Vice President Kamala Harris' refusal to break with the Biden administration's support for Israel's assault on Gaza cost her millions of potential Democratic voters. Will the Democratic Party learn from this and listen to its voters who want leaders to oppose sending more weapons to Israel? #Gaza #ElectionImpact
Precisely. Harris enabled her opponent to win by having a weak stance on Israel. She handed him the keys to the White House, as the article clearly describes, by not standing up and speaking out against genocide.
I’m sorry, but putting the entirety of the blame on Harris when there were plenty of people who didn’t care whether or not a rapist fascist dictator got into power and plenty of others specifically telling people not to vote for Harris is ludicrous.
There is so much blame to go around and people like you who just blame Harris now make me think that you were part of the group telling people to absolutely not vote for Harris no matter what. People like you are why I have to flee for my daughter’s safety.
Correct, candidates are not entitled to votes, but I dont know what voting system your fantasy world uses.
Lets ignore parties for a moment and just say you have two people running that are different degrees of evil. I would argue a failure to vote for the lesser evil is to abide the greater evil (does this make you evil?). In this case, abstaining or apathy itself is also a choice, and would be cosidered evil because you did not act against the greater evil.
Lets add a more realistic third candidate in and demonstrate the spoiler effect. Where there is an idealogical divide, the side with the fewer candidates wins. If a third party throws their hat into the ring, they end up encroching on support held by their idealogical peers, effectivly handing the win to their oppsition by simply existing.
Combining both of these observations looks an awful lot like the electoral college and the US voting system. Neither major party is willing to allow a third party to exist in their space, because if they do they lose by spoiler effect and forces people to strategicly vote instead of standing by their ideals. The solution is getting rid of first-past-the-post and moving to a ranked choice or instant run-off system similar to the ones found in the EU, this would allow people to put their ideal candidate first without jepordizing their idealogical peers. Until such a time when that is a reality, being a protest voter/non-voter is making a choice against your own self interests and the interests of those you care for.
Living in a blue state, I chose not to vote for Harris, I understand what I was doing. Harris got all of my state’s electoral college votes and I did not vote for her or Trump. I also chose not to vote for any senators or reps who receive aipac money, but I also live in a blue county in a blue state….
Oh, okay. Well you know Flying Squid better than I do because I didn’t think he even implied that candidates were entitled to votes.
Please continue and tell me more about this Flying Squid fellow because I really thought I could get inside his head and figure out what he was thinking.
You’re certainly not because that is not a recognized psychological disorder, but the issue here is that I thought I was Flying Squid, but you’re telling me Flying Squid is saying things that I definitely did not in any way even imply.
So who am I?
By the way, can you please quote where Flying Squid said a candidate is entitled to votes? Because I’ve read everything Flying Squid has said in this thread and I have yet to find it.
(This is where you refuse to quote what you claim was said if this plays out how these things normally do.)
You pretty much implied it, I’m sorry if you can’t see the connection you yourself implied but maybe see that others in the thread also see and recognize the implications your statement made
She said she would change nothing and continue to fully support Israel the same as Biden, she had multiple opportunities to clarify and doubled down.
I can’t see your question as a good faith one.
Hundreds of folks in lemmy alone continuously argued during the election campaign that Harris wouldn’t support the genocide as much as Trump would, which in itself shows they already believed Harris was supporting a genocide.
She literally stood and spoke out against genocide at the DNC. Granted, it came off a little soft but, she very clearly said that her administration does not condone genocide and that they would use various strategies to put pressure on Israel, while “maintaining strategic military alliances in the region”. It was a tactful/“politically-savvy” way to say it, but she did speak on it and promise action. I may be wrong, but I don’t think we can say the same for Donny.
a) A soft stance against genocide is not a very good stance on genocide.
b) Biden also said he was against genocide. His position is that all the starvation, collective punishment, and attacks against civilian infrastructure just weren’t genocide so nothing much needed to be done. She said she didn’t disagree with anything he had done.
And just to jump to the next step of this conversation, yes, Trump was vocally worse and while it’s hard to imagine being much worse than what Biden has done, I think he has the potential to figure out a way. A sober and objective and rational game theorist should choose to vote for Harris.
But that’s not how voters work. “We’re 98% bad, but he’ll be 100%” isn’t a message to keep your coalition together. Emotional voters will cut off their nose to spite their face and that’s a fundamental aspect of how politics works that can’t be ignored or dismissed because they should do something else.
Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that wasn’t “the next step of the conversation”, internet-stranger-oracle. What an odd and presumptuous way to make an argument…
What I would have said is; So, no evidence? You’re right that a softly worded stance on genocide is not a good one. It also isn’t supporting genocide. Those two things are long and far apart. Harris’ statement on Israel was political/tactful because she knows that US military bases in Israel are extremely important for US interests in the region. She had to give an answer to a very complex question, without alienating or enraging multiple different groups, with very different interests, while still promising some action will be taken against Israel. I thought she walked that tight-rope pretty well and, in doing so, showcased a quality of leadership Trump, IMO, is not capable of displaying on his best days.
Precisely. Harris enabled her opponent to win by having a weak stance on Israel. She handed him the keys to the White House, as the article clearly describes, by not standing up and speaking out against genocide.
I’m sorry, but putting the entirety of the blame on Harris when there were plenty of people who didn’t care whether or not a rapist fascist dictator got into power and plenty of others specifically telling people not to vote for Harris is ludicrous.
There is so much blame to go around and people like you who just blame Harris now make me think that you were part of the group telling people to absolutely not vote for Harris no matter what. People like you are why I have to flee for my daughter’s safety.
Are you that dense? You’re literally trying to blame voters for Kamala’s support of genocide.
You get a big nope. Nope out of here with that noise.
I am doing no such thing and that’s a ridiculous lie to tell.
That’s literally what you’re doing. Candidates are not entitled to votes.
Correct, candidates are not entitled to votes, but I dont know what voting system your fantasy world uses.
Lets ignore parties for a moment and just say you have two people running that are different degrees of evil. I would argue a failure to vote for the lesser evil is to abide the greater evil (does this make you evil?). In this case, abstaining or apathy itself is also a choice, and would be cosidered evil because you did not act against the greater evil.
Lets add a more realistic third candidate in and demonstrate the spoiler effect. Where there is an idealogical divide, the side with the fewer candidates wins. If a third party throws their hat into the ring, they end up encroching on support held by their idealogical peers, effectivly handing the win to their oppsition by simply existing.
Combining both of these observations looks an awful lot like the electoral college and the US voting system. Neither major party is willing to allow a third party to exist in their space, because if they do they lose by spoiler effect and forces people to strategicly vote instead of standing by their ideals. The solution is getting rid of first-past-the-post and moving to a ranked choice or instant run-off system similar to the ones found in the EU, this would allow people to put their ideal candidate first without jepordizing their idealogical peers. Until such a time when that is a reality, being a protest voter/non-voter is making a choice against your own self interests and the interests of those you care for.
Living in a blue state, I chose not to vote for Harris, I understand what I was doing. Harris got all of my state’s electoral college votes and I did not vote for her or Trump. I also chose not to vote for any senators or reps who receive aipac money, but I also live in a blue county in a blue state….
Oh, okay. Well you know Flying Squid better than I do because I didn’t think he even implied that candidates were entitled to votes.
Please continue and tell me more about this Flying Squid fellow because I really thought I could get inside his head and figure out what he was thinking.
Good luck with that, as of now he seems to have multiple personality disorder, but I’m no doctor 🤷♂️
You’re certainly not because that is not a recognized psychological disorder, but the issue here is that I thought I was Flying Squid, but you’re telling me Flying Squid is saying things that I definitely did not in any way even imply.
So who am I?
By the way, can you please quote where Flying Squid said a candidate is entitled to votes? Because I’ve read everything Flying Squid has said in this thread and I have yet to find it.
(This is where you refuse to quote what you claim was said if this plays out how these things normally do.)
Edit: called it.
You pretty much implied it, I’m sorry if you can’t see the connection you yourself implied but maybe see that others in the thread also see and recognize the implications your statement made
Can you provide some sort of evidence that Harris supports genocide?
She said she would change nothing and continue to fully support Israel the same as Biden, she had multiple opportunities to clarify and doubled down.
I can’t see your question as a good faith one.
Hundreds of folks in lemmy alone continuously argued during the election campaign that Harris wouldn’t support the genocide as much as Trump would, which in itself shows they already believed Harris was supporting a genocide.
She literally stood and spoke out against genocide at the DNC. Granted, it came off a little soft but, she very clearly said that her administration does not condone genocide and that they would use various strategies to put pressure on Israel, while “maintaining strategic military alliances in the region”. It was a tactful/“politically-savvy” way to say it, but she did speak on it and promise action. I may be wrong, but I don’t think we can say the same for Donny.
a) A soft stance against genocide is not a very good stance on genocide.
b) Biden also said he was against genocide. His position is that all the starvation, collective punishment, and attacks against civilian infrastructure just weren’t genocide so nothing much needed to be done. She said she didn’t disagree with anything he had done.
And just to jump to the next step of this conversation, yes, Trump was vocally worse and while it’s hard to imagine being much worse than what Biden has done, I think he has the potential to figure out a way. A sober and objective and rational game theorist should choose to vote for Harris.
But that’s not how voters work. “We’re 98% bad, but he’ll be 100%” isn’t a message to keep your coalition together. Emotional voters will cut off their nose to spite their face and that’s a fundamental aspect of how politics works that can’t be ignored or dismissed because they should do something else.
Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that wasn’t “the next step of the conversation”, internet-stranger-oracle. What an odd and presumptuous way to make an argument…
What I would have said is; So, no evidence? You’re right that a softly worded stance on genocide is not a good one. It also isn’t supporting genocide. Those two things are long and far apart. Harris’ statement on Israel was political/tactful because she knows that US military bases in Israel are extremely important for US interests in the region. She had to give an answer to a very complex question, without alienating or enraging multiple different groups, with very different interests, while still promising some action will be taken against Israel. I thought she walked that tight-rope pretty well and, in doing so, showcased a quality of leadership Trump, IMO, is not capable of displaying on his best days.
Here’s a clip of that portion of her speech, if you haven’t seen it already: https://youtu.be/oogNVOqnChc