There both going to do the same thing. Send more weapons and say Isreal has the right to defend itself.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBTDzIJvFrF/?igsh=MTNqdzQwaTRvMDYzdg==
Wow so complex! Wonder what need to happen.
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).
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.
Similarly, Woodward and Bernstein showed the corporations how dangerous an independent press was.
Back in Watergate Era, there were plenty of locally owned newspapers and TV stations. Today, thanks to ronald reagan’s assault on the Fairness Doctrine, we have six major media companies controlling what we hear.
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.
Right and that makes sense…
Unfortunately that’s not what Kamala is doing.
I’ll say it till my face turns blue:
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.
That isn’t the only issue she’s to the right of the party on either.
It’s like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren’t focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.
So then telling voters “all that matters is beating trump” it’s obviously bullshit because they’re not doing everything possible to beat trump.
It ain’t complicated.
Like you said:
the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.
That’s the opposite of what OP spends their time on, but considering a month ago they were intentionally spreading misinformation about when early voting started, I’m surprised the mods still let them post here.
Every single “meme” OP posts is about how Dem voters should fight with Dem voters rather than band together.
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take, when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?
It’s not the instant win you think it is.
Not the person you replied to, but 58% of Pennsylvanians support a ban on fracking. It really shouldn’t be surprising. Pennsylvania may be a great hub of fracking, but very few people actually benefit from the wealth it creates. Meanwhile, they’re the people actually on the ground, living there in the areas most affected by fracking. They know its effects better than anyone. It’s their ground water and their wells are being contaminated, all so a few companies owned by out of state wealthy interests can profit mightily. Plus, it’s not like Pennsylvanians aren’t also worried about climate change.
when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?
You’re confusing people and corporations…
Pennsylvania voters continue to be split over fracking. A poll out this week, which surveyed 700 likely voters in September, shows 58% support a ban on fracking while 42% oppose it.
58% of likely voters in PA want it banned…
58% of likely voters in PA want it banned…
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.
Yep. When Democrats enact environmental policies, they don’t do it for the votes. Which makes Biden all the more commendable for his environmental action imo.
When people are employed by those corporations, they have a vested interest in their livelihood not disappearing overnight.
A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error. Without information on how they selected participants, I wouldn’t say that’s an overwhelming margin.
When people are employed by those corporations,
…
The report finds that about 64,000 Pennsylvania workers are employed in fossil fuel-based industries such as natural gas drilling, coal mining, and supporting activities
64k, not just fracking, that’s all fossil fuel jobs in PA.
There’s 12.7 million people in the state
0.5% of people in the state work any job connected to fossil fuels…
You’re confusing corporations and people homie.
A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error
You didn’t have to tell us you never learned about stats in any educational setting, but I appreciate the transparency.
700 is more than enough
That assumes that 58% are people who aren’t already voting dem
An economy that “leans heavily” on fracking? What sort of economy leans on destroying their water table? What did you say about the economies that “lean heavily” on coal mining?
Like what, West Virginia? Can me when they’re a swing state, but don’t hold your breath.
If the conviction issue depends upon it being a swing state then it isnt a conviction issue.
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.
I’m skeptical that there’s a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking. And if there are people claiming that, I don’t believe they would be voting even if Kamala did come out against fracking anyway. Everyone knows Trump would be much, much worse for the environment than Kamala, and to refuse to vote over one single environmental issue is either very dumb or completely disingenuous.
It’s like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren’t focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.
because, unfortunately, donations are important. It’s a shitty system, and this is what they have to do to win in the system.
It ain’t complicated.
actually it is.
I’m skeptical that there’s a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking
No one said there was.
I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it
58% of PA voters want it banned
What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?
Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?
Even if that works…
You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?
actually it is.
I can admit when I’m wrong, I really didn’t think it needed this much explaining.
No one said there was.
you clearly implied it by saying, “Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win”.
I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it
58% of PA voters want it banned
…which does not mean she’d gain voters from changing her position. How many of those people are voting for her anyway? How many would actually vote for her if she did change her position? you don’t know this, and neither do I, but I’m guessing they have a pretty good idea.
What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?
Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?
Even if that works…
You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?
Yes. I’m not arguing that it’s a good thing. I’m saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.
I can admit when I’m wrong, I really didn’t think it needed this much explaining.
again some things are not as simple as you think.
you clearly implied it by saying, “Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win”.
That doesn’t say anything about non voters…
How many of those people are voting for her anyway?
If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?
But why are you questioning every reason for why Kamala should match the party and ban fracking…
And you can’t offer a si gle reason why she’s pro-fracking besides:
I’m saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.
So are you just admitting that the reason both candidates in 2024 are pro-fracking is because they’re taking bribes in the form of donations?
Like, and I hate that I have to say this:
Just because trump takes fossil fuel bribes doesn’t mean Kamala does.
Like, by that same logic you’re using to defend fracking, a foreign government can buy off the Dem party to support and find their invasion of sovereign countries…
Because trump and the Republicans do it too.
Is that what you meant to say or do you not even realize what you’re defending here?
WHY do you dumbasses always think everyone agrees with your personal beliefs??
A LOT of people like fracking, and even more are indifferent. Harris is not looking at this huge fucking majority of Dems who hate fracking and going “nah, I don’t wanna win this election”. She is accurately representing the positions of a majority of Democrats.YOU are the minority.
(And me too, because I’m also anti fracking, but I’m a realist)
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.
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
Polls show progressive policy isn’t just popular with Dems, but all voters…
That’s life mate, I’m sorry it doesn’t agree with your opinions, but it’s the truth.
That’s why Obama’s 08 campaign did so fucking well, despite not really being that progressive in any other developed country.
The neoliberal experiment has only benefited the wealthy, stop defending them, they got lawyers and lobbyists for them, pick people over corps and we can get something done.
Polls show progressive policy isn’t just popular with Dems, but all voters…
That is until they’re told it’s a Dem policy.
And of course the progressives actually show up to vote.
The neoliberal experiment has only benefited the wealthy, stop defending them
Neoliberals are Republicans, so we’re already not defending them.
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.
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.
And Biden got elected despite his age…
2020 was an example of the candidate moving their campaign left and winning the election.
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.
I don’t disagree with the reality of what you’re saying, and I personally agree, but at the same time I think you have to grant people the right to vote their opinion if that’s what they choose. It’s not my choice, but people should be able to represent their views how they want.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
-
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.
So you won’t complain about spoilers during midterms, then?
The spoilers rarely show up, if ever, during midterms, which is very telling.
Then it’ll be really easy to not complain about them.
Which is why the correct way to bring it up is to mention the spoiler effect.
The problem is when you talk to some republicans they want a 1 party system. They want to ban democrats. If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties. These are both antidemocracy views that normalize each other.
So what you’re arguing for here (to be very clear) is that it is better to embrace a softer form of anti-democracy messaging than to explain that we should avoid voting third party when spoiler effects are a concern.
I’m saying that if you’re in favor of strengthening third parties in America a lot of work needs to be done and just shouting vote third party every 4 years is none of that work.
And I’m saying damage control for third parties a lot more work needs to be done than simply saying “3rd party bad, 2 parties good.” because idk if you’ve been watching but we’re perilously close to having a 1 party system.
This a prime opportunity to educate voters on their own voting system and people are squandering that to oversimplify their messaging to the degree they sound like republicans.
Edit: To clarify if you wanted to eliminate the republican party, a 3rd party needs to replace it in a 2 party system creating a “catch 22” situation where fptp props up a fascist minority party because 3rd parties can’t compete
Any third-party candidate trying to run for the president is either stupid or acting in bad faith. That’s what the meme was pointing out. That’s the reality of the situation in America until the work is done to fix the spoiler problem. If someone is competent and actually is acting in good faith, they don’t run as a third party in US presidential elections. If their belief is we need stronger third parties, they do that by trying to change the electoral system at a more local level.
because idk if you’ve been watching but we’re perilously close to having a 1 party system.
THAT IS WHY WE’RE SAYING 3RD PARTY BAD
This is NOT the time. Just shut up about 3rd parties. The debates and discussions are still perfectly valid in 3 months, let’s talk about it then.
Removed by mod
“Now” is the only time to educate people about how the voting system needs to change and the “Less parties more good” mantra is the stupidest shit I’ve ever seen. The problem has a name and its called the “spoiler effect”.
People talk about these issues during political season or they don’t talk about them. Quit trying to solve a short term problem with a long term problem.
If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties.
I have never seen this argument from any democrat before.
Questioned their legitimacy in participating as a candidate in a presidential election? Yes.
But banning third parties? Absolute hogwash, I’ve never once seen that.
Sure you conveniently haven’t, but I’ve seen it floated on these boards and the post in the chain above us we’re replying to is aligned with antidemocratic messaging - it by no means rejects anyone who wants to ban 3rd parties.
But lets make an even easier comparison making it hard for 3rd parties to exist is not wholly different than banning them. This is in fact how republicans approached abortion before the supreme court’s catholic wing decided to allow bans.
Its all working to the same goal. Anti 3rd party messaging without context and rational thought is just anti-democracy messaging which only helps republicans. Every legal tool democrats are using to beat down 3rd parties will eventually be used by republicans to prevent democrats from being elected.
The only way to fix it is to change the way we vote so that 3rd parties don’t produce spoiler effects.
OK, so claims of randos on the internet.
NOT any single elected democrat.
Got it.
Ah so what matters is words not actions? Taking steps to remove 3rd parties from ballots is fine as long as you don’t say 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.
Nobody is arguing that. The problem is presenting third parties as bad without giving any sort of context on how and where harm needs to be mitigated.
For instance: Alaska has ranked choice voting. Why on earth would you waste resources telling people to oppose third parties if you know some of the people you’re talking to live in alaska? It makes no sense. The problem here, as it has always been, is the voting system cannot handle 3rd parties and we should back away from them where spoiler effects are a concern
Contextually, we are discussing the presidential election. That’s what the meme above is about. 49 of 50 states are FPTP. Alaska is the only one using RCV. Since Alaska’s total population is 800k out of 345 million US citizens, the discussion of voting pragmatically for president affects 99.8% of Americans.
In Alaska, which does have RCV for president starting this year, people should fully vote for their ideal candidate, as long as they rank the rest as well so RCV works.
So overall, for every 500 Americans who read this thread and now opt to vote pragmatically, it might adversely affect 1 Alaskan, who may vote pragmatically instead of ideally. That’s not a perfect ideal for those rare Alaskans, but it’s still reasonable.
Right but if only a handful of swing states actually matter here so lets take it a step further, why waste effort telling people from like california or texas not to vote 3rd party because, lets be honest, the margins aren’t big enough for third parties to matter there.
Like I feel like its both more convincing and more honest to just say “Don’t vote third party where the spoiler effect is a concern” or “don’t vote third party in swing states”
It doesn’t matter until it matters. Voting fecklesly for a 3rd party in just one large election every 4 years has not and will not change anything meaninfully. You need changes like Alaska’s, which based on state population size, was like changing a city ordinance. It will take a lot more effort to change over to RCV in basically any other state. A kind of effort fringe candidates should be applying non stop.
The issue with “well just do it in non swing states” is that you can’t contain this empty, contrarian gesturing to just those states without the candiates opting to not put themselves on the ballot in others. If they did that intentionally, only applying to be on the ballot in non swing states, while also actively campaigning for RCV, then I would fully support it. None do.
The reality is the people like RFK Jr and Jill stein are intentional spoilers, heavily subsidized by right wing billionaires and foreign powers to throw the election in those swing states. You can follow the money and see it in action. Until they seriously apply the above efforts, that’s all they will ever be, and they don’t deserve even token gestures of support.
The problem here is that the 2 party FPTP system is propping up the republican minority party creating a catch 22 where in most countries the republican party would split between resulting in a centrist party and a “MAGA” party. Like if you look at the UK that’s kind of what happened. But here in the US its created a zombie republican party controlled by fascists.
Like the fact that more states have not adopted viable ranked choice voting methods and constrained the electoral college system is currently why Trump even stands a chance today. The people deciding the 2024 election are like begrudging centrist-leaning republicans who are being given two choices they don’t like and we’d all be better off if they could just get like a house rep isntead and didn’t decide the president.
Nobody is arguing that.
Actually, a LOT of people are arguing that.
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_colonialismNobody expects Kamala to solve it. They do expect her to stop supporting genocide.
The comment section for this type of posts is always such a shit show.
This is essentially saying 2 things:
1 - It’s insane that some here seem to think that to remain “independent” of politics you can abstain or vote third party to show your discontent for how slowly the Dems deal with Natenyahu’s BS. Your abstain or 3rd party vote does nothing to “move the Dems to the left” when in reality you are removing them from power to give it to Trump, who has already promised to triple down on helping Netanyahu achieve whatever he wants.
The election is happening right now. There’s no time and space to negotiate new candidates or parties. It’s either the disappointing Dems, or the christo-fascist GOP. The time for standing on principle was 3 years ago, or next year at the start of the new cycle. Today is about pragmatism - how close we can get to the desired outcome, and which of these parties is more interested in listening to your position moving forward. It should be abundantly clear that Harris is by a huge margin the better choice for your desired outcomes.
2 - The Israel operation in Gaza, that we all want to stop, is not something that can be just ended with the click of a button. A bunch of actors in that region are hell bent on killing each other, like when Hamas did genocide on Israel last year, and now we have multiple state actors moving armies against each other. The brain-dead premise that somehow Democrats “want genocide” makes it impossible to have a serious conversation.
If you don’t vote for Harris over a mess in the Middle East that we didn’t directly create and are not directly responsible for, and that the Biden administration is trying to solve even if it’s too slow for your taste; and instead you act in favor of helping Trump who will absolutely empower Netanyahu to do whatever he wants, then not only are you directly voting against your own interests, but you are engaging in a level of dumb-fuckery of supreme proportions. And fucking all of us over hard while at it.
In short: By opposing Harris right at the finish line of the election cycle, you are going to inflict Trump’s dictator regime and the runaway christo-fascist GOP on the entire planet, because you are dissatisfied with how mediocre Dems have been at trying to stop Israel. You think this makes you virtuous. It does not.
I mostly agree with you, especially point (1), but what are you talking about with “Hamas did genocide on Isreal last year”? They did a terror attack for sure, but that’s not genocide. Wiping out significant percentage of a population because of their ethnicity or culture is genocide (see what Isreal is doing in Gaza) and it takes months to years.
I think most third party voters just assume Dems want to earn their vote. They don’t. They want to earn the vote of undecided people, and republicans that are still somewhat open to another side. It’s the whole reason the Dems are as center-right as they are.
They won’t see people voting third party and go “Oh my god, we need to get these further-left-than-us voters to agree with us!” They’ll go, “We need to pull moderate voters in the swing states that actually dictate our elections over to our side, not only giving us a vote, but negating a vote for Trump too!”
There’s a lot you’re saying that I agree with, but it’s undeniable that sending weapons to Isreal is not solving this problem it’s directly causing the problem. Biden is incredibly ineffective at solving this and is not holding any sort of red line for real. He needs to hold Isreal accountable for their actions. We have sent billions and billions of dollars of weapons to Isreal, and we likely aren’t stopping anytime soon even if Kamala is elected. We need to hold their feet to the fire and show them this is unacceptable.
It doesn’t matter. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn’t even in the top 10 major threats to our country.
You can be unhappy about it, but this election is literally deciding whether the US will be a fascist, theocracic dictatorship.
I agree with your stance, but it’s a hell of a hard pill to swallow when both action and inaction directly support the continued financing of a genocide.
Vote for the lesser evil now, but make up for it by holding them to account to the fullest of your ability once they’re in.
No politician is going to please everyone. All we can do is keep choosing the less bad option until there’s finally a good option.
Ranked choice voting would be nice, but for that to ever be an option we need the left to overpower the right.
All we can do is keep choosing the less bad option
That’s absolutely not the case. For the Democrats to pull back towards the left, their viability as a choice for left-leaning voters needs to be threatened. It’s too late for this election, so vote Dem, but in the medium term it means taking action to support a better third party that actually champions progressive and egalitarian governance and peaceful foreign policy, and also challenging the Democrats with protests and campaigns.
Waiting did not get women the vote. Waiting did not achieve the victories of the Civil Rights movement. Waiting will not stop US proxy genocide in the Middle East.
Not enough people will ever vote 3rd party to threaten the democrats. It’s a nice thought, but the amount of people who actually care enough to make the switch is still going to be extremely low even with massive campaigning.
Also, times are different; the government and population is vastly different than it was in the 20th century. And the threat of a 3rd party wasn’t what made the change anyways.
Removed by mod
it’s a hell of a hard pill to swallow
Welcome to being a functioning adult. Life sucks, and it sucks worse when you throw temper tantrums instead of pursuing harm reduction when you can.
Removed by mod
That’s fair. I have very little patience for people who need to be handheld through making sane, rational decisions. That’s a me problem. It would be more effective if I were more empathetic.
your high horse is a mule
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
There are extremists on both sides that would ve killing civilians with sticks and stones if they had no other means. Parties like Iran are sending one sided weapons to help them win. The US sending weapons to the other is not the only factor ‘causing’ this problem.
You can’t both sides a genocide, especially when one side clearly started it by settling the other one’s territory, taking their land, and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, without their input. Hamas only popped up decades into Israel taking more and more territory, after many Palestine tried many other ways to fight back but failed.
clearly started it by settling the other one’s territory
That’s a very simplistic take on the history
It’s not simplistic, it’s factual. It’s more complicated than some people think, but way more simple than Zionists make it look, who try to I jegt artificial nuance to make people look away. And it’s worked up until the internet has made it easier to see the genocide than ever before. I’d recommend looking into the British Mandate of Palestine, how a state was promised to Palestinians than reneged by the West to keep the Middle East in chaos, Herzl and the history of Jewish immigration to Israel (and alternative places they were considering like Africa), and the Nakba. Someone around here has a lot of good links, too. I’d also recommend looking into the US, Canadian, and Australian history to find out what settler colonialism is and see how it applies to Palestine.
What would you say to the zionist jews that were already living in Palestine? Or to those in neighbouring states of the Ottoman empire that moved within those borders to find a place with less oppression? Did they ‘colonize’ their own country?
What would you say to someone that survived a pogrom in Russia and migrated the remains of their family to a collectivist farm in an empty piece of desert, merely as survival because they had nowhere else to go?
There’s a lot of nuance to be found if you are willing to look a little deeper into it
They weren’t Zionist just because they were Jewish people. They integrated into Palestinian society, they did not ethnically cleanse the Territory like the early Zionists.
Removed by mod
Based
3 - Participating in and commenting on the voting mechanism is just one bit of the overall development of political, social and cultural history.
What seems to be “normal” or “acceptable” or “possible” to a given person/part of a population, is the outcome of discourse and maybe more important: concrete options.
Tangible options to participate in something solidary that’s useful and provides meaningful participation, make left values and ideas soo much more credible and “in reach”.
IMO these options and experiences can at the moment only really be created from below. Neither corporations nor the government (any time soon) will provide the people with democratic economic solitutions, neighboorhood solidarity, labor organization, collective housing, social movements etc.
You are so much more than voters. You can organize the practical and ideological negation of the BS you oppose so rightfully.
Be it a better third option or leftshifting the dems, anyway the whole voting part of history will become more fun that way, too.
What’s insane is that the US is supporting a genocide and the fascist israel government and there’s still people who have the guts to take government side. Shame on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war
1 - USA is already helping israel with “whatever it needs”. The support of fascist israel government is already tripled up. There’s a disaster already, kids are being murdered daily right now.
2 - Less than a click is needed, usa just have to say that they will stop sending money and weapons to israel if they don’t stop and israel government will have to stop. Israel government is waging war because they have the back of USA.
If you don’t vote for Harris over a mess in the Middle East that we didn’t directly create
Learn your history.
I’m supporting Harris, but I think people miss the real argument for Trump on Israel. Honestly, a good case can be made that Trump has a better chance of pulling US away from Israel than Harris will. Historically, Republicans have actually stood up to Israel better than Democrats have. Reagan for instance wasn’t afraid to use US military aid as leverage to rein in Israel.
But moreover, I think the core of the argument for why Trump might be better for Harris on Palestine is that fundamentally, it is extremely unlikely that Harris will do anything to rein in Netanyahu. She will likely continue Biden’s policies and continue to give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Anything short of complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank will see Kamala continue aid at current levels.
Trump will largely do the same. However, there is a small, but nonzero, chance that Trump will pull aid from Israel for simple self-serving reasons. At his core he is extremely doubtful of any kind of foreign aid. And at some point he might simply pull aid not because he supports the Palestinians, but because he’s at his core an isolationist and doesn’t want to give money to either side. From the press I’ve read, it seems that Israel would actually prefer Kamala to win. Why? Because while Trump might overall be better ideologically than Kamala, Kamala is at least more reliable. Trump is erratic and could just pull US aid entirely on a whim. From Israel’s perspective, Kamala is expected to reliably deliver the current level of support regardless of Israel’s actions. Trump is a wildcard. He might give more support, or he might just pull the US out of Israel entirely. He’s is chaotic to his core.
Again, I’ll be voting for Harris, but there is a very good argument that Israel would prefer Kamala over Trump. Yes, there’s a chance that Trump would give them even higher levels of support - joining hand in hand in a ware against Iran, giving them full blessing to completely expel the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, etc. But it’s not like Trump at his core is some friend to the Jews. He’s an old-school anti-Semite at heart, despite what he says. It’s entirely possible that one day he just decides to pull all aid, simply because he’s tired of the US paying for it. He is again, at his core, an isolationist, “America first” type. From Israel’s perspective, Kamala represents a guaranteed steady supply of aid at current levels. Trump represents a gamble that could see a massive increase of support or a complete collapse of it, simply depending on how Trump’s mood evolves. And really, Kamala is probably a better bet for them because of it.
Your abstain or 3rd party vote does nothing to “move the Dems to the left” when in reality you are removing them from power to give it to Trump
If there’s enough of us that it could seriously endanger the elections for the Dems, their analysts likely know this already and have no choice but to consider concessions to try to regain some of those votes, therefore we do have power.
More likely, we just don’t have enough to move the needle, and therefore all this hand wringing is a waste of breath.
Maybe next election people will realize we can’t move the Dems left by unwaveringly voting for them every single election, we have to hold them to account. Otherwise this shitty cycle of choosing the “less bad option” every election because it’s an emergency will not ever end. It is in the Dem’s interest that it does not.
You’re not wrong. However, this holding-your-nose voting is exactly what the Righties that aren’t team Trump are doing. So if everyone is holding their nose, maybe we fix that problem? And honestly, until it gets truly horrible, nothing will change. The world let Hitler do a lot of shit before intervening. Maybe we let Trump have his second term. He goes full dictator and things get bad. We get a productive civil war and finish what Sherman started. US comes out reformed.
I am not super concerned about a second Trump term. He can’t even campaign without people taking pot shots at him. I think that problem will sort itself out within the first year.
So, you think that if Trump dies in office Vance won’t be worse? Vance is younger and smarter and ready to do anything to stay in power.
Nah, never said that. And if Trump is getting pot shots, you think Vance won’t? The true check against the fascists is always violence. It is the only language they respect. I fully believe if they try their little coup, things will turn to shit real fast.
Fascists have had their asses kicked in numerous elections.
Also, you seem to think that there’s going to be some magic number where the assassinations magically give us a good government. What’s much, much more likely is that as soon as Trump dies all elections are cancelled and all MAGoos are deputized and Kyle Rittenhouse is the new Attorney General.
Yeah, that does seem pretty likely. I also think civil war would become very likely after a stunt like that. Great movie idea actually. The ethnofascists decide that Trump being assassinated could actually galvanize a full white supremacy uprising. So they do it. Vance predictably circles the wagons and declares martial law. The confedernazis start lynching. And then all hell breaks loose.
Life is not a fucking movie or video game. A lot of people would die. It would not be “like, totally awesome dude”.
Ignore the edgelord. That’s what I should have done.
Removed by mod
Didn’t say it would be awesome. It would really suck. Lots of people dead. Yep. But given the current status quo, lots of people are already dead. So is it the rate of death that bothers you?
The plan is to dismantle democracy if Trump wins. They’re putting up with him to gain full control. We don’t get another chance after that.
Hence the 2nd amendment and civil war. Unfortunately, you do get a second chance, but it will be ugly and costly.
So you’re voting for war and genocide. Got it
Bro, voting for either of them won’t stop the warring or the genociding. The US can’t not be involved in some kind of armed conflict and also maintain the current hegemony. Just because we put a veneer of democracy on it, doesn’t make it any better, in fact it makes it worse. Either the majority of the populace is cool with it (tyranny of the majority, yay democracy?) or the leaders do it without the consent of the governed and the populace doesn’t immediately depose (tacit consent by virtue of not giving enough fucks to overcome the inertia, yay democracy?). Voting in a two party system is like picking between a shit sandwich and a diarrhea smoothie.
I’m not voting at all actually. The whole system is too depressing to engage. Of all the games humans choose to play, we chose this one with all this misery and strife and assholes. Voting won’t make any of it better. Two centuries in with industrial technology, and we can only seem to achieve some kind of bullshit metastability of two steps forward, one step back, for anything. History syndicates generationally with the same dumb things happening over and over. We are capable of so much more than this. We can imagine such wondrous things. Yet we are consumed by avarice, lust for power, tribalism, emotional thinking. Humanity doesn’t deserve the gift of consciousness.
That’s an incredibly privileged take. Who’s to say that you don’t end up a victim under the genocide Trump and friends wish to enact upon the American population? Or your friends and family? Coworkers? Peers?
Accelerationism is not the answer. It will not lead to anything except an unstable country filled with strife and infighting, and it certainly won’t lead to any sort of social progress. Positive change happens slowly, you cannot force it through violence.
Removed by mod
I know your comment was removed (as funny as your random hostility was), but I’ll still respond anyway: I’m Canadian, not American, you couldn’t even figure that out from the instance I’m in? I don’t think you’re the one that should be calling anyone an idiot here.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Positive change happens slowly, you cannot force it through violence.
I’d argue a guillotine dramatically improved social progress, and for the time period, pretty quickly.
Removed by mod
Hard to do that given suicide is criminalized in many places. So, uh, go vote so we can do what you want, I guess? It isn’t enough to know the train wreck is coming, but I am forced to endure watching it unfold like a sneeze that never comes as the authoritarians do their best to defy entropy. The constant strife and tension is just not worth it. In fact, it is boring. Nothing lasts forever. Institutions should wither and die just like people. We pretend there is some kind of coherent narrative to the institutions when really they drunkenly stumble through time, reacting to the shit as it happens. Tenaciously gripping onto the current world order as if it is our peak is very disheartening. We should just let it go.
suicide is criminalized in many places.
Oh no! What are they gonna do, arrest your corpse? Like, I don’t care, but that’s just a silly statement.
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 🙄
That is not what I’m saying. The greater Jerusalem area has been in conflict for millennia. It’s shrouded in a different veil over time, but the core conflict remains over control of the Middle East, specifically access to the Mediterranean and control of the trading routes between Africa, Asia and Europe. Over the years this has become entangled with religious fanatische, but at its core, it’s the same conflict that’s been going on since people first settled the region.
Stop overgeneralizing things. No one concerned about the genocide in Gaza draws connections to the fucking Crusades.
Historical continuances aren’t your thing aren’t they? History is nothing but connection and ideas. To give you some perspective:
Current German ownership disputes between the church and the government can be traced back to inheritance disputes that arose because of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Other places having different historical contexts that spills into different regions aren’t your thing, are they? (spare me your smug tone, please)
The whole idea of Zionism arose from problems jewish europeans had in the 20th century. The “jewish question” arose in Europe, pretty much unconcerned of how long Jerusalem was war-torn. (Unless you want to go so far back that historical chaos-theory is in full swing and you can’t make any concrete statements about causal interactions, like "roman ci-il law led directly to russian progroms in the 19th century.)
Seriously: why are you under the impression my initial comment or the message were only about Zionism?
BTW, Zionism as we know it today was coined in the 19th century by Theodor Herzl. Maybe you should open up a book for once instead of repeating easy summaries.
No, it’s been a little over a 100 years of Settler Colonialist Zionism.
Origins of Zionism
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe.
Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
Settlements, Occupation, and Apartheid
Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.
- The Transfer Committee, and the JNF Ethnic Cleansing, which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate before the Nakba
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:
While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements
The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.
Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
As per my other comment:
That is not what I’m saying. The greater Jerusalem area has been in conflict for millennia. It’s shrouded in a different veil over time, but the core conflict remains over control of the Middle East, specifically access to the Mediterranean and control of the trading routes between Africa, Asia and Europe. Over the years this has become entangled with religious fanatische, but at its core, it’s the same conflict that’s been going on since people first settled the region.
Theodor Herzls ideas concerning the region are in no way new or original. He’s making basically the same argument as the church prior to the first crusade.
The crusades were an imperialistic conquest, in that sense we agree there are similarities, but it’s not really related to the origins of Zionism. The current conflict. Zionism is a unique form of Settler Colonialism which drew from the more recent European Colonialism and was backed by the Imperial forces of the time (British, then American).
For most of the thousands of years of history in the region of Palestine, there has been peace and coexistance between them and their different faiths.
But the current conflict is not fundamentally about religion. Zionism is not Judaism. It is a fight between the Colonialist power, Israel, who is ethnically cleansing the native population of Palestinian people, and the people of Palestine, who are fighting against that ethnic cleansing by any means possible.
The book Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History by Nur Masalha goes into the detailed history of the region prior to the beginnings of Zionism
Colonial narratives, Masalha states, have conflated Palestine’s history with biblical myths which eliminate historical knowledge of Palestine and its status as a distinct geopolitical entity since the Bronze Age. A reading of Palestine from an indigenous perspective shows an uninterrupted sequence in which the land was enriched by different cultures and no attempt to annihilate the original inhabitants and their spaces. Linguistically and territorially, there was continuity. The cultural heritage and Palestinian historical consciousness were also paramount in shaping its national consciousness.
We can agree about the historical continuity in the region. I don’t think however, that Zionism in itself is a new attempt at colonialism. The romans, crusader states and babylonians did likewise. They lacked the weapons and men however to implement it at such a scale. Montefiore has an interesting source from a scholar during the crusades whom I musst paraphrase from memory im afraid since I don’t have his book at hand: „the streets of the Armenian quarter ran knee high with blood when the crusaders came, indiscriminately killing their christian brothers.
It’s a very different type of Colonialism. The Crusade colonies largely ended up integrating with the local Palestinian people and their customs. Zionism, on the other hand, has been set of the eradication of the People and History of Palestine.
Crusades
The Catholic Church, reaching the peak of its political power in the High Middle Ages, called armies from across Europe to a series of Crusades against Islam. The Latin Crusaders occupied Palestine in 1099 and founded the Crusader states in the Levant. Following the great East–West schism of 1054 between the Eastern Orthodox and Latin churches and after the arrival of the first Latin Crusaders in Palestine, the Crusaders appointed a Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem.
The hierarchy of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and high‑minded elite Frankish crusaders in Palestine, who sought to create a European Latin‑speaking colony in the Holy Land, could not prevent the transformation, within a generation or so, of the outlook of many ordinary Latin settlers in Palestine. Some churchy Latin crusaders were deeply concerned that many ordinary European colonists practically went native in Palestine, adopting ‘Oriental’ styles and local customs.
The local Arab Muslim‒Christian bonds in Jerusalem can be traced to early Islam. Following the elimination of the European Latin Crusaders from the city, indigenous Arab Muslim‒Christian shared traditions of convivencia in Jerusalem were re‑cultivated; symbolically, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre were entrusted to two aristocratic Palestinian Muslim families in the city, the Nuseibeh and Judeh al‑Ghoudia. Created by Salah al‑Din shortly before his death in 1193, this post‑Crusader ceremonial tradition added another widely respected layer of daily rituals to the multi‑layered ancient sacredness of the site. Today the ruins of Crusader sites (churches, hostels and castles) are visible throughout historic Palestine and graf f i ti left by Crusaders can still be seen in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Zionism
Furthermore, place‑naming cartography and state‑sponsored explorations were central to the modern European conquest of the earth, empire‑building and settler‑colonisa‑ tion projects, the Zionist enterprise included. Scholars often assume that place names provide clues to the historical and shared heritage of places and regions. This work uses social memory theory to analyse the cultural politics of place‑naming in Israel. Drawing on Maurice Halbwachs’ study of the construction of social memory by the Latin Crusaders and Christian medieval pilgrims, the work shows Zionists’ toponymic strategies in Palestine: their superimposition of Old Testament and Talmudic toponyms was designed to erase the local Palestinian and Arab Islamic heritage of the country. In the pre‑Nakba period Zionist toponymic schemes utilised 19th century Western explorations of Old Testament ‘names’ and ‘places’ and appropriated Palestinian toponyms. Following the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the ruptures of the Nakba, the Israeli state, now in control of 78 percent of the land, accelerated its toponymic project and pursued methods whose main features were memoricide. Continuing into the post‑1967 occupation, these colonial methods continue to threaten the destruction of the diverse cultural and historic heritage of the land.
- Nur Masalha - Palestine A Four Thousand Year History
It’s the outcome that ended up differently, not the intention, a circumstance your source describes as well. I don’t think we are in opposition about the actual proceedings, but the way we look at it. Am I correct in the assumption that you place more emphasis on the actual proceedings to define a political movement, rather than their school of thought?
Stop killing Palestinians is such a far left position man. I can’t even. Americans are effing weird.
Ah yes, opposing genocide is a radical far-left position. Of course.
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.
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 is not a thousand year conflict. It’s modern imperialism
This breaks rule 2. “No misinformation” Israel is not a 1000 years old it is less than 100 years old
