Trump election win: They turned against Kamala Harris. They’re about to find out if it was worth it.
WoodScientist @ WoodScientist @lemmy.world Posts 5Comments 836Joined 11 mo. ago
Trump election win: They turned against Kamala Harris. They’re about to find out if it was worth it.
Ok. What is Trump going to do that Biden hasn't already been doing? Everything I've seen is that nothing will change except perhaps an acceleration. Whether Gaza is genocided in 1 year or 3 is pretty irrelevant.
Trump election win: They turned against Kamala Harris. They’re about to find out if it was worth it.
That isn't something new. They've been annexing land in the West Bank for years.
It may accelerate under Trump, but it's nothing new.
I didn't expect Biden to stop the genocide.
I expected him to try.
What real difference does this make though? I honestly don't see what actually is going to change in Gaza. Yes, Biden isn't overtly racist against Palestinians, but he doesn't consider them human beings either. He's given Israel a complete blank check to do whatever they want. And I expect that to continue unchanged under Trump. As a practical matter, I really don't see what Trump can do that Biden already hasn't. Trump will just be a lot ruder about it.
I think there's another narrative that just assumes Trump will be significantly different from what Kamala would have been.
What can Trump do that Biden/Kamala haven't already? Much is being made about Trump sitting by while Netanyahu annexes large chunks of the West Bank. But that's already been happening.
There has been much made about Trump potentially allowing Israel to annex parts of Gaza. But Biden has sat back and let Israel completely ethnically cleanse northern Gaza. If Biden/Trump didn't lift a finger to stop an ethnic cleansing, what makes you think they would do anything when Israel files some paperwork to formally annex land? Hundreds of thousands of people area dead. I'm sorry, but compared to that, a little paperwork to formally take territory is a minor crime indeed.
War with Iran? Israel doesn't want a war with Iran. They've been playing a careful tit-for-tat game with Tehran, trying to save face while avoiding an all-out war. And there's little evidence Trump would get the US involved if a full war did start.
I mean really, what exactly do you expect Trump to do that Biden/Harris already haven't? They've given Israel a complete blank check. I think we tend to just assume because he's overtly racist against Muslims that he is going to be worse for the Palestinians. Yes, Biden and Harris aren't overtly racist against the Muslims. But in terms of their actual actions, I can't think of anything Trump can do that they already haven't.
Trump election win: They turned against Kamala Harris. They’re about to find out if it was worth it.
Do we actually know that Kamala would be any better for Gaza than Trump? Because Biden never altered a single Trump policy when it came to Israel. He enabled Israel just as strong as Trump did.
Moreover, Trump has told Israel that he wants them to wrap it up quickly. That likely means a surge in violence in Gaza in the next few months. And while the death toll from those months will exceed what they would have been under Kamala, the conflict had no end in sight at all under Biden/Harris.
What evidence do we actually have, other than just vibes, that Trump will be worse than Harris? I mean sure, he personally despises all Arab people, but it's not like Biden or Harris really see the Palestinians as human beings either. Trump is just more overt about it.
Trump election win: They turned against Kamala Harris. They’re about to find out if it was worth it.
The logic is that it's simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, "yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!"
It's just a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy. The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others, who want to do what they can to make a positive difference in this world. And Kamala's brilliant plan was to appeal to those bleeding hearts with a message of, "yes, I'm fine with genocide, but the genocide will go even faster if my opponent is elected!"?
What dirt-fucking moron thought that was a good idea?
That actually makes a lot of sense. Trump didn't get significantly more votes than he got in 2020. Harris just got way less than Harris.
Here's an engineer's solution: raise the threshold for the number of signatures required to get on the ballot, and don't let someone sign a petition for more than one candidate for a given race.
After they make it illegal to medically transition genders, guess what medical procedures they'll prohibit next?
Worldwide, we're seeing electorates that are rejecting establishment candidates. It's been that way since at least 2016, and really since the start of and response to the Great Recession. Obama ran as an outsider. He governed as a centrist, but he didn't really run as one initially. And Biden only won because of the pandemic. If it weren't for the pandemic, Trump would have won in 2020.
I predict that for 2028, the DNC will insist that we run a compromise ticket. For one, AOC is a little to young, so she should be the VP pick. To balance the ticket, they'll want someone who is older and more conservative to run for the main slot. And why not someone who has actually run before, and has some experience on the presidential campaign trail?
That's why in 2028, the centrists at the DNC will give us Duke-Occasio Cortez ticket! For the VP, we'll have AOC, and for the front runner, we'll have 1988 Democratic presidential primary candidate David Duke.
I'm sure Chuck Schumer will endorse Duke saying, "sure we may lose some progressives. But for every progressive voter we lose in Philadelphia, we'll gain two overt white supremacist voters in the Philadelphia suburbs!"
This is surrendering before the fight has even begun. And that surrendering is why centrist democrats lose. Those powerful interests can bitch all they want. Will it cost you donors? Sure. But Kamala and Hillary both massively outraised Trump, and look at what good it did them.
What centrist muppets fail to recognize is that fundraising isn't everything, especially on national races. Or more precisely, there is such a thing as marketing saturation. At some point, you've convinced everyone that can be convinced, reached everyone that can be reached. And the level of fundraising necessary to achieve that saturation is a level that can be achieved with small dollar individual donations.
Trump ran on, and won on, a promise to deport 20 million people. You think the businesses that profit from illegal immigration might put up some resistance to that? Take a look at Trump's platform
Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion
That would doubtlessly anger the industries that depend on migrant labor.
Carry out the largest deportation operation in american history
See above.
End inflation, and make america affordable again
That would require price controls or anti-monopoly actions, which big retailers would oppose.
Make america the dominant energy producer in the world, by far!
The electric car and renewable power companies aren't going to like that at all.
Stop outsourcing, and turn the united states into a manufacturing superpower
Those jobs were outsourced in order to make high profits; the companies doing the outsourcing will oppose this.
large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips!
Why give dollars to workers, when you could give them to wealthy and powerful interests? This is going to make some wealthy people mad.
I could go on. Trump ran on the message of a populist, and he won. He ran on things that would anger a large number of very wealthy people and corporations if implemented. His number one issue, illegal immigration? Aside from a the Border Patrol union, what powerful interest will actually benefit from mass deportation? Maybe the private prison companies will make some cash, but there are far more wealthy donors who benefit from illegal immigration than would benefit by mass deportation.
Trump promised all sorts of things. He promised things that his base wanted and that many corporations oppose. They're things that I find abominable, but it's what his base wants. And that is ultimately why he won.
Permanently Deleted
You know what's even more precise? A bullet from an AK-47 wielded by a Hamas fighter. These bombs are of similar precision to Hamas on October 7th. The Hamas militants charged across the border and started shooting every soldier they could find. A bullet is directly directed by an individual person, so they are intrinsically more precise than any guided bomb.
Did a lot of innocent Israeli civilians get caught in the crossfire? Sure. There were civilian casualties, and those increased by an order of magnitude once Israel started shooting into crowds of its own civilians. But I'm glad you recognize that Hamas does such a great job of protecting civilians. If you find the Israeli pager bombings a work of superior precision combat, you should similarly admire the work of Hamas on October 7. They are works of similar precision.
Permanently Deleted
These were pagers handed out to Hezbollah operatives. How do you get more precise?
You were incorrect. They were handed to Hezbollah military and civilian officials. Hezbollah is effectively the government in that area; the civilian state is degraded due to decades of Israeli military strikes and incursions. There are tons of people who are "Hezbollah" but work the kinds of jobs the people down at your local city hall work. They're the people operating the water systems, trash collection, etc. Realize also that this pager system WAS the local emergency response system. Think of the radios carried by police, EMS, and fire departments. There were doubtlessly police officers blown up by these bombs.
And worse still, these pagers have been in circulation FOR YEARS. They didn't just send them out and immediately pop them. How many years do you keep a phone? How many of the people who had these devices later found their way to others hands?
You're a member of Hezbollah, working in the civilian branch. One day you get a walkie talkie and carry it around with you. Another day you decide to be done with Hezbollah, so you get work somewhere else and you take the old walkie talkie to a pawn shop. The next day someone else, completely unaffiliated with Hezbollah, buys a set of those walkie talkies to talk with people around town.
Permanently Deleted
So if Hezbollah launches a campaign to mail anthrax to leading Israeli military and civilian leaders, will you call that well-targeted as well?
Permanently Deleted
Ultimately, the only hope of the Lebanese retaining any kind of country long-term is to violently resist Israeli expansion. All of Lebanon is part of Israel's long-term territorial ambitions. So yes, honestly, violence is necessary to resist Israeli expansion. Israel's plan is that 100 years from now, Lebanon and Jordan will not exist. See Greater Israel.
Remember, these terms are identical:
"God's Chosen People" = Übermensch
"God's Promised Land" = Lebensraum
The Germans in WW2 believed they were a special people chosen by God. This gave them the natural right to take over the lands of racially inferior peoples and to drive the existing inhabitants out through intimidation and violence. The modern Israeli right shares the same beliefs. They are indistinguishable; they just use different marketing.
Permanently Deleted
One key note is that Israel is worse at protecting civilians than Hamas is. By their own numbers, the IDF kills more civilians for every enemy soldier they kill than Hamas does. Hamas is actually a far more ethical army, in terms of civilian casualty ratios, than the IDF is.
The harsh truth is that the only reason we call Hamas a "terrorist group" and the IDF "an army" is classism. The IDF kills 10 civilians to destroy one Hamas fighter with a laser-guided bomb? That's just collateral damage. Hamas kills 10 civilians to kill one IDF soldier with a truck bomb? That's terrorism.
The definition of terrorism should be amended:
terrorism (n): violence committed by a group representing one demographic group against a wealthier demographic group.
What of those are actually new policies? Has Biden ever come out in favor of Israel annexing the West Bank, or in favor of forced displacement? Of course not. They're liberals, not Republicans. Centrist liberals like Biden and Harris want to talk, but that's all they want to do. There is nothing you cited there that hasn't been happily endorsed by liberals for decades, all while Israel tightens the screws on the Palestinians ever-tighter.
It's all meaningless words and platitudes. While she's SAID things that would be great to do, she has refused to actually use US leverage to DO any of those things. The Biden administration also talks about endorsing a two-state solution and all the things you mention. Again, Biden talks in fluffy glittering generalities when it comes to saving the Gazan people, but he refuses to actually back those words with actions.
What precisely, did Harris propose to actually achieve any of those things she's laid out? What leverage would she use to force Israel to accept these?
Because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference. At some point you're sitting there deciding between Hitler or Mussolini. Mussolini might objectively be the better choice, as his crimes are fewer than Hitler's by pure magnitude. But given that choice, a lot of people will just refuse to participate.
People don't vote based on pure logic. That's not how human beings operate. Don't make your voters feel like they need to go to confess their sins to a priest after voting for your candidate, and maybe then you won't have people refusing to vote for them.