251
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

I've often assumed Harris didn't want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago

By that logic nobody would be allowed to run on foreign policy.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

They really aren't negotiating an end to the conflict though. That's the problem. Biden wasn't seriously trying to end the conflict, as he isn't using to use a single ounce of US leverage to force Israel to the table. The Gazans are being massacred; they have plenty of incentive to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. The Israelis currently have zero incentive. Their territory is expanding while their adversaries are being exterminated; they're doing great by this conflict. Israel has zero reason to come to the table, and the talks are just stall tactics and charades.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I'm not claiming things I have no evidence for. The Biden administration has repeatedly and explicitly refused to make any US aid to Israel contingent on any improvement on the situation in Gaza.

The Biden administration has openly refused calls to use US aid as leverage against Israel, and all you can do is wave your hands and say, "hrr, umm, actually, you can't know what went on behind the scenes, so maybe Biden did do that, but we just have no evidence of that."

You are asking me to prove a negative. You are demanding that I prove that Biden HASN'T secretly used US leverage to rein in Israel. That is not how this works. If you want to claim that the US actually has tried to put the screws on Israel, YOU need to produce some evidence of that claim. So far, a least according to everything publicly available from all sources, Biden has given Israel a complete blank check. If you want to claim something contrary to all evidence, then you need to supply that evidence.

After all, it's also possible that the Gazans aren't being killed by Israel at all. Maybe the Martians are just coming and abducting all the Palestinians to Mars. And we don't see the Martians, because they're invisible. You have no evidence that there AREN'T Martians killing all the Gazans, so I guess it would be foolish to write off the idea.

[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

She didn't have to condemn him, she could have just said "I feel we should be doing more and take a firmer stance saying that genocide is not ok". Something as simple as that would have rallied a lot of the Arabs to her side.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The problem with it is that it was more or less the same thing Biden said and it's been abundantly clear Biden does not care for a ceasefire. The Arabs wanted more than that. They wanted her to admit that what Israel was doing in Gaza and Lebanon was wrong. They wanted her to say that she would take a firmer stance than Biden would on Israel. They didnt want her to say that she supports Israels right to defend itself, or for Tim Walz to say he supports Israels right to expand its borders, or even to campaign with Liz Cheney. The icing on the cake was Bill Clintons very stupid attempt to justify Israels killing of civilians a day or two before the election. What she said clearly wasn't enough and she repeatedly ignored them as well as the DNC actively trying to silence them.

I believe she did end up taking a slightly firmer stance a few days before the election, which is likely due to her not polling so well. I'm not sure if your quote is from that time or from before. But I think a lot of Arabs saw it as "too little, too late" kind of thing.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago

I thought the same as well, for a time at least. I'm not sure if it was just me being hopeful or what. I got the impression that she was slightly more sympathetic to the whole situation than Biden was for sure though. That being said, I definitely think her stance hurt her more than helped her. There's polls saying she would have won a lot of votes in several swing states if she changed her stance. And we know that the war was unpopular with majority of Americans, especially Democrats. My guess is that lobbying money seemed to good to pass up. It's shitty that the world has to deal with a fascist wanna-be dictator because of these kinds of stupid situations and decisions.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago

You bring up a good point regarding the Jewish voters but there's still strong evidence that claims she would have gained more than she would have lost. There's a lot of hypotheticals regarding this situation and some factors that don't come into play like the lobbying money that the Harris campaign would have lost and the crap Trump would have said (other than what he already did). So I'm sure we can talk about this topic for a very long time.

If Vice-President Harris were to demand an immediate ceasefire that would allow unimpeded aid into Gaza, such a move would be strongly supported by her voters while being opposed by only a scant number. A detailed view of the cross-tabulations shows significant gain and very little risk for Harris by taking this stand - including very positive outcomes and few negatives among most key groups, including a plurality of Jewish voters. It would also win her the support of a plurality of those voters who are currently supporting third party candidates or who remain undecided.

Overall, if Harris where to take this stand, her vote tally would increase from 44% to 50%.

The same results hold true if Harris were to suspend arms shipments and withhold diplomatic support for Israel until there was a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza. Such a stand would also increase her support from 44% to 49%

Aside from that, I just wanted to say that I remember you and I had a brief conversation in the Political Discussion community a few weeks back and you mentioned how much Trump and MAGA had affected your personal life. I just wanted to say I'm sorry you're going through this again and wish you the best, for whatever it's worth. Neither of us wanted another Trump presidency (and I'm not even American), and I hope the next 4 years are good to you.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

which is still and order from her boss

This is complete nonsense. The vice president isn't duty bound to never contradict the president, especially when running to succeed him. When a boss orders you to do something that's wrong, you can say no, particularly when you don't need the job anymore and are already applying for a better one.

Harris didn't say more on Gaza because she didn't want to, whether due to personal beliefs or because she for some reason thought it was a better electoral stance, not because of all-powerful orders from Joe Biden.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

Deeply ironic post by someone who doesn't know the civics of the VP's office.

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
251 points (92.5% liked)

politics

19194 readers
1934 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS