this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
707 points (84.7% liked)
Political Humor
801 readers
14 users here now
Political Shitposting
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Other than this meme ridiculously implying that if only the pro-Palestine vote would have gone to Harris instead of Trump, then Harris would have won (two ridiculous claims not backed by the reality of the data): Can we please stop with that notion, that the Democrats are trying to stop what's going on in Palestine and finally see it as the US foreign policy that it is? Who has the power in that relationship? Without the US, Israel has a fraction of its weapons, billions of dollars less for their own civil programs and no shielding from international law. Don't act like the Biden administration has been genuinely trying to stop a genocide, when they:
This behavior isn't new. International law didn't matter, when the US offensively brought death and destruction to Afghanistan and Iraq and as a result again in Iraq and Syria. Or when they did the same with the EU in Lybia,. Or when they supplied Saudi Arabia with weapons and support for their genocide in Yemen, and are supplying Egypt with weapons and support for their water war in Sudan, which has seen atrocity after atrocity in its wake. This isn't even an extensive list of just this century.
They aren't trying to stop it. All the public lip-service is but theater as are the negotiations. Which should become clear at the latest, when Israel assassinates their negotiating partners and then the US claims, that there is no one from the other side joining the table...
I don't understand why anyone thought either candidate would handle it better than the other.
IMO, the Trump administration will likely make the problem worse faster than Harris would have, but regardless of who won the election, it would be impossible to prove whether my argument is true or not, so I digress.
I still have a hard time believing that anyone chose this hill to be the deciding factor and they went with Trump?
He's basically endorsing mass deportation which will likely result in the deaths of many migrants fleeing from dangerous situations. It's basically genocide on a massive scale. And that standpoint convinced anyone that he would do a better job in the Palestine conflict compared to Harris?
Now, I'm not saying Harris would have done much better, but "not much better" is still better... Not by much, but it's still better.
Oh well. Here we go again, the US is endorsing genocide. Whoopee.
Yeah neither do I. Especially with Trump's track record on the matter while he was in office. His proximity to Sheldon Adelson is believed to be the reason that led to Trump unilaterally declaring the Golan Heights (Syrian territory) to belong to Israel. Furthermore he moved the embassy to Jerusalem. And the criticism of the Abraham's Accords, that they were leaving out the Palestinians, was met with the answer of it being the point. When American journalists got murdered by Israel it got even less repercussions than Saudi Arabia for doing the same without consequence.
We just had an instance a few weeks ago, where I do believe there to be a material difference in handling between Biden/Harris and Trump. Remember when Israel attacked Iran? And did NOT attack Iran's nuclear and oil facilities? Speculation of course, but that has to be because of the limits set by the U.S. I'm pretty sure Trump sets the limit for such actions differently and we might be in a more open and direct world war like situation (including Russia and maybe even China). Another is his proximity to and donation ($100 million IIRC) from Miriam Adelson, which is rumored to be based on the wish to fully annex the West Bank. His announced appointments do make this seem likely and should once and for all dispel the myth of Israel's actions being defensive in nature for anyone still believing that.
edit: American journalists
She would have won MI easily. Possibly PA. Then WI would only have been necessary.
The far left vote would have handed her the Presidency. And you guys will eat a big plate of shit served by Trump himself for making that mistake.
I consider myself to be on the far left, and I voted for Kamala. Quit making us a scapegoat, please. Oversimplification feels nice I know, but it's not actually accurate or helpful.
https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-trump-harris-democrats-economy-gaza-split-ticket-voters-2024-11
https://newrepublic.com/post/188222/muslim-vote-harris-trump-stein-2024-election
Uhhh... Okay, thanks for the articles, but they leave me a bit confused as to your point.
The first is just about respondents to AOC's Instagram post asking people who voted for her and Trump "why", and many cited Gaza as a key concern. And the second article cites a fairly limited exit poll, known for their unreliability, saying many Muslim Americans voted third part.
Neither article even references the "Far Left", nor do they present evidence that a complete shift in these votes would have changed the elections outcome.
So... Yeah, thanks again for sharing I guess? And I guess these are good articles to suggest maybe the Dems should have focused more on Gaza. But they don't really justify the claim that the "far left vote would have handed her the presidency".
Two take-aways from your post:
Until now I haven't seen a single thorough analysis, with absolute numbers especially compared to 2020. You know, so we can base our assumptions and opinions a bit more on reality. Most I'm seeing are opinions (including my own) and if I'm lucky, then an article highlighting a single isolated aspect, that might or might not be a relevant factor.