5mo ago

Far left intellectualism

817 comments

This is extremely misleading. Fuck Trump 10000 times and kamala is the only sane choice, but stop trying to paint over reality to try and make her look like she's not just a lesser evil.
She didn't just "not promise to solve 1000 year conflict" (which the genocide has been going on for the last 75 years),
she did promise to continue funding genocide with American taxpayer dollars. (Of which the US has been giving and average of $5 billion in tax dollars and weapons to Isreal per year for the last 75 years, since they first invaded Palestine).
We are voting for her because she is the lesser evil. We don't have to be happy about it or stop criticizing her on her bad policies.
Basically: Vote for Harris, but also fuck her for vowing to continue funding genocide. Trump would also keep funding genocide, and he'd also destroy what's left of the west, on top of every other obvious reason he should never be in power again (and never should have been).
- OP consistently makes posts that only divide the Dem base.
  Considering they started out with AI posts lying about early voting, I guess it's an improvement?
  
  Again. I think sometimes the division is purposeful. Say some bullshit that's meant to infuriate the left pretending to be the Democrats because they don't even care to hide their bad takes anyways and split the base that can't be bothered to try to win even more.
  But that's probably giving to much credit and its just Democrats actually with bad takes hoping to stick to the center and blame everyone else for the center not actually being that popular.
- Right wing morons and shills can't exactly base their arguments on how much better Republicans are, so they come at it sideways with this bullshit.
  Well, jokes on them because "the left" isn't made up of complete morons like they have in the MAGA movement. Despite neoliberal whining to the contrary, the left has been consistently the most reliable voting demographic the Democrats have, and that's despite the fact that the establishment shits on us at every opportunity.
- vote third party IMHO
  fuck the two party regime that got us cornered here. vote for either party is providing genocide legitimacy.
  
  And voting third party is saying "I don't care whether we get a bit of genocide or a lot of genocide," which itself is legitimizing genocide.
  
  Sounds good on paper or if not on battleground state. I remember people pissed at DNC in 2016 got us Trump the first time.
  
  There are two choices in the United States 2024 election. No third party stands a ghost of a chance of winning. No, not even if the 30,000 people you can reach on Lemmy all vote for Timothy Greenparty.
  A Trump victory in 2024 would not only be just as bad if not worse for the citizens of Gaza than Harris would, but also pose an existential threat to a large number of vulnerable Americans (trans people, immigrants, women seeking abortions).
  Given the margins of victory in 2016 and 2020, Kamala might not win if leftists don't vote for her.
  Snoozing fascism for four years is better than inviting it through the door now, and buys us time to build our defenses for when it comes back.
  I'd like to focus my counterargument. Which of these statements do you disagree with?
  
  Voting 3rd party for progressivism is the biggest self own in history. We could have had Gore, but nooo.
  
  Pass state level electoral reform and then vote 3rd party IMO. I would understand why you wouldn't vote for genocide, but be sure to not lose focus on what (potentially) will facilitate meaningful peaceful change in the USA.
  One day we will be free to vote how we wish, and to have our vote continue to count throughout the electoral process no matter how well our preference may do.
  Who would want to stand in the way of people being able to vote for who they want? Sounds like a republican thing right?
  Republicans are moving to protect First Past the Post voting in states they control
  Why do democrats want to use the voting system republicans prefer? Surely democrats can admit that republicans liking something is the world's biggest red flag right?
  
  Found stein's lemmy account

- At least some, like Ralph Nader, regretted it. Now we have those actively seeking to spoil the vote.
  
  The tragic thing about Nader was his activism basically proved to General Motors and later large American corporations in general that political engagement and and public opinion was vital. The corpos learned to fight grass roots activism with astro-turf until they were just as skilled as Nader's acolytes, only with orders of magnitude more resources.
  Every time I see an Oil company do a commercial about their commitment to the environment I think of Ralph.
- What does third parties have to do with lifelong Dem voters wanting the Dem candidate to side with the Dem voting base on basic parts of the party platform like:
  No fracking
  Better healthcare
  Climate change is real and producing less fossil fuels is a good thing
  What you're doing is insisting if you're not 100% loyal to the candidate with a D by their name you really have an R.
  That's the same fucking shit Republicans went thru and it ended up with trump.
  Why the fuck do you want to follow down the path of "never criticize the party, and always vote for them".
  Please explain to the class why this time it will work out good for the party that takes that path.
  
  It's not that it will work out good (though in a sense, it has for the R in that they got what they actually wanted), it's that if the Rs have ~50% ish support, no matter what they do, because of them going that route, the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn't them in a coalition together.
  
  The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit. We're still only eight years past an election where Hillary Clinton took the Rust Belt for granted, and we all paid the price for that when traditionally solid union votes swung to Trump because he was boosting fossil fuel extraction while Clinton implicitly threatened the livelihoods of families dependent on coal and fracking jobs.
  Healthcare you have a point on, but also keep in mind that the last time Dems had the votes for sort of sweeping reform was 2008, and what we got out of that was the ACA, which for all its faults was still a big step up over the status quo. Obama was going for a big bipartisan win, in spite of McConnell's announcing that he was killing bipartisanship in the GOP caucus, and that was a mistake, but perhaps an understandable one given that up to that point that's how Congress had always worked.
  There have been windows of time since in which Dems have held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but never with enough margin to defeat a Senate filibuster, and with DINOs like Manchin and Sinema standing in the way of filibuster reform. I do not doubt that progressives in Congress would move an M4A or public option bill through the legislature if, in 2025, the House flips back and the Senate stays Democratic in spite of the unfavorable cycle, but withholding your vote doesn't get you any closer to that happening.
  
  Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base. It's not ''do or die'' it's vote for an administration that will actually respond to pressure and voter's policy goals, or vote for a dictator backed by industralists who all want an ethnostate of uneducated second class citizens.
  
  What's your alternative, Trump? Because a 3rd party candidate will never win the general election without a massive overhaul of our election system which will never happen as long as the Rs have a majority in any branch of the government.
- Bad faith: "I want her to stop sending weapons to the country doing genocide."
  Good faith: "So basically you're demanding that she solves the entire conflict immediately."
- I think this is a dumb take. Third parties are only used like this in the US because our voting system is incredibly broken and there is little interest in fixing it. If you don't explicitly highlight the caveats:
  The spoiler effect is a fixable problem, even on the state by state basis.
  Third parties are, conceptually, a great idea
  then what you're doing is attempting to uphold and protect the broken system from being improved.
  
  It is a fixable problem, but it is not a fixed problem. Bringing them up during presidential elections and only during presidential elections doesn't fix the problem and just leads to it.
  
  You improve a broken system by fixing the broken system, not by pretending you're not using it.
  Vote, agitate or even run as a candidate that will pass ranked choice voting, locally or larger. Support the interstate electoral vote compact. Do whatever you can to directly fix the system.
  Until then, you mitigate harm within the broken system.
  
  The spoiler effect is absolutely a fixable problem. It would be great if our current third party candidates actually put in effort to exist in the political eye and work for said reform, outside of crawling out of their hole every 4 years to run for President.

Western settler-colonialism is not “a 1,000 year conflict.” It’s a modern imperialist project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism
- ty
- Journalist Roger Cohen quoted multiple experts in a New York Times article. Both Cohen and Yuval Shany, a humanitarian law scholar, describe the conflict as being between two indigenous groups, and Cohen argues that calling Israel's establishment a colonial enterprise is "a significant category error." Sociologist Jeffrey C. Alexander refers to "colonialism" as "the go-to term for total pollution", and he writes that the association of Israel with colonialism "is seen as effective" -source
  
  Is this the same New York Times that published Screams without Words - source? The same New York Times that worked so hard to manufacture consent for the Iraq War - source? The NYT is a consistent apologist for imperialism. It seems Cohen is working hard to hasbara the situation.

Nobody expects Kamala to solve it. They do expect her to stop supporting genocide.
- i mean, to my knowledge maybe i'm wrong i don't follow this conflict very closely, but so far the only source i've seen for it being genocide was the ICJ ruling that it "might be genocide if this continues getting worse" which i dont believe was followed up on.
  A number of history scholars or whoever have claimed that it "amounts to genocide" or is "effectively genocide" (im being really generous with the phrasing here) which people have equated to mean "there is genocide"
  The ICC has put out a warrant for the funny israeli guy, doesn't mention genocide.
  I don't know if any countries have explicitly called it genocide? Aside from maybe south africa, idk how they raised the case. But if you know of any cases, inform me, i am actually curious about that one.
  and if we go with a strict definition of genocide, I.E. "strictly killing related to ethnicity" and extrapolate that to a test of "would the killing stop if the conflict stopped" i personally so no reason why israel would continue to kill people in the same capacity as they are not, or at all, if the conflict magically stopped entirely.
  People also point to the UN definition of genocide being incredibly broad. The US bombing japan in WW2 would arguably be genocide under that definition, most wars would constitute genocide. Now to be clear, i don't think it's bad, it's just a legal definition, meant to be held out in a court of law, which usually tend to be pretty vague, until tried.
  Frankly, i think it would also be rather unprecedented for someone in a higher position of power to call this a "genocide" as well. Who knows what kind of a mess that would entail. It's certainly not something you want to throw around if you want the rest of the government, and the american public to like you. Which is, the goal of politics.
  I don't really see any reasonable expectation for her to call it a genocide. Expectation to callout war crimes and various other wrong doings? As well as retracting support? Absolutely.
  Although little fun fact, right now the harris campaign isn't running on policy, as policy gives something for trump to attack, so without policy he can't attack anything she says, aside from her character, so it's pretty likely they're trying to outwit trump in that regard, if you're wondering why she doesn't talk about things like this more specifically.
  
  Genocide
  the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
  10% of the Gazan people are injured, missing, or dead within a year. Drag thinks 10% in a year is a large number. Drag thinks Israel wants to destroy Palestine so Israel can have Palestine's land. Drag thinks killing 10% of the Gazan people is an act intended to destroy Palestine.
  
  Drag thinks these are the words of politicians who want to commit genocide.
  
  Honestly @dragonfucker@lemmy.nz below sums it up. Almost everyone from the region calls it genocide (with the exclusion of some Israelis)
  Now you bring up what America did in ww2. And yeah, that actually constitutes a warcrime. But when the Japanese surrendered, that was accepted and people moved on. Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.
  It's pretty clear at this point what's happening and that it needs to stop.
  
  Going deep into the legal definition of genocide is missing the point. What category it falls under doesn't change what's happening there and the support the US is giving it

What 1000 year conflict? The nakba was less than a century ago. Plus "please stop giving 2000 pound bombs to Israel to commit a genocide with" is a very far cry from "please end the Israeli apartheid state".

"1000 year old conflict" is already Zionist propaganda.
- OP is a defender of Zionist positions, so that makes sense.
- It’s closer to 5000 years, the only time when the area was really peaceful for a long period of time was when romans destroyed the temple in 71 AD.
  
  Yeah, sure. This specific conflict of Zionist settler-colonialism has been going on for 5000 years. /s 🙄
  
  No, it's been a little over a 100 years of Settler Colonialist Zionism.
  
  Page 8, The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

Ah yes, opposing genocide is a radical far-left position. Of course.

Stop killing Palestinians is such a far left position man. I can't even. Americans are effing weird.

First and foremost, this isn't a 1000 year war. It's a bit over 100 years at most. The colonization of Palestine started around 100 years ago. Israel was founded in 1948.
Secondly, Kamala isn't working towards achieving shit. Her government is literally still sending weapons to Israel as Israel is shooting at UN peacekeepers, burning people alive, attacking five different countries, and much more worse.
- I agree. Those who care about Palestine should vote for Kamala because Trump is fully pro-genocide; but implying that Kamala has a valid plan, or even an existing plan, to help Palestinians, is untrue. She's going to do nothing or as little as possible.
  The choice is between evil and more of the same, it's not between good and evil.
- Religious wars between Jews and Muslims have been going on for much longer than that.
  This is just its latest version

Holy shit these comments...
Guys, I think you have over-saturated your target forum. Too many on the same site, you gotta tell the higher ups to spread it around more so it's not so obvious.
Edit: Just for folks who may not understand: Harris has to walk a fine rhetorical line before the election. The reality is, if she comes out strongly about Israel/Palestine in any way whatsoever, she will lose. People here can't seem to grasp this fact. Maybe they don't live in the US and understand the political/social climate here? Or perhaps they're just too young?
She will lose, and Trump will give Netanyahu carte blanche to expand his ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.
I wish I knew how Harris actually feels about the situation, and I believe her reticence to support Israel in the way Biden has is a good sign. But no, I wish I knew what she's going to do; all I know is that it's far better than the only other possible alternative. Anyone who's gonna say 'der how you know that,' is disingenuous as fuck. You know why. I'm not going to explain that shit again.

This breaks rule 2. "No misinformation" Israel is not a 1000 years old it is less than 100 years old

Lmao genocide is not a “highly complex geopolitical issue”
It is neocolonialism that has been going on for a while (not 1000 years??) and is now ramping up to full on blatant murder, genocide, and devastation for the Palestinian peoples.
I can think of something US govt can do literally right now to help; STOP GIVING ISRAEL FUCKING WEAPONS!
But then the poor investors of aero/defense industrial complex will whine and complain that their Raytheon stock went down 5% ☹️. Can’t have that now can we

This is not a thousand year conflict. It’s modern imperialism

This is just pro Israeli propaganda. This specific conflict started in 1948. The whole UN has voted against Isreal. And you're telling me that that region will have all out war if Israeli troops stopped killing children? GTF outta here.
- I think OP might be paid by AIPAC at this point with how much they won't stop talking about how justified and moral the government is to bomb more brown people. (/satire at OP)

Trump would be a disaster for the middle east. He wouldn't even be good for Israel. Sure, he'd support Israel now, but Trump loves strongman leaders, and there are plenty of them in the middle east, so he'd love Netanyahu, but he'd probably also cozy up to any other regional strongmen and destabilize things even more.
But, the Biden/Harris admin has been effectively sponsoring the genocide by giving military aid to Israel. It's clear that Israel is the biggest military power in the region, and it has been for decades. It has no need for military aid. The best way to help civilians is to make Israel afraid to piss off its neighbors. Right now it's convinced it could beat them in any war, so it's happy to grind the Palestinians into dust, daring Iran, Egypt, etc. to interfere.
Yes, it's a complex geopolitical issue, and an all-out regional war would put many more civilians in danger, not just the Palestinians. But, giving military aid to Israel while they engage in genocide isn't a good way to prevent a regional war.
Even if you're a single-issue voter who doesn't care about women's reproductive health, doesn't care about the rule of law, doesn't care about free speech, doesn't care about corruption, and is only 100% focused on the fate of Palestinians, even then you should be voting for Harris. Even if you don't like her policies, there's still a slight chance she'd listen to reason once elected. Trump would be an utter disaster.
- make Israel afraid to piss off it's neighbors
  Yes, but have you considered that those neighbors are Muslims?
- They know.
- The best way to help civilians is to make Israel afraid to piss off its neighbors.
  But you see, Israel existing at all is what pisses off its neighbors and that will never change no matter what they do or don't do.
  
  That may be, but currently those neighbours pose very little danger to Israel, so Israel is free to do things like settle in occupied lands and more recently, flatten Gaza and kill tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Kamala might fund genocide in Israel. But Trump will fund genocide in Israel, and genocide here.
We can be ideologically pure when we don’t have fascists at the doorstep. Thousands of children just FUCKING VANISHED during Trumps term. What’s going to happen during his second? Texas was (is?) putting barbed wire in the river on the fucking border. Trump will give free rein to murderous politicians (Texas is also about to execute another innocent man btw). People are going to die here.
- I watched the presidential debate between Harris and Trump, and one of Harris's main talking points was that the Republicans weren't doing enough at the border.
  
  Why would they? They need El Hombre Bogey to rile up votes.

This shit is so fucking stupid....
People ask why Kamala is so far right on so many issues compared to the Dem voter base...
And rather than say "yeah, I can't provide a valid reason she keeps going to the right", we keep getting these posts about how it doesn't matter?
Imagine if Kamala's line was just to the right of yours, whatever you care most about, she's just going to agree with trump on.
And when you go around, asking why you aren't important enough to be on Kamala's side of the line, everyone told you to stop being a baby and be happy with what you get, even tho what you want isn't included in her platform
Like, we don't gain votes by supporting a genocide.
We don't gain votes from a border wall and Trump's other border policies Kamala adopted.
Shit. Just being pro-fracking is going to lose us PA, and trump can't win the election without PA.
That one fucking issue that not a single person can explain why she holds. That's all it would take to prevent trump.
But instead of using your time productively to try and get Kamala to change while there's still time...
You want to shit on the people the party left behind?
Like this doesn't even seem like trying to bully them into voting anymore, you're punching down on these people constantly and gleefully....
You're acting exactly like a fucking trump supporter.
TLDR:
The people trying to pull Kamala left are the ones helping Kamala
You're trying to do the same thing Hillary supporters tried to do in 2016....
Do you honestly not remember how that worked out?
Or is this all intentional?
- I see your comments all the time and I just want to say, thank you.
  I don't have the energy or care enough to put forth the effort to try to explain these things to the brick wall that is the standard Liberal viewpoint around here. I'm just glad someone is though.
  
  Same.
  I’ll just sit out. You can’t reason with extremists.
  
  Username checks out
  
  Sorry but he's wrong. History shows every time the Dems go left, they lose. The only times the Dems win is when they go center to find voters.
  (Ib4 Obama, he saw Gore lose on a progressive ticket. So he learned to stay broad and ran on "hope". His thanks for the ACA was to lose control of the house of reps for years 3-8 and couldn't do anything else.)
  Take this fracking example of his.
  Did the environmentalists show up for Gore? No they did not.
  Did the environmentalists show up for Clinton who said she'd have a map room to fight climate change? No they did not.
  Were the environmentalists going to show up for Biden after he passed green energy and ev policies? Polls said no they were not going to show up.
  Harris saying she'd ban fracking is an instant loss. She and everyone advising her knows this.
- It condones the genocide, or else it gets the fascist again.
  -Lemmy libs
  
  Also Bluesky libs, Reddit libs, threads libs, tiktok libs, podcast libs ....
- You're trying to do the same thing Hillary supporters tried to do in 2016....
  Do you honestly not remember how that worked out?
  If liberals were capable of self criticism and learning they wouldn't be liberals.
  
  Why is it that everything I read from .ml is so stupid
- You're acting exactly like a fucking trump supporter.
  Blue MAGA is real, and now that they’ve finally accepted Biden won’t be the candidate, they produce this kind of “support” for Kamala. It’s a shitlib’s shitpost, make no mistake.
  Anyway, I think Kamala’s lackluster policy positions can be quite easily explained by the age old Pelosi adage - “lean to the green.” Kamala is a corporate establishment dem through and through - if you’re expecting anything else, prepare to be disappointed.
  She’s obviously still a better choice than Trump, but as you point out, she needs to be pressured hard from the left at this juncture in order to still have a chance to win the election. If the donors drag her too far to the right, why would people vote for her, right wing lite, over Trump?
  
  "Blue MAGA" is Russian propaganda.
  
  What part of the manifesto did you agree with to get your .ml badge?
- Can you stop making each sentence a paragraph?
  It makes it impossible to read.
  Can't follow what goes together.
  It doesn't make you profound.
- @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
  Imagine if Kamala's line was just to the right of yours, whatever you care most about, she's just going to agree with trump on.
  But that is not how it works. If she is to your right, she will hold a position to the right of your position. That's all. How do you equate her being to your right to her agreeing with Trump? That assumes that to your right everything is one single position. But that is of course not the case. It's a continuum, and Kamala is probably closer to you than Trump is.
  
  How do you equate her being to your right to her agreeing with Trump?
  The shitty "meme" that your commenting under....
  Specifically?
  Being pro fracking, for Trump's border wall....
  Pretty much all those policies that she agrees with trump on..
  
  That assumes that to your right everything is one single position.
  That's how these people think. Yes-or-no, black-or-white, totally agree or mortal enemies.
  There's either a genocide or there isn't, no concept of relative scale. There's either environmentalism or there isn't. There's support for immigrants or bigoted xenophobia. No complexity. No shades of gray.
  You either agree with me completely about everything, or you are the enemy. It's why Leftism inevitably eats itself. Completely incapable of compromise.
- Posting memes on lemmy won't change Kamala's positions or strategies, but convincing "both sides" lemmy users how important it is to pick the better of two options could change things. Every time the left-leaning party loses due to lack of turnout (aka punishing them for not being left enough) they move right instead of left. The only way to move the country left is to do whatever you can to get the most left-leaning viable candidate elected. Over time this pushes the whole electorate left.
  
  The only way to move the country left is to do whatever you can to get the most left-leaning viable candidate elected. Over time this pushes the whole electorate left.
  The last Dem president before neoliberalism was Jimmy Carter like 50 years ago
  Would you say that the current strategy has paid off?
  If not, how many more decades before we start thinking the people running the party are at best idiots who shouldn't be running a lemonade stand?
- Kamala is so far right on so many issues compared to the Dem voter base
  The American voter base, yes including the democrats, is extremely conservative (at least compared to me) on almost every issue. When it comes to global warming, for instance, 1% of them are vegan. Maybe 10% would be on board with disincentivizing car ownership. These people are dumb as shit.
  If you’re not willing to interact with reality, you can’t solve any problems, and at this point your refusal to get out of your echo chamber looks like you don’t actually want to solve any problems at all. You just want to hide and play pretend.
  
  is extremely conservative
  No, they're not.
  Poll after poll for years have shown progressive policy is popular with voters...
  The problem is we never run a candidate who wants progressive policy.
  But honestly?
  The majority of your last comment was just insulting people you do t understand and is indecipherable from a trumpets comment about a Republican criticizing trump...
  I'm probably going to just block you if all you want to do is act like a trump supporter, I honestly probably should have instead of typing this.
- Shit. Just being pro-fracking is going to lose us PA
  I don't particularly disagree with what you've said but can you elaborate on this one?
  
  https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations
  58% of PA voters want it banned, because they're the ones who are getting fucked over most by fracking.
  Even the other 42% want more regulations on it
  But the only two candidates for president both think it's fine, and want to open up more land to it.
  If Kamala sided with people over corporations on this issue, it would lock down PA, and also help with the other coal states around them.
  The only people who are pro-fracking are fossil fuel executives and the politicians they ~~bribe~~ donate to
- People ask why Kamala is so far right on so many issues compared to the Dem voter base…
  clearly the point of the meme is that the Middle East geopolitical situation is too complicated for the simplistic view that many leftist voters have.
- You’re demand for perfection over progress will damn/kill us all.
  
  It's not a demand for perfection...
  I'm voting for Kamala.
  What were talking about is how to get her the most votes so she beats trump...
  She does that by appealing to voters who may vote for her.
  By going left on issues such as climate change, foreign aid, education, the economy, fossil fuel production...
  If she moves left on those issues. She gets more votes.
  I do t see how talking about any of this is "demand for perfection" tho
  Did you mean to reply to someone else?

the israeli declaration of independence was 76 years ago

How tf does one "excerpt pressure?"

"Dude look at how stupid you look in this strawman I made of you!"
- Straight out of the republican playbook. Might as well use "Chad and crying soyjack".
  
  I mean since the Dems' "big tent" includes Dick fucking Cheney I'm not surprised they're also implementing Republican aesthetics

This is classic liberal brain worm nonsense.
Blue maga cultists world rather blame leftists than get your shitty candidate in line with her genocidal policies.
It's not a difficult situation to resolve: stop supplying Israel with weapons and support.

There was no massive Jewish/Muslim conflict for a 1000 years in the region. The biggest massacre in the region against the Jews was probably the Siege of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099, albiet exact numbers are not available. The crusaders killed everyone in the city with a death toll as low as 3000 to as high as 70000. This includes all Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
When I tried to look at the pogroms done against Jews in the Levant the history is actually remarkably scant. While they did happen, my impression based on just reading the wiki article was that they were caught up in larger conflicts in the region and it wasn't a deliberate targetting in the same way the Tsar's cossacks targetted Jews. And in all those cases the dominant power always came to their rescue and compensated them for the damages done by their persecutors. Also it appears that the worst perps weren't Muslims, but Druze (who are not Muslims).
In short, Trump is not only highly dishonest, but also a worthless shitbag who has been struggling his entire life to enshittify the world we all live in. He is worse than Bezos or Zuckerberg, because at least Amazon is a decent shopping platform, and Zuckerberg's facebook helped many people (myself included) to reconnect with childhood friends that I thought I would never speak to again).

The majority of people want an end to the Unconditional Military Support of Israel. That is the requirement for the US to abide by US and International Humanitarian Law as well. It's not that complicated. You can't say you want to support civilians on both sides when you provide one side with the weapons used to commit genocide against the other unconditionally.
The argument for people who are anti-genocide to vote Harris, is that Trump will not only be much worse than the current administration, but will not be able to be swayed by public pressure in the same way Harris might be. The harm reduction argument is true for domestic policies, but is meaningless for foreign policy when the current administration is assisting Genocide.
Harris is significantly more likely to be pressured to change course from public pressure than Trump, that is the right argument for getting people who are anti-genocide to vote Harris despite the current administration's policy. Because the fight doesn't end after the election, but the fight will be much more difficult under a Trump administration.
- The argument against that is that the best time to make a politician to promise something is when their job is on the line. The vote is really the only way normal Americans have to get their voice heard, and it, along with bribe money from lobbyists, is the only thing they listen to.
  The other argument is that morally, many people can't bring themselves to vote for someone enabling a genocide. Especially since Kamala is connecting herself so much to Biden saying she'd do all the same things, a vote for her is a stamp of approval for all of the current administration's policies.
  I've heard people say she has to support a genocide because so many Americans are pro-Israel, and she'll lose the election if she doesn't show unconditional support. That basically forces the anti-Zionist coalition to vote against her to show their numbers and prove they are to be listened to as well.
- The argument for people who are anti-genocide to vote Harris, is that Trump will not only be much worse than the current administration, but will not be able to be swayed by public pressure in the same way Harris might be.
  It's also the "current administration". I'd imagine that despite all of the people pretending otherwise (and kind of buying the "She's Biden", weak-ass attack line from the Trump camp), a Harris-Walz administration will not be exactly the same as the current Biden-Harris one.
  The vice presidency is largely a ceremonial role, and she has to walk a fine line while campaigning for the job of POTUS to not criticize the "current administration" that she's nominally part of and therefore is not likely to break with it very much publicly, but I would find it utterly unsurprising if she charted a completely distinct course from Biden on many issues when she assumes the role.
  
  So far there has been no good evidence she would be less supportive of Israel. Different policies can go both ways
  
  I hope you're right, but I'm concerned that Harris not breaking from Biden on his unpopular positions is seriously hurting her chances to win the election right no. It's a way closer race than it should be
- It's the wrong reason, but Trump seems to dislike giving american money to anyone, and so does his base, so that is a possible point of pressure
  
  Nah, Trump loves getting money from Israel. He would totally accelerate the genocide for that. Trump only cares about Trump.
  But he's using the same tactic as in 2016, where he's trying to come off as the peace candidate and frame his opponent as a warmonger. That's why he's only talks about it as if he'll 'end the war' and leave any details out about how he'll actually do so (more Genocide). It only works because of the terrible policy of the Biden Administration right now on Israel. If Harris pivoted and went for Conditional Aid, it would destroy that framing and give massive gains to Harris in this race
- Why so much Occasional Capitalization of Random Words?
  
  It's the polite way to emphasize words. But also in ideological discussions there's just so many nouns.

I was banned from r/LateStageCapitalism for politely supporting a post with this reasoning. I pointed out that Trump would make the conflict even worse for innocents, and voting third-party to make a statement against neoliberal Democrat rule (which is bad) is a position that, in this moment, only the least-vulnerable in America can take when there is a risk of outright christo-fascism threatening the least-enfranchised.
Banned. “This is a socialist sub.” Proceeded to see a post from a mod openly mocking anyone who entertained lesser-of-two-evils arguments; they sounded like a sneering teenager. Over there, it’s all theory and no parsing of theory with reality.
- Here's the Socialist argument for Harris.
  Ho Chi Minh would have know all about America's long history of slavery and genocide.
  Ho helped the American OSS run missions in Vietnam during WW2.
  Your allies don't have to be perfect.
  
  Your allies don’t have to be perfect.
  You say her critics are haggling about being perfect? Progressives arent even asking for perfect, they are asking for the bare minimum to follow our existing laws: neutrality.
  And your implicit minimalization of whats going on is pretty terrible. We arent talking about school vouchers, PETA, or something trivial and grey shaded here, its a much more black and white and life and death conversation. Therefore actively supporting a genocide in a far rightwing war with American weapons and now American boots on the ground and American interference in the UN VS being truly neutral and enabling peace are pretty darn far apart high cost positions.
  If Israel didnt have those weapons, they wouldnt be able to do so much killing, with so much impunity. This is illegal, unethical, and the cost to the western world order and our reputation is astronomical. So your characterizing it as strving for perfection doesnt seem right to me.
  And you arent even considering the second order effects to the concept of democracy and sanctity of borders globally. We have neutered the UN, and that enables and encourages every militant thug in the world.
  
  There's a big difference between "not perfect" and "enabling a genocide, giving weapons to an ally that is starting a war with all the Middle-East and the UN, and burning children alive in hospital refugee camps".
  
  IIRC he had actually originally appealed to the US for help, and there's a good chance he'd have gotten it too if France didn't threaten to leave NATO and join the Societ bloc if America took any course of action besides helping them continue to suppress the Vietnamese.
- Nice to see r/LateStageCapitalism is still letting tankies run off allies.
  
  Was it ever not a tankie sub?
- Yeah. I have all that garbage filtered from my feed and advise others to as well.
- Thats probably true but is still a guess. Trumps infinite capacity to be bribed-- probably cheaply-- must conflict at some level with his overt antisemiticism. Once he gets enough of his little fingers on our taxpayer money he wont need AIPAC bribes, and then what will he do? His and Vance's answer to "The Jewish Question" will be the same answer he gives to every other nonwhite subgroup. AIPAC must be thinking of how to deal with Vance and hasten Trumps demise along. Its the only plan that makes any sense for them.
  We know Harris will 100% support Israeli demands and continue whatever Biden starts, which is bad enough.
  And, obviously, Trump will end America one way or another, so thats a consideration too.
- They are the leftist version of r/thedonald
  No think. Only jerk
- Just love how all of the sudden a fresh crop of.ml weeds are in my feed to be blocked because they realized all the old propaganda spreaders were blocked and refused to not be listened to about how letting even more genocide happen is the true anti-genocide position.

Oh yes. This will surely win over those far left voters.
- Insulting people is how you get voters, right?
  
  Don't forget grossly misrepresenting their points of view
  
  We're never gonna get your votes. Most of you aren't even American. We're just showing the undecideds how terrible your ideas are.
- It’s too late for that. They’ve been shown the information necessary to make the right decision. At this point there’s nothing left to do but hope for the best.
- I know Lemmy isn't the place to speak badly of anyone far to the left, but honestly?
  If they aren't going to be persuaded to vote Harris by the other side of the ticket, I'm not optimistic they'll be persuaded by people on the Internet being sweet and polite to them.
  So imo, who gives a shit about insulting them? It's pretty clear OP wasn't intending a post like this to win hearts and minds.
  
  Depends on the instance. Lemmy.world loves to punch leftists.
- Drag is far left and drag likes this meme. Maybe you aren't enough of a leftist to appreciate it.
  
  Gurl I have drag queen friends. Just was at two shows this weekend.

You see, continuing to unconditionally support genocide is actually the best path towards not genocide and if you disagree you hate democracy
- What? They aren't unconditionally supporting it. They're saying they don't want the genocide, which might hurt Benjamin's feelings while he uses the weapons provided by the US to commit that genocide. Trump would enthusiastically give them the same weapons as long as they rent some units from one of his hotels.
- What gets me is they can't even give reasons why Kamala keeps moving to the right...
  trump has no path to victory without PA.
  And 58% of voters in that state want to ban fracking....
  It would seem that anyone who knows anything about US politics would be able to work out that banning fracking not only would be a smart policy position this election, it's what Dem voters across the country want.
  But too bad, Kamala wants fracking.
  And if anyone brings that up, just pointing out an easy and free way to stop trump...
  We get called Republicans for not being pro-fracking.
  I swear to god the shit these neoliberals come up with is the same logic as Republicans:
  Blind obedience or you're "them".
  
  Nooooooo I can't use the one leverage I hold in an electoral system to demand better things, it'll make girlboss Himmler sad
  
  What gets me is how none of you have ever offered a single point to support anyone else that is viable-
  All you do is complain, and offer nothing. Seems like you’d rather just shit on the election than participate in it.
  I wonder who that helps in the long run?
- unconditionally
  Hey its the guy on the right
  
  Well what conditions are they putting on it?
  
  How long have we been "Working on a ceasefire" while violating the Lehey law for Israel while we give Ukraine old weapons to fight Russian fascists? It's been a few months of "we can't just stop supporting them" while Israel digs mass graves and calls the UN peacekeepers antisemetic.
  
  Sorry you're right
  They conditionally support genocide

Far Left Intellectual: The party is the politically conscious, advanced section of the class, it is its vanguard. Therefore, we must form a vanguard party that pursues the interests of the working class.
MAGA Conservative: This time Trump will fix all the problems.
Lemmy Liberal: If Harris loses, it is because Far Left Intellectuals didn't vote for her, after she did not sound enough like Donald Trump
- The standard D strategy of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - let's whitewash anti-Trump neocons and bring in Hillary to advise on the campaign to win this election.
  Lemmy libs seeing the polls - surprised picachu face it's all the leftist's fault!
  
  Also, let's give Pelosi another term because "we still have more to do"
  
  "Thanks for your service to our country Mr. Cheyney"
  
  Hillary 2.0, let's see if repeating the same thing and losing Orange Fascist Fuck a second time pays off for them when we're all sent to labor camps, but it's somehow the fault of the third parties who get 0.4% in any state.
- You put more thought into this than OP, not shocking.

Exert*
- "To the people of the Middle East, I say now here you are with your faith and your Peter Pan advice. You have no scars on your face and you cannot handle the pressure"
  Harris excerpting Billy Joel's Pressure
  
  Sorry, is that an attempt to lampoon someone's accent or the audio team?
- Also “hotbed”. The fuck is a “hotbead” lol

Can someone provide further sources by what she means by an all out war if Israel loses support? Like stop killing civilians in Gaza, that's all we're asking
- You see, it is critical to expand the war to Lebanon in order to stop an all-out war.
- "If we don't unwaveringly support Israel in its expansionist plans, they've told us they'll carry out the Hannibal directive".
  Israel has been reigned in multiple times by previous US administrations by seems Biden wants his legacy to be the establishment of "greater Israel" because he's such a fucking ghoul

This isn't what's happening, though. The Dems and Reps are aligned on Israel because it isn't a moral issue, but economic, which is why Biden has given Israel everything they want, including approving the invasion of Lebanon. The US supports Israel as a settler-colonial project because it helps the US secure power in the region, securing the Petro-Dollar as the world currency. This is how the US exploits the Global South, through predatory IMF loans, aka Imperialism.
Read To Stop Marx, They Made Zion. The genocide of Palestinians is for economic reasons, it cannot stop without a One-State Solution.

I don’t know who is driving the Gaza protest rhetoric. It’s a question that should be answered. Because the absolute anti-Democrats narrative while simultaneously getting extraordinarily butthurt if anyone points out the Trump/Republican stance (and the fact it’s Congress that votes the Israeli aid) is indicative of foreign-based propaganda that cares NOT AT ALL about Gaza. It’s about getting Trump re-elected. Either that or the people posting here and across social media calling this war a genocide are just plain stupid or really, really feel self-fulfilled by their own anger.
You wanna complain about an actual genocide, look up what’s happening in Sudan as we speak.

More like:
Will solve conflict in the Middle East by letting Israel kill whoever they want, and take any land they want, with full support from the US
vs.
Will solve conflict in the Middle East by letting Israel kill whoever they want, and take any land they want, with full support from the US
- I'd tack on:
  but explained in a more presidential, civil fashion.
  to option 2
- "Muh bothsidez!"

When strawman versus just one person isn't anywhere near enough

This is not a 1000 year conflict.
Israel cannot perpetrate it's crimes without the backing of the USA.
Stop excusing genocide and colonialism.

600 upvotes you reddit migrants must be proud
- Probably as proud as far lefties are every time someone posts a “libturtz baaaaad” meme on .ml.

That conflict is just 76 years old. Even the idology that caused the conflict ist just 130 years old. Before the British colonialism the region had almost no conflict since the crucades.

Hotbed*

Please look up Brett Mcgurk before you praise Biden and Kamala's stance on Israel. Literally following Bush era policies in the Middle East.

Disgusting pro Israel propaganda...
This conflict started in early 20th century... Saying this shit when genocide is happening is literally promoting the genocide.. Never again 🤡
Can't DNC komissars go back to the news and politics subs... We see you and this pathetic shit.

The multiple typos in Harris's statement point to the author either being lazy or trying to portray her as an idiot

Bullshit, Israel can barely breathe from all the pressure the US is exerting /s

Utterly breathtaking amount of historical confusion.
After WW1 the British, who were the major imperial colonial power at the time, though on a steep decline, had already decided that the strip of land we now know as Israel/Palestine was a strategic necessity in order to ensure a divided and weak middle eastern political arrangement, which could be exploited by mineral and oil investors. The old colonial system was clearly on the way out, and needed to be replaced by a system of international finance neocolonialism that came to prominence after WW2 with the Marshall Plan.
So they knew they couldn't just colonize Palestine, it was against their interests as the seat of international finance capital. This was outlined in broad strokes in the Balfour Declaration written by James Balfour sent to Lord Lionel Rothschild, later adopted with the League of Nations Mandate in 1921. So they backed the Zionist project and started encouraging Zionists to move to Palestine which had an existing Jewish population and whose government was generally tolerant of these Zionists who brought with them lots of foreign capital to invest. This plan continued until WW2 when the industrial economies of Europe, and especially Britain were utterly destroyed by the war. The USA, which had stayed out of the war as much as possible until the battle of Stalingrad that turned the tides against the Nazis, had wanted this since it could then establish itself as the world's industrial powerhouse and seat of neocolonial finance capital. After a period of mass industrialization, this is exactly what happened.
But of course the international finance capitalists, wherever they were stationed, had a plan in place for the region of Palestine; and a few years later, with backing of the international community, we have the tragedy of the Nakba.
100 years of conflict, engineered by the international ruling class of our current world. Obviously regional tensions existed, Muslim and Jewish tradition goes back a very long time and has occupied the same parts of the world for much of it, but the period of peace that existed in the region of Palestine was 500 years long before the British carved up the Ottoman empire for their own benefit.
- The 'period of peace' still meant systemic discrimination against jews in Palestine, the Ottoman empire, Russia, Europe and Northern Africa. Creating their own country to escape this discrimination was the major driver for migration starting in the 1880's.
  Sure there have been other geopolitical drivers capitalizing on this but you seem to want to make it seem like it was just a capitalist conspiracy, ignoring these social demographic causes. These religious nutjobs would be going at eachother even if there was no money to be made
  
  just a capitalist conspiracy
  Capitalism isn't just an economic system, it isn't a way that people make money it is a system of class domination. It is the productive system of the globe, and the history of humanity is the history of production.
  You would have it reduced to just a religious dispute. Religion enforces the ideological superstructure of our system. Within feudal society God was the disembodied social object that drove productive relations: the king was king because god wanted him yo be, and the church made sure the serfs and peasants served (produced for) the nobility and aristocracy as it was god's will.
  Now our god is money. We don't do things because god wills it, we do it because we need money. It is a system of forced competition that takes our time and work, converts it into commodities, sells those commodities for a profit in a marketplace, and delivers those profits to the "owners" of the capital. All social relations are condensed down to impersonal market exchanges, and people become alienated from each other, from themselves.
  Marx said that Religion was the opiate of the masses, which taken in context is actually a very humanist conclusion. But he also said that atheists were like children trying to reassure everyone that they don't believe in the bogeyman. When you view religion as the enlightenment does, as it views all things, you see individuals acting irrationally at the behest of their own imagination. When you view it dialectically you realize that it is rational, that it is a real social force that has a function as a part of society, for better or for worse. A vast system of social interconnectedness. Rather than a mere delusion, it has great power and influence, which leaves us the question about for whom it operates and what are the historical conditions that temper it's operation.
  Hopefully someday your lived conditions will set you on the path to emancipate yourself. As the great social philosophers George Clinton once proclaimed: "Free your mind and your ass will follow."

Yeah I'm perfectly fine with not being on the same side as people openly embracing Dick Cheney and weird people can't figure out how being active in genocide is bad.

That's not far left, it's undereducated middle of the road (with instinctual appeal to right tendencies)
- The meme is intentionally vague. Is voting third party in an uncontested state "helping Trump"?
  
  Anything that helps legitimize trump (increase overall pop vote numbers, regardless of loss) or props up green party and stein with a publicly stated intention to get trump elected, in fact "helps trump"
  It sounds like your vote will be for Dr. Jill Stein? I'm open if you have some insight I'm missing, but in my experience the green party has some exciting ideas on the surface, but the party doesn't put in meaningful work in interim government outside of a presidential election cycle every 4 years.
  I understand your larger point about living in a solid red or blue state where your vote can't influence at the national level, but I just find it hard to support Green/Stein in any capacity with how blatantly Stein has, in my opinion, been knowingly running as a spoiler candidate. The Green party has a (now publicly stated) intention to have Harris lose Michigan specifically. Below is clip from a Stein rally in Dearborn, Michigan. A surrogate for Stein is about to introduce her and spells out their intentions very clearly during remarks,
  "We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic... we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”
  I would ask anyone considering a vote for Stein, in any state, to consider that truth they speak openly - When they are admitting that they can't win, stating a goal to defeat the Harris campaign and acknowledging that Harris likely cannot win the election without Michigan, the undeniable net of that is that they are working to directly secure a second trump presidency, in my opinion.
  As I see it, we just cannot have it both ways in a two party system. If the green party was a serious movement working against two party politics (and I would personally embrace and support this) they would become THE platform for ranked choice voting with a green party candidate in every meaningful on/off year election to make that issue ubiquitous with green. They speak endlessly about the flawed two party system (with a clear bias towards shitting in dems), but in the current two party system we actually have, you can't cast a protest vote without actually casting a vote for trump in this election - And that cannot be stated more clearly than this green party spokesperson states it at this event before Stein speaks.
  Here is a link to direct feed of that green party rally in Dearborn Michigan if anyone wants to see first hand to consider. It's a longer video, but it starts at the point discussed and surrogate makes the above quoted statement within about the first minute speaking. https://youtu.be/WKSm2FQ8z60?t=5153
  And trump acknowledges as much directly mentioning Stein and green party campaign by name recently,
  "Cornel West — he’s one of my favorite candidates, Cornel West," Trump said. "And I like — I like her also. Jill Stein. I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from [Biden]. [West] takes 100%. Kennedy’s probably 50/50, but he’s a fake.”
  https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/trump-speech-jill-stein-cornel-west-rcna158627
  I've heard individual positions I like from West, Stein and others in the past, but in my opinion if they aren't fighting to be the bridge to engage the flawed structure of elections in this country, these are just campaigns driven more by individual candidate ego than a motivation for systemic change.
  Those are my thoughts.

Hopes and prayers!

At least the meme acknowledges what a messed up hair trigger situation it is there, as it has been forever, and debunks the naive belief that USA simply cutting off its support would magically bring peace to the region instead of World War 3.

Must we endure this witless partisan frothing ?
We get it, you’re on the team, now make something funny or go away.

Who transcribed this? Seriously, people...

If US stopped sending billions in weapons for Israel to kill whoever their current target is, that would be a huge blow to the whole 'conflict' (as in, a colonial genocide). Neither of the candidates are willing to do anything of the sort though - Kamala has pledged to continue supporting Israel while Trump has pledged to give all the support Israel needs to 'finish the job quickly'.
And while yes, there's nuance to be found like with literally everything in the world, it's not a reason to dismiss any criticisms thrown at your preferred candidate.
- If they were good faith criticisms, sure. But they're just propaganda. All this talk about Gaza will vanish like a fart in the wind after the election.
  
  Can't say I haven't seen the conflict used as propaganda to encourage not voting - that does exist and it's counterproductive assuming there's no massive direct action campaigns going on at the same time (which would probably have to be something massive, something akin to a left's version of January 6th).
  That being said, how is criticizing Kamala about her stance on Israel a bad faith criticism? I genuinely do not understand - there's a literal genocide going on there being committed by Israel, with Palestinians being deliberately starved, bombed and Gaza being mostly rubble by now. Aggression is being shown to their neighbors now as well with the conflict being escalated by Israel, and US directly supports both of these horrible events.
  What's happening right now in Gaza is akin to the holocaust, at least according to some historians specializing in the field, and just handwaving it as some non-issue that will be forgotten just to protect your preferred political candidate from any kind of criticism is just sad.
  
  Exactly. They’ll disappear and resurface as alt accounts that will play the victim of their own ignorance.
  “Woe is me! How did we end up with Trump! Noooooooooo…….”

This.
So many conversations had where people talk about kamela being a war criminal who loves genocide because she doesn't nuke Israel.
People need to get a grip and get a basic understanding that the world is just not that simple.
- Ok, I'll bite. In what nuanced way does Israel deserve the billions of dollars in weapons and funding the US taxpayers fund to continue their genocide when at the same time FEMA isn't adequately funded to respond to the multiple hurricanes in this year alone?
  
  It doesn't, I never said that it does
  I'm also pragmatic enough to understand that you're in a special situation where you can vote for an imperfect president that could and should do much better and more than she currently is doing, or you can vote for Satan's spawn who pretty said he will destroy Palestine and kill and Palestinians himself.
  Which do you vote?
- People aren't asking her to nuke israel, they're asking her to stop funding Israel.

Imagine a scenario with multiple political parties competing to defeat the Republicans. With more representative electoral systems, voters could choose any candidate they prefer, ensuring that even if their choice doesn’t win, their vote can still be counted against the republican party with no spoiler effect. Since voting methods are determined at the state level, we don’t need to wait for federal changes; some states have already implemented electoral reform. Alaska recently picked a more moderate conservative over Sarah Palin because of Ranked Choice voting
Who would oppose having multiple chances to take power from the Republican Party? The Democratic Party would. In states they control, they could replace First Past The Post voting with an electoral system without a spoiler effect. Yet year after year, election after election, the democrats sit on their hands and do nothing about FPTP voting.
Democrats frequently acknowledge the shortcomings of FPTP voting, and have done so for longer than I’ve been alive. Just mention voting for a third party to any Democrat, and they’ll readily express their awareness of the flaws in the voting system used by most states. Comments for articles about the Green Party will further illustrate their understanding of this issue.
The Democrats seem to prefer the country balancing over a fire pit of fascism rather than truly competing for our votes. Party over country at all costs.

817 comments