I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, this trial has been going on forever. Looks like he has to testify in early December (his lawyers had wanted to push off until March next year)
This is an archive of the best article I could find - basically his lawyers had used the war as an excuse for the delay, but that didn't fly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu
The prosecution rested in June 2024. The schedule for the testimony of witnesses for the defense is scheduled to be determined on July 9, 2024.
Certainly guessing they're trying to delay as much as possible.
His polls have recently somewhat improved, but are still down from where they were historically. Earlier this year they were absolutely abysmal so the bar was on the floor for them to be seen as "on the rise"
According to an earlier poll conducted by Israel's Channel 12 on July 13, 70% of Israelis supported Netanyahu's dismissal, while 44% demanded his immediate resignation.
Another poll conducted on April 12 showed that 35% of Israelis supported Netanyahu.
It's one of the reasons he has been stalling on ceasefire talks - the war is the only thing keeping him in power.
Oh, I don't think there's any political calculation to 99% of what Trump says anymore. This is more about how much he likes "strongmen". Hell, lots of folks in Israel don't even like Netanyahu anymore.
Oh it's even worse than that. MAGA folks are entirely driven by soul-shaking fear. Imagine being scared and angry every waking hour and how exhausting that must be. Not to mention but those responses literally suppress activity in your prefrontal cortex and reduce executive function in the brain. It sets up a feedback loop of poor decision making and fear/anger responses.
We need something like those cult deprogrammers, but that can work on roughly 100 to 150 million people.
Just a downvote and no reply? Wow, I really must have touched a nerve.
I honestly at this point can't tell how much is intentional trolling and how much is that he just doesn't know any better/doesn't want to know any better. If it's the latter, I do feel sorry for him a little as he's probably neurodivergent like myself but doesn't have any tools to deal with it or even awareness of the problem. But then he'll do something that'll convince me it's all an act and he just enjoys playing the heel.
Aww, someone is a bit in his feelings, isn't he? And such a roll call of the abuse you've had to endure! Truly harrowing!
But there seems to be something totally lacking. Anything that showed you had the slightest bit of self awareness. You claim no motive for sharing, but just about everyone else sees what you're doing. You claim innocence, "I didn't write the article" but when asked repeatedly to explain why you found it interesting, you have literally never answered, only saying "I don't have to explain anything!". Which is true, in so far as when you don't explain your motivations, people will fill in the blanks.
Everyone else here who is a regular or even occasional poster has "tells" of one type or another. We're human, and by definition that means we have biases. I generally can often guess who posted something without even looking at the user name, and that's fine. And that's just as true of other people guessing when I've posted something. The rest of us engage with posts and comments in a way that matches our personal views.
But supposedly not you. You claim no bias, no agenda and spend most of your time in the comments being disingenuous - not only about your agenda (which is plain to see), but in claiming you have no motive for what you do. That's not genuine human behavior, which is probably why there's so many who believe you're a bot. Your behavior in posting and commenting falls smack dab in the uncanny valley. The only other explanation is that you're not being honest.
As for the rest, please don't pretend that you haven't been trolling yourself. The modlog is evidence enough for that.
You keep acting like it's the articles you post that are the problem when it's your behavior in the comments that makes people angry. I don't think I've ever seen a genuine conversation with you involved. It's obfuscation, sealioning, deflection, and playing the victim.
And don't do your usual "Just block me if you don't like it!" When people see someone pollute a shared communal space, they should call it out, not turn a blind eye to it. Otherwise it's just another example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
You have every right to keep posting (as long as the mods are willing to shoulder the extra work you create), but if you do, do it honestly. Stand up for what you believe in, even if folks say you're wrong. Be an advocate for ideas, people, and movements. Explain why you think what you do - the only cost is the potential for someone to change your mind, and the benefit is you might change someone else's mind.
But don't be dishonest about why you're doing whatever it is you think you're doing here. Don't hide behind "I didn't write the article" and "I don't have to explain anything to anyone". You might still get downvoted to oblivion, but you might not.
While it's true you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into, I think this may be surprisingly effective. It's not a clip on social media, it's not a meme, it's an interview with a real person from the same source they get their daily Trump booster from anyway.
For some, it may strike an emotional blow seeing the woman that Trump has vilified and cartoonishly caricaturized being strong and intelligent while he won't debate and at his own events rambles (or dances). She looks strong and he looks weak. Most will shake it off, but if even 1% decide just not to vote for Trump, it will probably be enough to swing some states. This wasn't primarily a call to reason or to change minds, it was a swing at making them doubt Trump and his message. The only way to counter someone like him is ridicule or stirring up doubts. I hate that this kind of thing is what it may take to beat him, but she did it well and it wouldn't have worked anywhere else but Fox News.
It's like when they ask someone "What is a woman?" like it's some gotcha. Whatever you answer, they'll find a way to twist, exaggerate, or simply lie about.
Almost as if travel and new experiences can tend to broaden one's mind…
I wonder when we'll find out how much Putin has spent? I mean they spent tons on influencers, I imagine FB ads are a relative bargain.
Yeah, it really seems that there needs to be some sort of consequences for this. I saw someone referring to it as "lawfare" for the first time, and I think that's rather apt. This is attempting to disingenuously commit violence on the infrastructure of society.
They like to try and dress it up a bit, but yeah…
So I was correct in guessing what you wanted her to say? And my entire reply was about the probable outcome of that.
I was referring to centrist as those not strongly associated with either party. I despise the term "independents" as I think they are anything but. Basically the folks who see the Cheney endorsement and think "Maybe I can vote for Harris after all?" The 55 to 75 year olds who turn out in droves every election. And because of that, you need to get as many of them voting for you as possible to win.
Obviously you have no interest in discussing this rationally. Especially considering you then implied my top choice for US president would've been Netanyahu.
I laid out what I think would happen if Harris did what you wanted. You chose not to refute any of that. Or more likely - you couldn't.
So, want to try again or just throw more insults my way?