2024 Presidential Election Shittastic Shittacular

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by davidm

I don’t see how you derive “we hate your kind and will support your extermination at every turn” from “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed and we’ve got to get a deal done.” It’s a total non sequitur.

I wasn't translating Harris' comments, I was saying that is the message many Palestinians are hearing from the Democratic party as a whole. For example when they refused to let an elected Democratic Palestinian-American representative speak for two minutes at the DNC but made time for several Republicans.

This is politics, not a college ethics seminar, and I would not expect Harris to say, “I will change Joe Biden’s policy if I am elected.” She may indeed want to change that policy, but deems it too politically risky to say it during a close election campaign. Perhaps she should — it might win her more votes than her current tack — but, otoh, it might lose her votes. Politicians are risk-averse.

Thanks, I'm aware this is politics and that politicians are risk-averse. That is why I have been arguing that it would be less risky for Harris to come out on the side of the Democratic majority and suggest that she will consider following the law and the Biden admin's own policy on weapons transfers. You and the rest of the "Palestinians need to sit down and shut up" crowd are, in my opinion, taking a more risky approach.

On the other other hand, Humphrey broke with Johnson’s Vietnam policy in 1968 and called for a bombing pause. When he did he began rising in the polls, but still felt short by a whisker to Nixon.

All the analysis I've seen about this event (while pointing out the many and vast dissimilarities in the political moment) suggests that Humphrey lost because he waited too long before doing this.

As I noted upthread, Michael Moore claims, without naming his sources, that behind the scenes Harris is pushing Biden to actually change his policy toward Gaza. If true, it would not be surprising, to advocate privately for a policy change while publicly supporting the policy you want to change.

I'm aware of what Michael Moore reported, I subscribe to his newsletter. Unfortunately the many Palestinians I talk to every day are somehow unmoved by 10 months of "trust us, we're working tirelessly behind the scenes with no visible progress or action".

Biden himself did it with respect to Afghanistan, privately urging Obama to pull out all troops after Bid Laden was killed. Publicly, though, he supported Obama’s policy of keeping troops there. When Biden became president, he did indeed pull out all the troops.

Yes, sometimes politicians don't advertise their real intentions, and it is entirely possible that Harris is Jimmy Carter in a Kamala suit and will rip it off in January after she wins the election. Again, this hope is somehow slight consolation to people who are watching the Biden administration, of which she is an enthusiastic spokesperson, fueling a genocide against their relatives.

I am reporting from the trenches that If Harris doesn't change her rhetoric between now and November, many people who want to vote for her are going to stay home on election day, especially in Michigan. You don't have to convince me what a disaster that would be, I get it. But when someone tells me they feel unseen and unwanted in the Democratic party because of their heritage I don't think "this is politics, not a college ethics class" will win them over. I mean I haven't tried it, but I'm just guessing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I wasn't translating Harris' comments, I was saying that is the message many Palestinians are hearing from the Democratic party as a whole. For example when they refused to let an elected Democratic Palestinian-American representative speak for two minutes at the DNC but made time for several Republicans.

I agree it was a mistake not to let a Palestinian-American representative speak. As to how Palestinian-Americans hear what Harris says, I’m sorry, but she has never remotely said or implied that she hates them all and wants to exterminate them. She has said to the contrary that she wants to end their suffering. In any case, she is not the president. Nothing she says now will make any difference. If she publicly breaks with Biden, that will not change Biden’s policy at all.

Thanks, I'm aware this is politics and that politicians are risk-averse. That is why I have been arguing that it would be less risky for Harris to come out on the side of the Democratic majority and suggest that she will consider following the law and the Biden admin's own policy on weapons transfers. You and the rest of the "Palestinians need to sit down and shut up" crowd are, in my opinion, taking a more risky approach.

Neither you or I know whether that approach would be less risky. The fact is that many Democrats are strongly pro-Israel and generally approve of Biden’s policy. So do many independents. Republicans are a lost cause for Harris anyway, since almost all are MAGGOT cultists. And, I am most definitely NOT a member of the “Palestinians need to sit down and shut up crowd.” I abhor the genocide in Gaza, agree with you that Biden’s approach is wrong, and I speak out against it, and encourage others to do so as well.

My point, however, is that none of this is going to make any difference before the election or the inauguration. For example, even if Biden were to do a 180 and cut off all military and financial aid to Israel today, it would make no difference at all. Israel is NOT solely dependent on the U.S. to prosecute its ongoing genocide in Gaza. Short term, a U.S. aid cutoff would not hamper Israel one iota. What we need to be working for, IMO, is to keep the Orange Monster from winning the election, and then, when Harris is inaugurated, do a full-court press for her to change Gaza policy. I honestly believe she will change it, at least to some extent. I have to hope so, anyway, and I know the alternative in any case would be far worse.

More later.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by davidm

My point, however, is that none of this is going to make any difference before the election or the inauguration.

I get that, but my concern is that there may not be an inaguration (of Harris) if she doesn't give a clearer indication that she will take a harder line with Israel. I think the Harris campaign believes they don't need the "pro-Palestinian" voters to win because abortion is going to rake in the suburban women, and like I said they may be right. But why take the chance? I think I posted earlier a poll from way back in March that found 62% of Democrats support withholding weapons transfers to Israel. Does she pull in any extra voters than she might lose by saying "I will not consider doing that"? Because she might lose some, and she would almost certainly pull in some, by saying "I will consider doing that."

For example, even if Biden were to do a 180 and cut off all military and financial aid to Israel today, it would make no difference at all. Israel is NOT solely dependent on the U.S. to prosecute its ongoing genocide in Gaza. Short term, a U.S. aid cutoff would not hamper Israel one iota.

I don't believe this is true, as discussed with erimir earlier in the thread. In the midst of the earlier discussion I reached out to the former State Department official Josh Paul and asked whether he thought Israel relies on US support to conduct the 'war' or if they could do it alone. This was his response in part:

Yes, Israel certainly has the fiscal ability to pay for its own defense requirements - regardless of US assistance. So, though it's not what you meant, this point can be taken to underline the absolute absurdity of the US providing $3.8B in an average year - and over $17B in the past year - to fund Israel's defense.

[...] even with all the available funding Israel could generate, are there things it gets from the US that Israel could not get anywhere else for any amount of money? Here, the answer is clearly yes. [e.g. F-35 airplanes and components]

What the constant flow of US arms means is that Israel does not have to make hard choices between depleting that stockpile in order to continue at-will operations in Gaza on the one hand, versus retaining that reserve for a much more dangerous contingency [e.g. all-out war with Hezbollah] on the other - it can do both.

A cut off of US weapons supplies would not necessarily stop Israel from continuing its operations in Gaza - but it would mean that Israel would be forced to have a real debate about where its priorities lie.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I get that, but my concern is that there may not be an inaguration (of Harris) if she doesn't give a clearer indication that she will take a harder line with Israel. I think the Harris campaign believes they don't need the "pro-Palestinian" voters to win because abortion is going to rake in the suburban women, and like I said they may be right. But why take the chance? I think I posted earlier a poll from way back in March that found 62% of Democrats support withholding weapons transfers to Israel. Does she pull in any extra voters than she might lose by saying "I will not consider doing that"? Because she might lose some, and she would almost certainly pull in some, by saying "I will consider doing that."

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that what is going on in Gaza right now, sadly, is not of much interest to the majority of voters. There may well be some who will withhold their vote from Harris solely because of Gaza, but there may be others who would withhold it solely because she came out against U.S. aid in the slaughter. And you can bet the MAGGOTS would just be all over that, and blare from the rooftops that Harris hates Israel and is anti-Semitic. The red hats will stop at nothing and, sadly, as we have seen, no matter how depraved Trump and his gang are, almost half the country supports him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I don't believe this is true, as discussed with erimir earlier in the thread. In the midst of the earlier discussion I reached out to the former State Department official Josh Paul and asked whether he thought Israel relies on US support to conduct the 'war' or if they could do it alone. This was his response in part:

I don’t think his response makes your case — rather the opposite, actually. At most, he says, Israel would be forced to consider military priorities. But there is no way that a total cutoff of military aid would hamper them in the relatively short time from now to the inauguration.

[davidm]

Note, too, I’m not saying what I think Harris should do, just looking at it from her point of view and the political calculus she faces. If I were in her position I would call for a complete end to all military aid to Israel, and label what they are doing genocide. But that is probably one of many reasons I will never be elected president.

[viscousmemories]

Ok, I think the polls suggest a lot more people care about what is happening in Gaza than you, seebs, and erimir believe and I think Josh Paul's response does make my case (which was not that stopping weapons transfers would end the genocide before November, btw) but I think we've gotten way off track. Let's go back to your initial comment that 'triggered' me, which I realize I never actually responded to:

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, fwiw, it’s only four and a half months until the next president is inaugurated, but insofar as the presidency is concerned, wait is all we can do. Palestinian advocacy should continue, of course, but it’s not going to affect Biden’s policies one iota, particularly since he is not running for re-election. Attacking Harris is counterproductive, mainly because she is not president and does not make policy, but also because it could turn off some people from voting for her who otherwise would, and in a close race that could hand the job to Trump who would exterminate ever last person in Gaza if he thought he could personally profit from doing so.

How do you distinguish "Palestinian advocacy" from "attacking Harris"? What does "Palestinian advocacy" between now and November consist of if not pressuring the Presidential candidate, who happens also to be part of the current administration? My opinion is that using a big platform to promote the idea that there is no difference between Harris and Trump, calling Harris "killer Kamala", pretending that she has any power to unilaterally change course immediately, etc. are all (real) examples of 'attacking' that I don't condone for the reason you cite - it is dishonest and could dissuade voters. However I believe that protesting at her rallies and other attempts at pushing her to distance herself from Biden's policy before November are not only fair game but critically important at securing the "uncommitted" and activist youth votes, especially in the swing states, that might end up being the difference for her campaign.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

How do you distinguish "Palestinian advocacy" from "attacking Harris"?

Very easily. Avoid claiming, or abetting those who do claim or think, that Kamala Harris hates Palestinians and wants to exterminate them all.

What does "Palestinian advocacy" between now and November consist of if not pressuring the Presidential candidate, who happens also to be part of the current administration?

Pressuring her is perfectly fine.

My opinion is that using a big platform to promote the idea that there is no difference between Harris and Trump, calling Harris "killer Kamala", pretending that she has any power to unilaterally change course immediately, etc. are all (real) examples of 'attacking' that I don't condone for the reason you cite - it is dishonest and could dissuade voters.

Right.

However I believe that protesting at her rallies and other attempts at pushing her to distance herself from Biden's policy before November are not only fair game but critically important at securing the "uncommitted" and activist youth votes, especially in the swing states, that might end up being the difference for her campaign.

I completely agree.

[LarsMac]

For Harris to accomplish anything for Palestine, she needs to BE President, first.
Backpedaling on Biden's current policy before getting the job will only insure tRump the advantage, hence dooming the Palestinian People.

[viscousmemories]

Cornel West often admits to having some "gangster" inside him, and that has been born out by some of his personal and public behavior. He is an ideologue, a fame-whore, and clearly very egotistical (though I would argue the latter applies to most people who seek the highest office in the land). Nevertheless I do admire his consistent defense of the poor, disenfranchised, and otherwise marginalized.

I also appreciate his critiques of capitalism and US global interventionism, and I am impressed by his breadth of knowledge about art and philosophy. It is for these reasons that I am reluctant to dismiss him (as others here are more willing to do) as dishonest, disingenuous, and duplicitous.

All that being said, I fully agree with the sentiment expressed in this article that he has at the very least "lost his way". I think any clear-headed assessment of the situation we're in makes it plain that the negative potential of his presence on the ballot outweighs whatever benefit, real or imagined, might come out of it.

I bought a couple of t-shirts from his campaign in the very early days but mostly as collectors items. I have not otherwise supported his run financially or rhetorically here or anywhere else. So I don't feel any guilt or remorse about anything I've said or done. My estimation of the man has, however, significantly deteriorated. It is some consolation that he appears to have near zero traction, but still. I would very much like to see him drop out ASAP.

[viscousmemories]

More of the same:

GOP operatives back Cornel West's candidacy in battleground states | AP News

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

My estimation of the man has, however, significantly deteriorated.

I hear ya. Thinking the way i currently do about Cornel Fucking West, of all people, is more than a little nauseating, but hey, welcome to 2024, I reckon.

[LarsMac]

My granddaughter, who lives off the State Welfare and State Heath Care for her handicapped son, says she will vote for the Donald.
She is all up in arms over Harris' plans to try and tax unrealized Capital Gains on folks who make over 100 mil a year.
She claims that she can't support that because, "You know, they might start with folks who make that much, but before long it will trickle down to people like me."

Bless her little ol' heart.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

l o n g s i g h

[Stephen Maturin]

Thank goodness for the liberal () legacy MSM, without which I never would have known that the PAB campaign's call for mass deportations is actually a "housing plan."

[viscousmemories]

I was reading this article about the preparations the Democrats are making for the Republican's likely attempt to deny Harris' victory, should it happen, and I was reminded that as VP Harris has the responsibility for certifying the electoral votes. What are the odds the Republicans won't try to turn that into something shady?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

About 100%

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Apartheid Clyde in all his glory spreading misinformation - so here we are! Thank Grok!
Can you believe Elon wears that outfit?? pic.twitter.com/1oiDRhm5QB

— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) September 2, 2024

[specious_reasons]

Harris/Walz campaign is just quoting Trump and it's brutal:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C_jHWY-SqxG/

Screenshot 2024-09-05 at 8.56.01 PM.png

[erimir]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

My granddaughter, who lives off the State Welfare and State Heath Care for her handicapped son, says she will vote for the Donald.
She is all up in arms over Harris' plans to try and tax unrealized Capital Gains on folks who make over 100 mil a year.
She claims that she can't support that because, "You know, they might start with folks who make that much, but before long it will trickle down to people like me."

Bless her little ol' heart.

I dunno if this would be convincing to her or not (it wouldn't surprise me if she just refused to believe that he is what he is), but have you seen this account from Donald Trump's nephew? I'm guessing she hasn't...

Donald Trump Told Me Disabled Americans 'Should Just Die' | TIME

I guess maybe her thought would be that he wouldn't propose or succeed in passing that as policy. But does she really think that when it comes time to cut spending, this doesn't have any effect on where Trump might think there's "unnecessary" spending that can be cut? He won't think Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid disability benefits are just a waste of money?

[seebs]

honestly i would probably be fine with some amount of taxation on unrealized capital gains because like. this only affects me insofar as i'm already pretty rich.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

It’s a complex feeling to know the person you’re arguing with on the internet, when they go to work a portion of their labour is paid to you in an abstract way.

[michio]

Oh my God this is hilarious. Kamala made a comment about people leaving Trump's rallies early, and he didn't want to move onto the next question, he HAD to respond to that.

OH GOD HOLY FUCK HAHAHAHAHA BRO SAID THE HAITIANS ARE EATING THE CATS AND DOGS BRO DUDE WHAT IS HE SAYING RIGHT NOW. Now he's debating the veracity of this claim with the moderator. What???

Holy fuck Trump is insane lmaoooo. I was worried this wasn't going to be entertaining with muted mics.

[specious_reasons]

My take:

Harris did fine. You can pick apart parts of the debate and a few things she sort of didn't do great with, but overall she got it done. I personally wished she would have baited him more — like he was going on about healthcare and said he'd has a plan "very soon," something he's said for 8 years, and I wish she'd call him out on it. I also wish that the whole "even Democrats wanted abortion to go to the states" thing was called out by someone.

Trump was his usual self. For all practical purposes, he did "fine" as well.

[erimir]

I thought Trump came off as a bit unhinged, tbh

Yelling constantly, incapable of staying on topic, mostly talking about immigration, constant lying, some truly ridiculous claims. He did not do well on abortion. Half the time you'd get to the end of his answer and be like wtf was he talking about again? Incoherent.

To be fair to Trump, this was largely similar to his performance in the June debate. And he felt like he killed that debate and probably spent the last two months thinking nothing needed to change because it was "one of the all time great debate performances" or whatever. When what really had happened was that Trump lost that debate, but Biden just lost it so much harder.

But really, if you had watched that first debate and paid attention to Trump, it was pretty similar. Rambling, unable to stay on topic, constant lying, answering almost every problem with some ridiculous immigration shit (how will you cure cancer? by building a border wall!), etc.

But because it was compared to Biden being unable to finish an answer, everyone was focusing on Biden instead.

I guess I can say that this time was a bit less hinged though. Harris did seem to be getting under his skin. And it seemed like he wouldn't even look at her. Not sure what that was about.