The Uncommitted movement announced it wouldn’t be endorsing Kamala Harris for president over her failure to push for a new U.S. policy on the Gaza war.
I’m also hoping that this is just to win the election, and that once Harris is elected then she will have more freedom regarding this topic. (I can also see how she and Biden might privately disagree on this topic, and how Biden - as the sitting President - might have won out, but that then should change once the Presidents change.)
I might be totally unrealistic and off base here, unfortunately. But I do know that if Harris wins, it’s a better outcome for Gaza and Palestine than if she loses.
That would make sense if she wasn’t saying anything about the genocide…
Instead she’s running misleading videos that are edited to make it sound like she supports Gaza. While cutting out the parts about never stopping support to Israel, who have been committing a genocide in Gaza for almost a year now
A president can’t really unilaterally end support for Israel, that’d have to be an act of Congress. And if any president ever did try that, they’d be eviscerated. The anti-Israel wing of the Democrats is vanishingly small, even after this Gaza war. It certainly won’t make or break this election.
Expectations are really that low that all it would take is listening.
I would be really surprised if Uncommitted were willing to endorse Harris if all she did was listen and commit to nothing for them.
Unfortunately she’s taken a page out of Biden
I mean, this worked really well for Biden in 2020 though, right?
if you don’t have an R next to your name, she’s not trying to get your vote.
Recall what I said in the other post about the thin margin and how Republican voters voting for Biden likely lead to his victory, https://lemmy.world/comment/12409521
As for the D’s, I heard the frustration, but I mean what choice do we have? Honestly if it were down to this guy vs someone like Bush Jr again, or Newt, or even Richard Nixon, I’d probably have to go with them.
Literally all Kamala has to do is hear them out.
If she wouldn’t have backed out of letting them speak at the DNC, we wouldn’t even be talking about this still.
Expectations are really that low that all it would take is listening.
Unfortunately she’s taken a page out of Biden and Hillary’s book; if you don’t have an R next to your name, she’s not trying to get your vote.
If she listened then did nothing, then the message would be she’s heartless after hearing about all the suffering.
There was no way to win this for Harris. Politically she did the right thing for the campaign.
I’m also hoping that this is just to win the election, and that once Harris is elected then she will have more freedom regarding this topic. (I can also see how she and Biden might privately disagree on this topic, and how Biden - as the sitting President - might have won out, but that then should change once the Presidents change.)
I might be totally unrealistic and off base here, unfortunately. But I do know that if Harris wins, it’s a better outcome for Gaza and Palestine than if she loses.
She can talk to them after she starts her administration.
Not before. Saying anything about the Middle East at all is political poison to her campaign. There is nothing she can say that won’t hurt her.
Throwing Kamala on the crucible of pro/anti Israel activism right now is self-centered narcissistic reasoning that serves nobody.
That would make sense if she wasn’t saying anything about the genocide…
Instead she’s running misleading videos that are edited to make it sound like she supports Gaza. While cutting out the parts about never stopping support to Israel, who have been committing a genocide in Gaza for almost a year now
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/harris-targets-arab-voters-with-new-ad-highlighting-gaza-suffering/ar-AA1qNZB6
If Trump did that, we’d all call him out for lying, especially if while.doing that he refused to meet with anyone.
Kamala is the VP and candidate for president, why wouldn’t she be able to talk to voters about America’s support of genocide?
What other political stances isn’t she allowed to talk about?
A president can’t really unilaterally end support for Israel, that’d have to be an act of Congress. And if any president ever did try that, they’d be eviscerated. The anti-Israel wing of the Democrats is vanishingly small, even after this Gaza war. It certainly won’t make or break this election.
Really?
Biden unilaterally went around Congress for an arms shipment…
It only works one way?
Not to mention you didn’t address a single thing I mentioned…
I said:
And you came away with:
In what world is listening to th Dem voting base on policy preference “unilaterally end support for Israel”?
Did you mean to reply to me?
I would be really surprised if Uncommitted were willing to endorse Harris if all she did was listen and commit to nothing for them.
I mean, this worked really well for Biden in 2020 though, right?
Recall what I said in the other post about the thin margin and how Republican voters voting for Biden likely lead to his victory, https://lemmy.world/comment/12409521
As for the D’s, I heard the frustration, but I mean what choice do we have? Honestly if it were down to this guy vs someone like Bush Jr again, or Newt, or even Richard Nixon, I’d probably have to go with them.