this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
66 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

308 readers
7 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, fired back at pro-Palestinian protesters of Israel's war in Gaza as they interrupted her speech during a Wednesday night campaign rally in Detroit.

"You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking," Harris said with a long stare, drawing loud cheers from supporters in the crowd before chants of, "Not going back!"

top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml 33 points 3 months ago

"Don't protest our complicity in genocide or else you'll lose democracy and freedom."

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 30 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Well, Mrs. Vice President, if you don't want my vote in November, then say that.

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 3 months ago (4 children)

The solution cannot be “don’t vote and let the other guys win” tho right? Kamala could have responded so much better, but that means we roll over?

I just can’t get behind this take. It’s like the religious people who actively seek out the end of the world so they can all be raptured.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The solution cannot be “don’t vote and let the other guys win” tho right?

That is the risk the Kamala campaign is apparently willing to take.

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We’re talking about your personal actions, but yeah go off king. Take no responsibility, your actions mean nothing

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Kamala Harris has no one to blame but herself for supporting a genocide

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you mean to say a movement that wants to end genocide is like those who seek the end of the world...

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We can make comparisons to the behaviors of those within two different groups without comparing the goals of those groups. Ultimately they’re both self destructive and not going to accomplish their goals.

And because it has to be said, of course I’m against the genocide. I do not think the person I responded to (and others like them) will ultimately be effective in ending it

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 4 points 3 months ago

I don't see how the uncommitted movement is self-destructive; they're the ones of families actively being destroyed from the outside. It's like we're asking them for solidarity in response to them asking for some to begin with. In that sense, their behavior is understandable and very much unlike the religious fanatics who support Zionism as a means to the second coming. Those people aren't begging for their families to be saved.

[–] Maestro@fedia.io 3 points 3 months ago

My theory is that religious people want that, so they get into heaven without dying first. They are just afraid of dying.

[–] Aurailious 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Regardless of what people do, either vote or not vote, a Democrat or Republican will be President next term. The only choice people have is if they want to affect which one it will be.

Is the argument that both parties will be the same? Is US support of Israel the only issue to consider?

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago

My point is vote Democrat

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 3 months ago

You must not have heard about the trolley problem. I'm sure if I logically explain why you should ignore the deaths of your family members you would go vote. /s

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If Kamala doesn't want Trump to win, then she should probably do what the voters are asking of her. --Whatever that is. Not listening to the voters could make her the second person to ever lose a presidential campaign against Donald Trump which would make her utterly pathetic.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think the whatever that is is the problem. What would be enough in the israeli situation?

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

She should probably check her polling data. If the majority of potential constituents are diehard Zionists then she should probably just shut up about the situation altogether. The threat of "BuT TrUmP" shouldn't scare anybody nearly as much as it should scare her -if it should scare anyone at all.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

but again what could she realistically say, that would not be an outright lie in relation to the position a us president will be in office, that would get their support. I mean should she just lie and figure she can deal with the repercussions next election if she wins?

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Then she should say nothing. Politicians say nothing all of the time, this would have been a great opportunity for her to practice that.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

again what would the reaction be. Kamala silent on palestinian suffering.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Them's the breaks of a Democracy. If you don't have the majority you protest and agitate and try to sway support, but she's the one that risks swaying votes by providing a response. --Make no mistake, I don't like her. I don't support her, but if she's smart and she want's to win then she needs to try not to alienate any more voters than necessary.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 3 months ago

Exactly she went with what she did. Does it alienate me. no. will it someone else yes. will anything she says around this subject alienate some. yes.

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Since you're such an expert, what campaign are you running?

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, I'm not an expert, nor am I running a campaign. I just read, and pay attention. What's your excuse?

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not the one acting like I know how to run a presidential campaign.

Edit: Oh, lol, my bad, didn't realize this was .ml

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well, then I guess you have nothing of value to offer in furtherance of the discussion, but this is how question and answer works. Somebody asks me a question, and I answer with my best response --A better response than what was offered by Kamala and unlike Kamala, I can afford to lose votes.

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago

You mean, you have nothing of value to offer besides your opinion that is based on your feelings with no knowledge of how they system works. Gotcha.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 12 points 3 months ago

They don't want him to win, they want to push her on this issue.

[–] fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

Dumb. Acting like the good cop to Trump's bad cop routine is turning tons of people off. "You'd better cooperate with me now or I'll have to bring my associate in here, and he won't be so nice!"

Supposedly Harris told a representative of the uncommitted voting bloc from the Dem primaries that she was down to meet to discuss an arms embargo on Israel, but I wouldn't hold my breath. She needs to be more forthright about her stance, because the subtextual indications of being flexible on this and her hypothetical empathy for Palestinians I keep hearing about (but not really seeing in any meaningful way) are not cutting it anymore.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago

That’s it! Any Arab or Muslim who votes for her is neither an Arab nor a Muslim. To hell with this vile woman!

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

🌴 Harris is just practicing democratic centralism like a true Leninist 🥥

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 6 points 3 months ago

I wish she'd try triangulating instead. Maybe champion the idea of enforcing globally agreed upon rules and connect that to taking on the "Trumps of other nations"

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 5 points 3 months ago

Wow, she's really bad at this while campaigning thing. Why not actually address the demands of her constituency?

Is it too hard to say 'I will stop supporting a country that is committing a genocide"?

[–] arxdat@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Only fools argue in ultimatums