179

“He’s doing a good job,” Trump saidabout the Israeli leader. “Biden is trying to hold him back, just so you understand, Biden is more superior to the VP. He’s trying to hold him back, and he probably should be doing the opposite, actually. I’m glad that Netanyahu decided to do what he had to do, but it’s moving along pretty good.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 2 points 7 minutes ago

People not voting bcoz of Gaza are fools bcoz that genocide will continue immatter of who is in the white house. US support will continue.

Biden's actions have shown there is no restraints, so has Harris's. I am not believing anything Trump is saying.

[-] Minarble@aussie.zone 10 points 1 hour ago

If you are an American voter and you sit this one out or vote 3rd party and Trump gets in you are directly supporting escalation and taking whatever little restraint away that Netanyahu is feeling from the USA.

Instead of calls for restraint you will have cheerleading from the sidelines.

[-] Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.com 24 points 2 hours ago

C'mon enlightened lefties! Come on and tell me how you won't be voting for genocide and we should follow so the Democrats figure out through losing the election that they should court lefties. Nevermind we get 4 years of, "he's doing a good job" as long as Democrats learn to denounce genocide.

C'mon you fucking cowards, get in here and sell me on how Trump winning helps solve your single issue voting on genocide.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 14 minutes ago

This is ignorant as fuck. First of all, there is no more reliable group of voters in the country than progressives. Not even MAGA members have shown up at polls as reliably for Republicans as the left has for Democrats. Still, the Democratic establishment whines about leftists staying home to excuse their pathetic losses, and morons eat it up.

Also, even if there were any kind of truth to this narrative, trying to win an election by shaming voters is dumb as fuck. No voter who is as fickle as you think the left is, is going to decide to show up because you shouted insults at them. This isn't a strategy to win elections, it's a strategy to excuse losing them.

It's not "left" voters saying they will stay home, not in significant numbers. It's Muslim voters or, more precisely, it's voters who know the names of the people being systematically slaughtered with US weapons. While I agree that voting Democrat is the best bad option for Palestinians, I can't get behind shaming someone for not voting to elect someone unrepentantly responsible for blowing up their loved ones. If they can't stomach voting for Harris, I don't blame them.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago

I'm voting for Harris. She shouldn't be supporting genocide and neither should you.

[-] errer@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago

This dumb fuck is gaining in the polls.

I just…can’t anymore

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 hour ago

Keep in mind that the polls right now are also being flooded with right wing aligned groups

https://flood-watch.vercel.app/

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago

Trump wants, and largely has, the "Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out!" vote.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago

True. I think it's more about whether Harris can pull in the "genocide bad" folks, or loses them to third-party protest votes. Of course if any of those folks were paying attention to the crap coming out of Trump's mouth, they'd understand how much worse Trump will be. I had folks (hexbear and .ml of course) on a different post telling me that not only would Harris and Trump be the same on this, but that Harris would actually be worse. And of course they're willfully ignoring how bad Trump would be on everything else.

I have a suspicion that part of what's pushing Harris' campaign strategy right now to focus on courting more "centrists" is that they know whatever she did to appeal to the left that's not voting for her would never be enough to satisfy them. Far easier to court the middle with straightforward messaging than to appeal to a voting bloc that is already determined to hate anyone that's not as chaotic as they are.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

True. I think it’s more about whether Harris can pull in the “genocide bad” folks

I haven't seen her try. Have you?

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago

Thanks for proving my point.

Not that you'll read it, but I think this might help explain:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/09/kamala-harris-israel-policy-palestine-gaza-war.html

Perhaps Harris’ loudest statement, however, was prefaced by her absence. Shortly after getting the nod from Biden in July, Harris snubbed Netanyahu, skipping his speech to Congress. (She spoke to a Black sorority, instead.) The next day, she met privately with him—later describing their talk as “frank and productive,” words that your boss might use after a performance review goes poorly.

The reaction to her remarks was underwhelming at the time, but the remarks themselves were extraordinary. “We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering” of Palestinians in Gaza, “and I will not be silent,” she told reporters and cameras. “Israel has a right to defend itself—but how it does so matters.” It was as close as a sitting vice president could possibly come to reading Netanyahu for filth without creating a diplomatic crisis.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 51 minutes ago

Her messaging regarding unconditional support for the genocide all centrists love is more convincing than subtle hints that slate has to speculate about.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 3 points 47 minutes ago

A nuanced take as always /s

Did you even get to the end of the article or did you just read the headline?

Harris has very little room to maneuver, however, without losing a huge part of her base and the party machinery that are still deeply attached to Israel. There is only so much a candidate and sitting vice president can do or say to break with the position held by her staunchly Zionist president, a Democratic establishment beholden to the pro-Israel lobby and AIPAC, and a broad swath of her liberal base that strongly supports Israel and its war. If she’s serious about getting elected, she has to withhold the kind of unambiguous statement—or action—that pro-Palestine activists demand. So she’s reduced to tone of voice, oblique gestures, a message hidden between the lines.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 26 minutes ago

Did you even get to the end of the article or did you just read the headline?

I read the article. I don't buy excuses and apologia when we're talking about literal genocide. I also regard with earned disgust anyone who makes such excuses.

The whole "she absolutely can't differ from Biden in any way except for these subtle hints we speculate about" thing is garbage. She's not the secretary of state. She's not running everything behind the scenes like Dick Cheney, though she seems to have garnered his approval, and it speaks volumes that centrists were so goddamned happy about his endorsement. In any event, she is free to differ on foreign policy and chooses not to.

I'm still voting for her. I'm going to be at the polls this coming Monday, which is when early voting opens here in Texas. I have every right to criticize her for supporting Netanyahu's genocide, even if Netanyahu's apologists want me to buy that she has shown any opposition whatsoever to the only policy centrists seriously hold.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 1 points 7 minutes ago

Okay, let's play this out. What exactly do you want her to say? Specifically. Because it's not like as VP she can do anything about it directly. So this is just going to be a statement, right?

Let's say as part of that statement, she says Israel should get no more aid. That would be the crux of it, correct? And Biden then has to come out and say, that's not happening while I'm President. Factions within the Democrats withdraw funding and support from her campaign. And the Iranians start actually drooling about being able to basically act unopposed. Hezbollah gets some shiny new missiles to kill more civilians. Centrists withdraw support from Harris and more than likely sit out the election, though a few may move over to Trump. November 6 rolls around and Trump wins, the region is even more of a shitshow than it is now, and just as important, Palestinians will still be dying. And under Trump it will get much, much worse.

Or…she tries to thread a very small needle, gets elected, and can the come to the bargaining table as the newly sworn-in President. She still has to juggle a bunch of different interests, but as President she has the power to do more than make statements and has quite a bit of latitude when it comes to foreign policy. Harris wouldn't have been my top choice, or even in my top 5, but I can honestly say I can't believe she won't make saving Palestinian lives a priority, unlike Biden. But she can't do it as a candidate.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 hours ago
[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Oh, Netty is taking care of that for you.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago

"He's doing a good job,"

thanks, Hitler

[-] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 5 hours ago

it’s quite different from Trump’s bombastic rhetoric: He has repeatedly said that Israel has to “finish the job.” The former president’s Friday comments appear to be an attempt to paint Biden, and by extension, Harris, as being less supportive of Israel than him

Trump wants genocide escalated and completed on a faster timetable. If you don’t think that includes the West Bank in the long-term plan, you’re being naive.

Biden is trying to get a ceasefire deal from a madman. Harris needs to win the election and can’t if Israel turns against her. Trump actively wants to commit accelerated genocide on Palestinians.

Anyone who is pro-Palestinian and is thinking about voting for Trump needs to be aware of the long-term consequences.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 40 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

From a purely strategic perspective, is this wise of Trump?

My impression is that even many American Jewish people don't like Netanyahu. And he doesn't need to remind anti-Harris protest voters that he's even more anti Palestine. Many MAGA diehards don't even like Netanyahu.

Like... who is he appealing to? Older Republicans, I guess, who remember Israel's early days?

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago

He's apppealing to the evil people. The ones that want to watch the world burn, or are too stupid to understand the consequences of radical global actions.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 34 points 5 hours ago

He's appealing to people that hate Muslims.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 26 points 5 hours ago

And people who think the rapture starts with a holy war in Jerusalem.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

The "left behind" Christians, who want nothing more than Armageddon.

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 35 points 5 hours ago

He's appealing to himself

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 16 points 5 hours ago

If he can keep steady poll numbers after an insurrection, my guess is that this won’t impact him at all.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 21 points 5 hours ago

Honestly, is there anyone alive today with more blood on their hands than Benjamin Netanyahu?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Trump's response to covid. Putin's entire career. Kim Jong Un's slow starvation of his entire fucking nation. But Netanyahu is up there and we should stop letting him write our foreign policy.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

don't forget ~~Mao~~ Xi.

sorry, Pooh bear.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, him too. But I'm not gonna minimize the perpetrator of an ongoing genocide either. Netanyahu is a piece of shit and we shouldn't be supporting his genocide. No matter how much centrists want to. We should cease selling him weapons right now. Centrists might not get everything they want for the first time ever, but they can vote blue no matter who.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 21 points 5 hours ago

It's sad to say, but yes. Gaza is a horrific tragedy, but it is an admittedly small corner of the world.

The Palestinian health ministry has reported 40,000+ Palestinian dead. Meanwhile, George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqis following his completely unnecessary invasion of Iraq. He's still kicking, probably using some of that blood on his hands for the painting he does now.

Putin is also pulling comparable numbers as Bibi in Ukraine, though that conflict has been going on for a little bit longer than the one in Gaza. But that's also not counting how many of his own men he sent to their deaths, which is estimated to be over 100,000.

Henry Kissinger would also be on this list but thankfully it's been almost a year since his long-awaited demise.

And that's really only looking at conflict. Not factoring in others who are responsible for large-scale humanitarian crises that may end up killing many more people just from disease or starvation.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 2 hours ago

Not to detract from your point, but the real number of deaths in Gaza is estimated to be between 100-200 thousand.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 hours ago

The Palestinian health ministry has reported 40,000+ Palestinian dead.

That only counts people who get found, obviously it doesn't count the tens of thousands who are dead or dying under the rubbel. The real number is probably an order of magnitude higher.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 18 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

If you're exceptionally fascist, Trump will allot you extra praise. This is earnest as well - it's because he was mentored by a fascist type personality in Roy Cohn - and raised by a ruthless racist Capitalist in the form of his father who refused to rent his properties to black people (putting a 'c' on their applications to indicate they were people of color).

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
179 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19062 readers
4304 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.
  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS