Donald Trump has no idea what has hit him, and it’s a joy to watch
newrepublic.com
He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.
You are viewing a single comment
He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.
Hey now, we're only halfway there. Between Biden, Hillary and likely protesters for Palestine it can still be a shit-show convention.
Though fiercely hope not.
I love how Trump's treatment of the Kurds gets a free pass from those protesters.
Or, you know, this? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna141905
For those who hate clickbait:
The Repub leadership seems to be clamoring for taking actions on a spectrum between deporting protesters to Gaza or simply nuking Gaza.
I would bet my next paycheck that most of them probably could not even explain what he did to the Kurds.
Most of them didn't know (or knew and did not care) about what Israel has been doing to Palestine for decades now, and were told that this is somehow Joe Biden's fault or some shit.
To be fair (and I was a great supporter of Dark Brandon), Joe Biden has been a huge supporter of Israel including derailing Hillary Clinton's attempt to stop settlement construction (when she was secretary of state).
You do realize that there are Palestinians who live in the US, yes? And they're upset about their friends and families being slaughtered right now? And you're turning your nose up at them and saying, "What about the Kurds, tho"
I love how Trump's promise to deport those protesters gets a free pass from those protesters. My brother is one of them, always ranting about "Genocide Joe" and hating the Democrats passionately despite being (ostensibly) liberal. It's like in his universe the Republicans don't even exist, and I just can't understand his viewpoint.
It's plain as day: They think their "conscious will be clean" and to them that's more important than the lives of millions of Palestinians.
Or maybe they're upset about their friends and families being killed?
Apparently, there's a giant far Left majority in the USA, and the only thing holding it back is the DNC.
[better add the /s, because someone is going to explain that it is true.]
What Kurds
😢
(I know about it. I'm making a dark joke.)
Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.
This is whataboutism.
Any time you point out hypocrisy it's a 'what about.'
Absolutely none of those protestors believe Trump would be better for Palestine. They believe genocide is criminal, and immoral — and can't in good conscience stand behind anyone who supports or enables it, regardless of the threat of something worse.
It may not be diplomatic or cunning, but it isn't rocket science. It's called morality and conviction. Don't be disingenuous.
It's not being 'disingenuous' it's about living in the real world.
Back in the day, there were escaped slaves and women who couldn't vote who worked for politicians who couldn't assure them that, if elected, they would be able to actually change the laws.
There were plenty of African Americans who volunteered for WW2, knowing first hand about the Jim Crow laws. They decided that supporting the US was the best way to stop something worse.
If you fight against a Joe Biden, knowing that the Trump will be worse, you're not being moral.
I don't think you, or other idiots who were willing to give up their vote to allow Trump to win an destroy Palestine, have any fucking idea just how bad it will get if he wins.
Maybe your conscious will be clear, but you will have been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Palestinians due to your inaction.
That is the reality.
There is no "do nothing" here. Doing nothing is tantamount to aiding in the complete destruction of the Palestinian state and its people. You should be ashamed.
Using that logic, the people who supported Biden are directly responsible for the 40,000+ Palestinians who've been killed during his presidency.
Well you're wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, I'm not American. Secondly, If I were American I would've voted Democrat my entire life, including for Biden and any corporate whore they put forward in a skin suit — probably longer, and more well-informed about the nuances of modern American politics, than you ever will be — but just because I'll suck it up and eat the shit sandwich doesn't mean I'm not gonna call the Democrats corporate whores or genocide enablers, because that is what they objectively are.
There's a real simple solution here. Stop funding and arming a genocidal ethnostate! What a radical concept, huh?
Then I'll explain how the political system works.
A lot of people in the USA like the ethnostate and are happy to keep it going.
If the people who oppose it try to just cut funding they will be voted out and can do nothing.
Mate, I already know America's a proto-fascist failed state. You're not making a solid case for the continuation of American democracy if the majority support genocide. The majority of Germans supported Hitler. But congrats, I guess?
Luckily for you, even with a media wholly owned and operated by an oligarchy who profits from eternal war, there is a solid division in supporting the ethnostate among the people. They just care more about domestic problems and defeating Trump than the oligarchs crimes in the middle east. It's understandable, considering most of what the people actually want is completely ignored by politicians on both sides of the aisle anyway.
Don't forget boogaloo fellas and local cops who have been taken in by some kind of propaganda and left-wing useful idiots who got all spun up on internet nonsense to think that the best way to help the Palestinians is to make sure Trump gets elected. I hope not, but the convention has the potential to be a fuckin atom bomb of colliding toxic forces.
I said it before about Biden and I'll say it again about Kamala: the one thing that could sink her chances will be to burn the bridge with pro-palestinian protestors.
It's not up to protestors if Kamala looses, it's up to Kamala.
This is domestic abuse logic
"I have decided to do X, which outcome will be catastrophic, if you do Y. So therefore, if you do Y, it's going to become your fault what will happen."
If you wanna push the Democrats to better outcomes on Gaza, sounds fuckin great. I definitely think that the activism so far has woken them up + it's clearly better than just the only voice they hear that has any teeth being the Israel lobby. But don't play games with the placement of responsibility.
Did I send you the Ralph Nader interview where he talks about how to apply this principle (specifically to the Democrats, I think specifically as pertains to Gaza) productively instead of terroristically?
Then who the fuck are you complaining about?
That's what the protestors are doing you nag, maybe you should stop comparing them to domestic abusers
I am complaining about the people who are trying to make the Democrats lose the general election, with no particular plan to translate that into good action from the Democrats on Gaza, all the while congratulating themselves about what a great and noble thing they're doing. I can cite many of them on Lemmy. I assume that they exist in the real world also, and that a bunch of them will show up this week at the convention.
I am not complaining about the people who are trying to get better outcomes for Gaza, which does in fact include getting concessions from the Democrats including withholding support. Sounds great.
If it's done strategically with the aim of better outcomes for Gaza, then fuckin fantastic. If it's done with a strategy which sort of seems accidentally like maybe it may produce mostly bad electoral outcomes for the Democrats, and not much in the way of good outcomes for Palestinians, then I don't like it.
It's fair that you asked the question you asked. Now that I've explained a little, though, does that make sense? I can't see how it can be a confusing point of view or anything you want to say literally anything to aside from "yes I can agree with that."
Here's Nader talking about good ways to do it. Fuckin fantastic.
Somewhere in my history is (supposedly; it's impossible to know for sure) a Palestinian laying out in extremely passionate detail how disgusted he is with people who are using his dying countrymen to make a bad-faith political argument to try to get the guy elected who will endanger, not just his family still back home, but also his friends and family here, in the US, here and now. I looked for it a little bit but couldn't find it. If you want to hear, I'm happy to dig it up.
There is no form of activism that does not harm the reputation of those who are being protested. And since it seems we're choosing to be vague about who it is who is supposedly crossing this imaginary boundary between good and bad faith protest, I'm going to assume it's arbitrary, based on what you personally find uncomfortable.
I would argue that a lot of the right kind of activism against the genocide in Gaza will in the long run actually help the reputation of the Democrats, because it'll involve educating the public about what is actually going on, at which point the Democrats supporting it will be unpopular, at which point they'll (hopefully 😐) stop doing it and lose this persistent stench of death about them that they currently have to a certain activist population that actually knows what's going on.
I mean I do get your point. My counter-point would be that not everything that harms the reputation of the people being protested is productive activism. It seems like you're persistently not grasping the point that I'm making here.
return2ozma, Linkerbaan, and jimmydoreisalefty I think are crossing this imaginary boundary, because they're not helping the situation or trying to educate anyone about what's going on, just persistently trying to damage the reputation of the people in the best position to do something positive, using attacks both true and false. Ralph Nader and the "uncommitted" voters in Michigan are examples of people who are not crossing the boundary; they are trying to help the Palestinians by putting pressure on the Democrats in ways that are specifically goal oriented and productive. I'm not real concerned about their actions "hurting" the Democrats, or not severely enough concerned to oppose it, because as you said, protesting against someone does (I would add sometimes) harm their reputation, and them's the breaks. Does that help make it more concrete?
IDK why you're saying I'm being vague. I'm being very specific about what behavior I do and don't support. If you want me to pick out particular people or explain what of their behavior I do and don't support, if that's helpful, I'm fine doing that too.
I'm not getting into another effort posting disagreement with you.
You're entitled to your perspective on what you view as 'crossing the line', but you'd be well advised to acknowledge that there isn't any objective standard for it.
I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it has any basis outside your personal feelings on the matter.
The democrats should be confronted by as many people as possible in support of a Gaza ceasefire. That includes convincing others that the issue requires action from them, too.
My objective standard is, what is going to help the Palestinians? And what is masquerading as that but (in large part) not going to help them but just going to risk a catastrophe for them that is continuation and widening of what's already their hell on earth?
That's not my personal feelings. I'm sure we disagree on what the outcome of different courses of action are, and that's fine, but that's why I am saying this and what my goals are in saying this. If what you're doing is the first thing then all good and I have no complaints about it.
Fair enough. You started talking to me, man. I was just talking about the convention. I'm gonna be giving criticism to people I think are making a mistake, just like you would give criticism to the Democrats or to me, if you think there's a mistake happening. All good from my side.
I mean, they're already "supporting" a ceasefire. They've been doing that. That's the issue, is Netanyahu is laughing their faces and telling them fuck your ceasefire, and they're not then escalating with him. But I don't think the issue blocking progress is just that they need to want a ceasefire very badly, and then that will solve the issue.
At the risk of repeating myself: there's no objective measure for this. Creating pressure for action always involves risking some damage, that's what activism is. Your standard doesn't mean anything for determining what level of pressure is acceptable because all of it risks damaging electiral odds to some degree. If anything, your standard would seem to suggest that the only form of protest is that which doesn't risk anything, at which point it becomes purely aesthetic.
You mean like sharing reporting on the matter? How does this exclude people like r2o and linkerbann?
So back when I was saying "I'm not real concerned about their actions 'hurting' the Democrats...". What do you think I meant with that whole explanation / that whole paragraph?
I think you're personally confused, because that statement is in direct contradiction to this other statement of yours:
You say that you're fine with hurting the reputation of democrats, but your material concern over some forms of protest/activism is that it's going to "damage the reputation of people in the best position to do something positive".
The war in Gaza must end. Israeli occupation must end. Israel must face consequences for their war crimes. Until those conditions are met, I think all forms of protest are fair game. Comparing the defense of those protests as "abuser logic" is a crazy weird way of assigning blame to people holding the US and Israel to account for the war crimes they are currently and continually complicit in, especially when you notionally agree with the subject of those protests.
edit: just to illustrate the absurdity of that comparison -
The US and the pro-zionist democrats are materially supporting the actual abuse and genocide of Palestinians, and you're suggesting the people pushing for an end to the abuse are the ones abusing the abuser.
Biden seems to be going all in for Harris, but according to the AP, the DNC still hasn't updated their paperwork to reflect Biden dropping out, so it could very well end up a shit show.
I think Biden will be alright to be honest, even should he stumble through his speech it's not too bad given he's not running anymore. Just look at the joint Harris/Biden adress the other day about the pharmaceutical prices. Not a great speech by Biden, but everyone is sort of in "alright grandpa, let's get you to bed" mode.
The protests can get ugly, though I truly pray they won't. But another unfortunate reaction/statement about Palestine from Harris would be bad, and worst case the protests get violent and actual fights break out - which would be bad bad.
I also don't see why we're opening the Hillary box again even though it's just a speech. But what do I know.
I hope it's a major shit-show. I want to see how Harris handles Gaza.
How about addressing the ongoing support for genocide, instead of blaming it on the people protesting it?