In her speech at the DNC, Kamala Harris emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself but also spoke about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, vowing to work so that “the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.” The audience cheered that sentence more than any other in her whole speech.
I saw two analyses of the speech: for the Israeli news site Ynet, Nadav Eyal wrote that Israel got exactly what it wanted from Harris; the progressive American news site Vox, meanwhile, wrote that Harris presented a different approach to the conflict compared to that of Biden, more supportive of the Palestinians. How do you see her speech?
I think she achieved what she wanted: that both of those kinds of reporting could come out, and that both AIPAC and J Street could endorse it. But if we shift attention to the Palestinian rights movement or the Uncommitted Movement, there is nothing there for them. The way the DNC treated the issue tells you everything you need to know about the ways things aren’t changing — for instance, [the fact there was] no Palestinian speaker or perspective on the stage.
Harris can talk about bad things that have happened to Palestinians, but from her words you wouldn’t know who caused it — a natural disaster? An earthquake? When Hamas does something bad, they are named and shamed; but when bad things happen to Palestinians, there is never any acknowledgement that they are caused by Israel.
A: She’s lying. B: Vote for her anyways; because the alternative is worse.
As a rule, do not vote for the people committing genocide. If you believe your vote has any power, you are using it to say, “yes, do that, there are no consequences from me”.
If the immorality of genocide is not enough for you and you would prefer a pretense of strategic voting, then your thinking is self-defeating. If you are a reliable voting bloc that never withholds its vote, your demands will always be ignored. You will simply become a lifelong cheerleader for “lesser” mass death and oppression that, for the record, has not been qualitatively different between the two parties. For example, your boy Genocide Joe did a great job selling the invasion if Iraq with charlatan witnesses in the Senate.
If you want to engage politically and make a difference, you will need to stop doing what your masters tell you to do (vote shame and sheepdogging for genociders) and start organizing with likeminded people to build credible leverage. If you prefer electoral organizing (not my preference but you are free to try) then you should try to create a disciplined voting block that can actually withhold its vote when politicians fail to meet its demands.
A) Yep
B) No.
I mean, your non-vote for her is a vote for Trump, so I see who you’d really like in the whitehouse.
I mean, your non-vote for her is a vote for Trump
Not everyone responds well to having absurdities leveled at them.
Voting for Kamala is directly voting for and endorsing the Genocide.
Not voting for Trump means voting for Kamala according to your logic so vote third party.
I am voting third party, which means I am not voting for trump, therefore I am voting for harris. please send your thanks directly to my inbox at your earliest convenience.
is a non-vote for him also a vote for Harris?
Zeroth of all, unless you live in a swing state, your vote has no effect on the outcome whatsoever.
Can you be stag, or do you need to bring your partner?
Not entirely true… even if the Electoral College to determine the President hinges on select swing states, there are many competitive state races for congresspeople, senators, governors, state government department positions. As a concrete example, Ohio is probably voting Trump, but in the Senate, the Democrat Brown appears slightly ahead over Republican Moreno.
Even if your presidential vote means nothing, if you are eligible to vote in the USA, you should still go and vote. Campaigns and pundits do look at the trendlines to see what states could possibly be in play for 2028 and 2032.
[…] there are many competitive state races for congresspeople, senators, governors, state government department positions.
Sure—I don’t think there’s anyone who doesn’t understand that the Electoral College is specific to the presidency.
Campaigns and pundits do look at the trendlines to see what states could possibly be in play for 2028 and 2032.
Which is why you should consider voting third party (or leave it blank) in non-swing states: to put pressure on the Democratic party to change its platform.
