256

Kamala Harris ‘listening’ to young people on Gaza, says fellow Democrat (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago

Reading Internet comments on this, the right has already made up their minds that she is basically going to roll out a red carpet for Hamas, and the left already thinks that she is going bomb children.

She’s on record saying that she supports Israel’s right to defend itself, AND that Israel is killing and starving innocents civilians. As far as I know, in the week that she’s been the candidate, she hasn’t stated what “support” looks like and how or if she plans to disincentivize their offensive campaign that’s killing and starving civilians / continuing the circle of violence.

[-] wagesj45@kbin.run 41 points 3 months ago

supports Israel’s right to defend itself

Yeah, that's not wrong.

AND that Israel is killing and starving innocents civilians

Yeah, also not wrong. Because in this instance Israel isn't defending itself. They're not taking out imminent threats; at least not exclusively. They're using an attack to justify imperialism and genocide. We even have a very recent example of how that's usually a disaster for everyone involved.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

It is utterly unsurprising that large swathes of the internet is rejecting what seems to be a reasonable stance that'd provide the best outcome for everyone.

In this case the leaders of both these nations are dumpster fires and there are extremist elements present in both... but most people just want to live and have guaranteed access to clean water and social services.

[-] Brokkr@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Also, Russia has massive propaganda efforts in place to affect public opinion online. Deepening the divide everyone is definitely in their favor; especially while they would definitely like us to not pay attention to Ukraine.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The left has also made up their mind after 9 months of gaslighting by Biden pretending he was going to be tough on israel, and then sending them more bombs to drop on schools when they ran out.

"Trust me bro" fingerwagging isn't enough anymore. We need concrete promises and real action.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Those of who didn’t like Biden’s actions in Gaza, but were still voting for him, were doing so because we viewed other issues on the ballot as even worse.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Also because Trump wants to be even WORSE on Gaza. Really simple calculation.

[-] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

If she’s listening, then she can’t pick Shapiro or Kelly as VP.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 months ago

I think Shapiro's Israel stance would be poison. Kelly would probably blunt momentum, but maybe the cool factor of being an astronaut could get him through it without bringing the ticket down.

From a progressive standpoint, I actually kind of like Buttigieg. Like Harris, he started out as vaguely progressive but turned toward the moderate lane after realizing the progressive one was stuffed full, but he hasn't done some of the performative centrism of the purple state elected officials and he's got some dynamism in both his policy (his supreme court reform was good) and conveys a different feel from trying to pick someone to signal that the Democratic party is also the home for conservatives. Plus you can put him in front of a camera anywhere and expect him to do a good job.

I wouldn't vote for him or Harris in a primary, but I can feel positive about them on a ticket.

[-] Alteon@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

My issue with Buttigieg is that he used to work for McKinsey & Co, and apparently was their "Wiz Kid".

"McKinsey has assisted opioid manufacturers, tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and authoritarian governments around the world, and in each case has covered up its footprints. Again and again, McKinsey has come to town and left people worse off." (Source)

[-] killingspark@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago

Hey sometimes McKinsey also helps people. Like when they explained to new York that maybe, just maybe, throwing garbage in bags on the streets instead of trash containers makes your city stinky. Still cost them a fortune that advice right there but...

[-] morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 3 months ago

How is VP choice related to Gaza?

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

because they have their options about Gaza

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Why are people continuing to say this? The VP has no say over POTUS. They are the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and count the electoral ballots in an election. That’s it.

[-] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 3 months ago

They're second in line. It's a liability.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It was a liability when the President was 81. I’m not so sure we should be focusing on vetting the VP for POTUS otherwise.

[-] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 months ago

IMO we should always be vetting the VP for POTUS. Seems silly not to. Old age isn't the only risk.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

As a backup, sure, but not a likely candidate. They are typically appointed to balance out the ticket. The more left Harris brings her platform, the more likely her nomination will be to her right.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 months ago

If you think the VP's positions on things should be irrelevant to the left because Harris isn't going to die, why would their positions be any comfort to the right as a balance to the ticket? Either they're irrelevant and no one should care, or they aren't and anyone caring is doing so for good reason.

And this is all indulging in the fantasy that vice presidents aren't likely future presidential candidates.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 7 points 3 months ago

If the next president is a black woman, her life will constantly be in danger from the Trump cultists or other far right extremists. Or she could have an aneurysm randomly one day. People die all the time from a wide variety of causes that aren't old age.

The choice of VP is always important.

[-] AIhasUse@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

I wonder if Ben would even accept her offer.

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Ben hated Obama with passion, and I see no reason for him to have similar views of Kamala, as they have similar attributes that he cares about. We'll see the next few years lots of whining coming from him

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago

Wrong person. Get educated, unless u be jokin

[-] AIhasUse@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Of course I b jokin. Life's too short to do anything else.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Damn dude. I'm buying. Can we b jokin around town together? Continuing ed and what not

[-] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Most def we can b, a night 2 rememmer!

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

Who knew young people would be so triggered by the slaughter of children?

I'm not young, and I'm pretty triggered by it. I guess there's something wrong with me? I've never owned any boot straps, so maybe that's it.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Man this would mean absolutely nothing if it was Harris herself saying it. And its not even her saying it.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Thats not how building executive consensus works. Especially when doing so as a current subordinate.

[-] Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

Exactly, she can't really take a bold stance while holding a position cus her stance is toothless. It would be easy fodder to just say "than why aren't you doing something?" When she actually can't do anything. Even if/when she has executive authority over it, it's potentially counter-productive for potential peace talks. If you're able to present a plan where both parties feel like they have a victory, it's a harder sell if you've already "picked a favorite" before talks happened.

I think it's the difference between politics and governing. Being the adult in the room is important and I think the posture Kamala is taking makes me optimistic that she has the appropriate priorities. Which will evolve into political wins, when contrasted with Trump. I hope these winks to the left are done in good faith though and not a hollow effort to galvanize the base.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

I agree. I think Lemmy is full of very idealistic folks, so the concerns you described just don't register.

They think if they were her, they would twirl the wand and it would be just so.

[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

By young people they mean the donor class. We all sure as fuck know they dont listen to us, she directly has called pro-palestinian protesters Hamas supporters. And opposes our first amendment rights to free speech and protest.

[+] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -21 points 3 months ago

Same way I listen to my kids tell me what they want from the grocery store. Maybe they get it, maybe they don't, but it's not a negotiation.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That changes when they get older. You eventually start listening for real because they are smarter than you are.

It's no longer a question of if they get it, but if you get it. Please pay attention to what your children ask for.

[-] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

You're probably talking to an anti-vaxer, in which case the kids don't get older.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

My kids are 9 and 11. If they ask for something I want them to have, I get it for them. If they ask for something I don't want them to have, I don't get it for them.

They're smart for their age, but they're kids.

I think you're torturing the metaphor a bit much. I just meant I don't believe that Harris is going to listen to progressives on Israel. I wish she would, and I'm going to vote for her regardless because Trump would be far worse. But to say "Harris is listening" feels like an attempt to placate reasonable people who don't want to support a genocide.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree that the comparison is a bit steep, but you're the one who made it.

Also, my point is not necessarily to just give in, but that "listening" to a request may be enough for someone to do something else than what they initially intended. Listening is far more important than obliging to any single direct action. In any dialogue or conflict, you are achieving more both by listening and by having your opponent listen, than having either part reluctantly oblige.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Right, but my point is that "listening" is not action. It's no mystery what is happening in Gaza, nor is it a complicated question as to where the current administration stands. Biden supports Netanyahu, even though Netanyahu has engaged Israel in a direct and concerted effort to eliminate all Palestinians in Israel. They are targeting civilians, they are targeting safe zones and escape routes, they are targeting hospitals and refugee camps. The Hamas attacks of Oct 7 were inexcusable acts of terrorism, but nothing justifies the retaliation of the Israeli forces.

To say "Harris is listening" is an insult to the people who oppose genocide carried out with American support. We want peace, and we want hostages returned. We want Palestinians and Israelis to coexist without violence. And Biden doesn't.

I'm still going to vote for Harris, because Trump will be worse. He is a stronger ally to Netanyahu, and will provide unconditional support to whatever war crimes Israel wishes to execute. So I will vote for Harris regardless. But I do not believe it when someone says she is "listening." She and the DNC believe they need to support Israel to win votes from single issue voters, or at least keep them home instead of voting for a guy who may not be a Nazi, but is number 1 with Nazis.

And that's fine with me. I understand the politics of supporting or criticizing Israel are complicated. That's exactly why Netanyahu is engaged in his attacks right now, because he knows the US administration will not be able to pull their support right now. After the election, if Harris wins, he will suddenly become dramatically more reasonable and willing to negotiate.

I hope that Harris wins and she uses the more pliable relationship to foster a peace that lasts.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Ah yes. voters are just unruly children.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Voters get treated like children. Did I give the impression I thought that was a good thing?

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 months ago

Your kids aren't an important component to your continued employment.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Apparently the DNC doesn't seem to think that people who oppose a genocide aren't an important component of Harris's victory.

I would argue that my kids have a lot to do with my continued employment, but not in any way that's relevant to the analogy.

[-] mbtrhcs@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago

Imagine telling Palestinian civilians "maybe you live, maybe you don't, it's not a negotiation"

disgusting

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I agree with you.

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024

256 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19097 readers

4670 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
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