1·
1 hour agoNo, it’s utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn’t even a political position.
she/her
- 17 Posts
- 367 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 13th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It’s time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris’ words is not useful.
1·2 hours agoThe Republican’s strategy is for there to be as much chaos on and after election day as possible to make claims that the election was fraudulent more plausible. Imagine waking up tomorrow and seeing planes falling out of the sky. The panic could be the wedge Trump needs, if not to win, to at least plausibly claim victory.
And removing the filibuster will serve the christo-fascist agenda just as well as anything else.
It takes one vote for the Republicans to remove the filibuster. If the Republicans gain the majority in the Senate, there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop them. It’s an honor system. The filibuster ties the hands of the pro-democracy majority. The christo-fascist minority is free to obstruct when they are out of power and free to remove it when they are in power. Which the Republicans will do, because fascists are bad-faith actors.
You can try to hand-wave it away and act like I’m pointing this out for the “sound bites” (?), but it’s simply a fact.
“They did it first!” is literally a sound bite for the press. The Republicans were always going to remove the filibuster to get Supreme Court nominations through. Blaming the Democrats based on what they did previously was a post hoc fallacy to justify their actions.
Perhaps you should look around. Half the country fully supports those christo-fascists, and they seem a lot more armed, a lot more organized, a lot more politically entrenched, and a lot more strategic.
FAAFO
You’re right, they will probably remove the filibuster when they get in power, and you’ll get your wish.
Wanting a functioning, majority rule democracy isn’t the same as a christo-fascist dictatorship. By getting rid of the filibuster under a Democrat controlled Senate we will, in theory, be able to utilize systemic change to solve existential crises such as climate change and redistribute wealth to fix wealth inequality.
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.
No, unlike your argument, I’m not arguing we split hairs over semantics.
she will never reach the vast majority of those people.
Unless.
She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.
Republicans are bad faith actors. They will remove the filibuster whether Democrats do it or not. The Republican’s intention is to form a christo-fascist dictatorship.
Our society is in need of systemic change and wealth redistribution. The time to act is now to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change.
All you need to change the filibuster is a majority of votes. There is no “they did it first clause” in the Constitution. That’s a post hoc justification for sound bites.
Democrats lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for most presidential nominees, but not Supreme Court nominees, when Republicans tried to debilitate the Obama administration by obstructing his cabinet picks.
Republicans lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for confirming Supreme Court nominees when the filibuster got in their way. Republicans are bad faith actors who only care about power. No amount of a safe guards will tie the hands of bad faith actors when they are in power. If Republicans take power, they will get rid of the filibuster as soon as it is convenient for them to pass legislation.
All the filibuster does is entrench minority rule even further. It makes Democrats need a supermajority when they were already representing over 41 million more voters in the Senate in 2021.
41,549,808.
That is correct. The Democrats need to get rid of the filibuster, since it’s unlikely for them to get 60 seats. It is another mechanism in our government that perpetuates minority rule. Another reason why we need to vote Blue in record numbers.
It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.
With Republican obstructionism, the only way for Democrats to get anything done is to control the House, the Senate, and presidency. Without all three, Democrats will have an ineffective government that is incapable of passing laws to solve problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8psP4S6BQ
There are limits to executive orders but they have their uses and a cool song too!
Saying the genocide should end and that Israel has a right to defend itself aren’t mutual exclusive statements. The fact Israel’s government is committing genocide does not mean Israel’s citizens, many of whom are Palestinian, deserve genocide. The fact Hamas kills civilians does not justify the IDF killing civilians. Two wrongs do not make a right. edit: typo
Turning back to the students, Harris acknowledged his claims, saying that “what he’s talking about, it’s real. That’s not the subject that I came to discuss today, but it’s real and I respect his voice.”
This is from the second source in your argument. She acknowledges what is happening even if she isn’t in a position to call it a genocide politically. Your argument is splitting hairs about semantics.
Repeating her call for a ceasefire, she said that she hoped the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar would present an opportunity to end the war.
Another call for a ceasefire.
She’s also still repeating the debunked Oct 7th rape claims, and more.
Your argument is repeating debunked claims. There were some false claims, but those have been used to incorrectly dispute what happened at large.
In the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and other armed groups against civilian and military targets throughout the Gaza periphery, the mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations during the 7 October attacks, including rape and gang-rape in at least three locations, namely: the Nova music festival site and its surroundings, Road 232, and Kibbutz Re’im. In most of these incidents, victims first subjected to rape were then killed, and at least two incidents relate to the rape of women’s corpses.
The U.N. team investigating sexual violence said it saw “credible circumstantial information which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
Hamas is bad. The IDF is bad.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/06/20/un-evidence-sexual-violence-hamas/
The commission also found that Israeli forces in Gaza had committed sexualized and gender-based violence during their military campaign, targeting men and boys in particular.
Your argument’s assertion is false. Harris has stated she wants a ceasefire multiple times. This comment said it best.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
Kamala is running for president not Biden, so your argument poses a false equivalence.
The vice president doesn’t have the power you argument asserts she does.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-is-the-constitutional-role-of-the-vice-president
stop being illogical.
Stop ignoring evidence that refutes your argument’s central point.
Voting for Harris is useful for ending the genocide because she wants a ceasefire. Trump want’s Israel to finish what it started.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
I’ve seen this same disinformation multiple times so I keep posting the refutation. Kamala wants a ceasefire.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
Biden is complicit in genocide, but people in his administration have spoken out.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/us-government-employees-gaza-policy-statement/index.html
Trump wants Israel to finish their genocide.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/04/politics/trump-israel-comments/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
Democrats want a ceasefire. Republicans want genocide. Despite attempts to conflate these two positions they could not be more different.
Do not let anyone tell you we have two fascists parties. We have a neoliberal party and a fascist party. The neoliberal party is terrible on this issue, but they do not want the genocide to continue. The Palestinians, along with everyone else, will be harmed by a second Trump term. Voting for Kamala is harm reduction. If you care about anyone please vote for Harris and Walz because doing so is useful for ending the genocide.
Faithless electors are not that common. Many states have laws against faithless electors which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. According to the ruling, states do not need a law to deal with faithless electors. They probably should still should make a law if they don’t already have one.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Monday’s Supreme Court decision, however, is so strong that it would seem to allow states to remove faithless electors even without a state law. Duke University School of Law professor Guy-Uriel Charles said that nonetheless, it would be prudent for states to pass laws to prevent electors from going rogue.
The problem with the Electoral College is that it favors minority rule. The votes each state gets are comprised of both House of Representatives and Senate seats from each state. The Senate and the House both favor low population states. The Senate because it gives each state two seats and the House because it’s capped at 435. Take a look at both graphs from 538.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/435-representatives/
Republicans tend to do well in low population states, so the electoral college favors Republicans, who won the popular vote once in the last six elections. So it’s not the illusion of a vote that’s the issue. We really do have a vote in this system.
The issue is that some people’s votes are more equal than others. Low populations state votes, when normalized for the electoral college, are worth more. A lot of people will say that only certain swing states matter, but that assumes everyone in non-swing states keeps voting at similar levels as before. If enough people in California who would vote Democrat decide that their votes don’t count and then don’t vote, then California turns red. So Democrats need more people to vote everywhere to compensate for this bias that Republicans benefit from.
The electoral college is why not voting or voting third party disproportionately effects the Democrats, they need more votes, because they tend to appeal to high population states whose votes are worth less.
Also, our first-past-the-post system mathematically results in a two-party system.
Genocide and war aren’t mutually exclusive. The Holocaust happened during WWII.