2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Well, currently, Palestinians in Gaza are being genocided by the Democrat in the White House and the many Democrats in the Senate and House. The slaughter is ongoing. Diseases are spreading throughout the ghetto. A minimal demand in this situation would be that the US govt stops arming and diplomatic support for the side committing this atrocity. A moderate demand would be that the US starts supporting the ICC and sanctions Israel. A strong demand would be for military intervention against this genocide. That last would probably be the quickest way of dealing with this genocide. Nobody is making that demand.
The Palestinians within the party started by making the minimal demand. They are being pragmatic and minimal, let alone moderate. The people in Gaza don't have 4 more years. They may not have one year. The party occupying of the White House may make zero difference to whether recognisable Palestinian life in Gaza continues or ends.
Palestinians in the US are now reduced to something well below minimal - their demand is, in my opinion, something to salve their own conscience, for their support for those who are killing their families by the busload. If their kin in the ghetto cannot be human, they are begging that the "good" half of their adoptive country sees them as human (while continuing to kill them). This isn't even a minimal demand. It's begging.
Finally, about the Republicans - there's many polls showing support for a ceasefire, there's also a poll showing support for an arms embargo. Specifically, that support for Kamala rises among independents and Democratic voters, if they support an arms embargo. I don't know if the party thinks that continuing the genocide is more important than winning, or that it isn't worth the risk to alienate AIPAC. Either way,
be minimally serious. last dozen pages have been a circlejerk about various dem speeches.
Oh, and one last thing
One of the speakers they were putting forward is literally so pro-Israel, he is quoted by their centrist (not left-leaning) newspapers, and works for the fecking Atlantic Council. He is a Quisling.
Denying him is simple racism.
One of the speakers they were putting forward is literally so pro-Israel, he is quoted by their centrist (not left-leaning) newspapers, and works for the fecking Atlantic Council. He is a Quisling.
Denying him is simple racism.
True but we have the important matter of Gaza.:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(431x119:433x121)/taylor-swift-cookies-8c62baa446544670a448b7d109b74bb1.jpg)
I think it'll be incredibly silly to be associated with any party that will or continues to be playing a fundamental role in the genocide of Palestinians, from her pov.
They can’t afford her.
1 show on the eve of the election like Springsteen has done a couple of time, maybe, 7? No chance.
She’s also just announced that she’s taking a break before the tour resumes in October. I’d gander a guess that spending 2 months on the trail for Harris isn’t her idea of a break.
Colin Allred to speak at Democratic National Convention before Kamala Harris
Nice. I was wanting him to get a high profile spot to give him a boost against Cruz. It would still be an uphill battle but if he impresses and gets more national spotlight it could help.
You think her fans are tracking what is going on in Gaza? She will be just fine.
She, and the Democrats, would be just fine without her role in publically backing the Dems too.
They don't need each other.
If she genuinely believes that Trump harms her fans and that Harris is the best vote, she’d be thick to not do them for pennies. Few people on earth have the kind of sway that she does in American elections. Not using it is just dumb. Or all about money. Which it would be.
I've thought before that maybe it's a comfort thing. It all gets a bit genocidey so we switch to chatting about our favourite pop star as a nice distraction.
But now we've just ended up debating whether Swifties can pick out Gaza on a map.
But now we've just ended up debating whether Swifties can pick out Gaza on a map.
With Kennedy's 3% most likely going to Trump, I do think something as seemingly harmless as a big Swifty swing could be the difference in the states that matter. I mean, we are talking about 10,000 votes in a state making the difference.
True, that is exactly what the last few pages have been, for the last many months it has gone as followed:Well, currently, Palestinians in Gaza are being genocided by the Democrat in the White House and the many Democrats in the Senate and House. The slaughter is ongoing. Diseases are spreading throughout the ghetto. A minimal demand in this situation would be that the US govt stops arming and diplomatic support for the side committing this atrocity. A moderate demand would be that the US starts supporting the ICC and sanctions Israel. A strong demand would be for military intervention against this genocide. That last would probably be the quickest way of dealing with this genocide. Nobody is making that demand.
The Palestinians within the party started by making the minimal demand. They are being pragmatic and minimal, let alone moderate. The people in Gaza don't have 4 more years. They may not have one year. The party occupying of the White House may make zero difference to whether recognisable Palestinian life in Gaza continues or ends.
Palestinians in the US are now reduced to something well below minimal - their demand is, in my opinion, something to salve their own conscience, for their support for those who are killing their families by the busload. If their kin in the ghetto cannot be human, they are begging that the "good" half of their adoptive country sees them as human (while continuing to kill them). This isn't even a minimal demand. It's begging.
Finally, about the Republicans - there's many polls showing support for a ceasefire, there's also a poll showing support for an arms embargo. Specifically, that support for Kamala rises among independents and Democratic voters, if they support an arms embargo. I don't know if the party thinks that continuing the genocide is more important than winning, or that it isn't worth the risk to alienate AIPAC. Either way,
be minimally serious. last dozen pages have been a circlejerk about various dem speeches.
Person 1: The US facilitates genocide!
Person 2: I agree, but we live in a 2 party system and that, pragmatically, we will need to vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.
Person 1: You support genocide and the slaughter of babies.
Person 2: No, but what would you have us do given the aforementioned 2 party system.
Person 1: If you vote for Biden you support genocide, but Trump is bad too.
Person 2: Then who should we elect?
Person 1: ..........
Rinse/repeat
Your response of "Jill Stein" as who you want to be president in January shows you are not taking this seriously.
The same was true in 2020 and all she did was Twitter/Insta post.
I’ve expressed my opinion on this thread before that Taylor Swift’s sway is waaaaay overrated, but more relevant here is the fact that she’s probably the most carefully managed public figure in the world, and throwing her weight full force behind a political campaign is the antithesis of that.
Not sure anyone is convincing anyone on here, as ever. For some Gaza is literally the only thing that matters, so for them any other topic or concern comes second. Fine. But at this stage you need to accept that not everyone agrees with you.
Personally as I've constantly said on here I believe it's an enormously complicated issue to fix, and so judging any individual on not being able to fix it is not going to get you anywhere.
As other more nuanced posters have adroitly said, Harris is stuck as she's beholden to Biden and his (imo misguided and outdated) policy of Israeli support. Let's see what she says tonight, but anyone ignoring that is just ignoring reality.
Personally as I've constantly said on here I believe it's an enormously complicated issue to fix, and so judging any individual on not being able to fix it is not going to get you anywhere.
As other more nuanced posters have adroitly said, Harris is stuck as she's beholden to Biden and his (imo misguided and outdated) policy of Israeli support. Let's see what she says tonight, but anyone ignoring that is just ignoring reality.
Genocide supporter!!!!
If she did endorse Harris, then imagine the wrath that would be rained down upon Donald by the swifties after he inevitably calls her a loser. It will be a sight to behold!
When she first decided she was 'coming out' with her political views didn't he famously just respond that he still likes her music but 'maybe about 25% less'?
He's a strange bloke, his responses really don't always go the way you'd expect. Also, I think he is genuinely a bit of a Taylor Swift fan, there's that old clip Melania filmed of him driving along to Blank Space.
Attack the highly popular governor of PA, that seems like a sound strategy.
Well said, some people seem to think only one thing goes on in the world.
Trump speaking at the border, rambling away, something about building a wall there.
Gotta give it to the man, coming up with fresh new ideas at his age.
Gotta give it to the man, coming up with fresh new ideas at his age.
I think if Swift was going to do something it would have been triggered by Trump's AI idiocy. The fact she let it pass with no fuss says to me she wants to skip this time.
Liberal Twitter is on fire right now because rumours on the grapevine is Swift is making an appearance.
Imagine the scene if the ‘surprise guest’ is… Liz Cheney
Imagine the scene if the ‘surprise guest’ is… Liz Cheney
Repeating exactly what the president said is unacceptable, if the evil race says it.
...
I'm the 8th most frequent poster on this thread, at least half my posts (probably more) were about Biden's abysmal polling and replacing him, not about any issue. The top 7 are partisan Dems, including at least a few who are quite pro-Israel. You're simply misrepresenting what this thread has been.
If you're saying this discussion is circular, I agree. It stems from what I see as a total lack of personal responsibility and a massive moral blind-spot,.
Finally, if I have to choose between those two, and taking your attitude to voting, I marginally prefer Harris because there's less chance she cuts visas, but don't think my life will be affected much either way. I was here through all 4 years of Trump.
Repeating exactly what the president said is unacceptable, if the evil race says it.
...
I'm the 8th most frequent poster on this thread, at least half my posts (probably more) were about Biden's abysmal polling and replacing him, not about any issue. The top 7 are partisan Dems, including at least a few who are quite pro-Israel. You're simply misrepresenting what this thread has been.
If you're saying this discussion is circular, I agree. It stems from what I see as a total lack of personal responsibility and a massive moral blind-spot,.
Finally, if I have to choose between those two, and taking your attitude to voting, I marginally prefer Harris because there's less chance she cuts visas, but don't think my life will be affected much either way. I was here through all 4 years of Trump.
It's not about lack of personal responsibility or lack of a moral blind spot.
It's about what matters more to people.
You cannot expect someone to vote against their own personal interests and the welfare of themselves and those closest around them over an issue that has no direct impact on them no matter how horrible it is.
and even if you could, literally what is the realistic option in this election?
The person who is actually choosing to commit the genocide in Gaza is a Trump fanboy who goes to visit him in FL and recently spoke to congress at the invitation of Trump's party. If Gaza is your main issue in this election then you had better hope that Harris wins. Criticism of Biden and the dems is fine and well-deserved but realism is important too.
A different but related question:
Presumably a whole lot of Kamala voters oppose this genocide. Do you think they will mobilise en masse on Nov 6? Do you think this mobilisation will be effective? Knowing the answers to these, how is voting for a pro-genocide candidate not the material support of a genocide?
I 100% agree with the last line. Also, it invalidates the first line.
An understandable choice made with a limited "circle of empathy" is framed as a moral necessity, ignoring that other people might have different interests or draw wider circles.
Presumably a whole lot of Kamala voters oppose this genocide. Do you think they will mobilise en masse on Nov 6? Do you think this mobilisation will be effective? Knowing the answers to these, how is voting for a pro-genocide candidate not the material support of a genocide?
I 100% agree with the last line. Also, it invalidates the first line.
An understandable choice made with a limited "circle of empathy" is framed as a moral necessity, ignoring that other people might have different interests or draw wider circles.
Seems like an excellent reason for the Democratic president to invoke the Leahy law and stop arming him.
Agreed.
But to go down this route puts labels on every single person who ever ran because...nobody is flawless.
By voting for Al Gore, you're telling poor people they cannot use cheap energy to heat their homes in winter.
By voting for Obama, you support strengthening Russia to beat down on their neighbours and invade other sovereign nations.
By voting for Bush you support killing defenceless brown people in the middle east.
By voting for Trump you support detaining and caging immigrants
By voting for Hilary Clinton you support the siphoning of wealth to Wall Street.
etc etc etc
With this logic, you are basically saying that every single person has a moral question because they support [insert bad thing here] because by voting for a candidate, you are somehow explicitly agreeing to all of their policies?
Voting for a Party/Candidate doesn't mean you support all their policies/platforms on every single topic. It has never been this way and it is not the case of Gaza either.
Do you think your post makes it less likely that this happens, or more likely?
So the responsibility for a poster lobbing accusations of supporting genocide lies not with that poster but, at least in part, with someone calling out that it may happen?
I mean, many Dems/liberals themselves played these rhetorical games on Republican/conservative voters. If you vote Trump, you enable fascism, misogyny etc.
I prefer the Dems but they themselves were quite intense in their rhetorical attacks/accusations.
I prefer the Dems but they themselves were quite intense in their rhetorical attacks/accusations.
Sure, they're all true, and everyone has a red line somewhere. I hope, at least, that they do. I guess I thought a genocide would be a red line for a few more people.
When has that ever been a red line for US politics?
Of course you can.
Responsibility? No. But if what you really want is a thread where that doesn't happen, that sort of post is really unhelpful. You weren't responding to someone who had actually done what you described.
They have a red line, it just doesn't involve a bunch of Arab kids being genocided far, far away. As far as they're concerned, its just unfortunate 'noise' and a distraction from the carnival circle jerk that's happening within the Dem circuit.
And despite what posters say, it absolutely warrants judging someone's moral convictions based on their stance of the genocide. If the argument was a bit more nuanced and delicately caveated with 'Yes I support the Dems, and I find what's happening in Gaza abhorrent, but Trump would be much worse for the US and Gaza, and I feel there's limited scope for electability considering AIPAC's stranglehold, but we'll fight it when another election is secured', then it would warrant a bit more sympathy from me. When you have a bunch of rabid Kamala fans booing anyone who unfurls a 'ceasefire now' banner while covering their ears then names of murdered Palestinian children are read out, then I absolutely am going to judge them and consider them no morally better than the degenerates they're up against.
The sense i get from reading the thread is that most people here do, in fact, believe that people who vote for Trump support 'detaining and caging immigrants', 'letting women die from not having abortions', and a bunch of other terrible things, either explicitly or implicitly. These voters do not get the benefit of nuance.
Last edited: