters: *desperate scrambling sounds to find something else to be a single issue contrarian*


I'm really hoping I'm wrong about that, but I'm seeing it on this thread.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Have you been to a protest or talked to pro-Palestinian voices. The demand has always been to stop weapons shipments to Israel, even before October 7th. This isn't moving the goal posts, the goal posts have been there for decades, it's just both parties have and continue to ignore them.

load more comments (1 replies)

I mean for context something like 70 million early voters already cast their ballot, so this quite literally cannot change their vote and that number is roughly half of the entire votes cast the entire last election. So in all likelihood, roughly half the people you're mad at can't react at all because of how long she waited.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 43 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 15 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Way to late and it's ridiculous she waited till desperation to take a good stance.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

It's completely in her power to stop whitewashing a genocide and creating false equivalences by calling it a "war".

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 25 points 2 weeks ago

Good that needs to happen.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 22 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Bruhhhhhhh why the fuck couldnt you say that like 1 or 2 months ago? Why last minute?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

You're still not saying the magic words harris. Repeat after me: 'i will enforce american laws regarding war crimes until israel obeys international laws regarding war crimes and genocide'. You've waited too long and i doubt you'll do it before you need to tomorrow.

Its easy to see how she's more focused on the israel hostages than Palestinian population, a group who as our own diplomatic core has informed the admin shes a part of, will be returned in a ceasefire agreement. Hamas already agreed to return them, at least before israel starting offing those leaders first. Only israel is the issue.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RalphFurley@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago

Like her ads I'm sure she has a more pro Israel slant in other cities.

[–] Toneswirly@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah im sure you'll condemn netanyahu as a dictator with an illegitimate claim to power. Im SURE you'll stop selling billions of dollars in weaponry to them. Seriously though, vote Harris

load more comments
view more: next ›