President-elect Donald Trump’s promise could lead to a 60-day cease-fire, allowing Israel to suspend hostilities until military support resumes under the new administration.
Well, to all the folks arguing with me on how voting for Harris was bad because of Gaza: CONGRATULATIONS! You REALLY made a point there.
Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders. The candidate and strategy that you embraced was a gamble tbat you could support genocide and still win the election if you just recycled enough bad faith talking points at the people who consistently oppose genocide.
As you can see, you were wrong. And yet here you are trying to blame others rather than learn this lesson. Do some self-criticism instead. I hope you can forgive yourself for supporting genocide for a cynical loser like Harris.
The Palestinians had a chance under Harris.
Harris, of the Biden-Harris regime, has had an identical line to Biden’s during this 13 months of US-backed genocide. Unconditional material support and some empty rhetoric trying to PR handle their base rather than change policy.
What do you imagine when you say, “had a chance”? Is it the current mass civilian bombing campaigns? Children burned alive? Mass starvation and malnutrition? Those are the things you’ve gone to bat for, that is the realized vision of the Biden-Harris regime.
you did nothing or voted for genocide
The people voting for genocidal candidates like Harris or Trump voted for genocode. That was something you seem to have done, but not I.
You did it from the other side of the world, where you won’t have to suffer the consequences.
You cannot make your support for a genocider into an anti-privilege clapback. Do some self-criticism because this is gross.
Those are the things you’ve gone to bat for, that is the realized vision of the Biden-Harris regime.
There’s a difference between making the best of a bad situation and going to bat for it. Your choices were someone who there is a chance of reigning in Israel or someone that told them to do whatever they want with weapons we send. The latter is obviously a bad choice unless you agree with Israel.
“Monday’s meeting in Washington, D.C., comes one day after Harris called for an immediate, temporary cease-fire in Gaza to facilitate an exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners and detainees. Harris is expected to continue pressing Israel to pause the fighting and allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.”
“Vice President Kamala Harris met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in private Thursday and followed it with a strikingly forceful call on his government to get a cease-fire deal done and ease the suffering of civilians in Gaza.”
“Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated her call for a ceasefire-for-hostage deal in Gaza while expressing sympathy for both Israelis and Palestinians affected by the conflict. Harris condemned the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on southern Israel but said “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed” by Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza.”
Do you get something out of mis-representing what she said and did? Or were you just not actually paying attention?
Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders.
Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won? As in, showing more support for the genociding party and demonstratively siding in all points with the genociders with not even rhetorical pushback, just pure endorsement of the genocide? Which lesson will analysing this election yield again?
Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won?
If it must be fully spelled out, it is that you cannot rope people whose politics is premised on empathy into supporting genocide and you will lose unless you demand better. If you want to fight against the forces of reaction, you cannot triangulate towards them, you have to actually have a semi-principled political program, not one premised on tokenization and “vote for us or the other guy will kill you even more”.
You must not have read this part. Republican politics don’t rely on empathy, but democratic policy supposedly does, thus less turnout for a less empathetic democratic candidate.
That’s a very narrow grouping you draw there. Because in that group you are describing, the democrats got the most votes bar none. Nobody in that narrow category got even got close.
Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders. The candidate and strategy that you embraced was a gamble tbat you could support genocide and still win the election if you just recycled enough bad faith talking points at the people who consistently oppose genocide.
As you can see, you were wrong. And yet here you are trying to blame others rather than learn this lesson. Do some self-criticism instead. I hope you can forgive yourself for supporting genocide for a cynical loser like Harris.
Harris, of the Biden-Harris regime, has had an identical line to Biden’s during this 13 months of US-backed genocide. Unconditional material support and some empty rhetoric trying to PR handle their base rather than change policy.
What do you imagine when you say, “had a chance”? Is it the current mass civilian bombing campaigns? Children burned alive? Mass starvation and malnutrition? Those are the things you’ve gone to bat for, that is the realized vision of the Biden-Harris regime.
The people voting for genocidal candidates like Harris or Trump voted for genocode. That was something you seem to have done, but not I.
You cannot make your support for a genocider into an anti-privilege clapback. Do some self-criticism because this is gross.
There’s a difference between making the best of a bad situation and going to bat for it. Your choices were someone who there is a chance of reigning in Israel or someone that told them to do whatever they want with weapons we send. The latter is obviously a bad choice unless you agree with Israel.
Removed by mod
Weird how repeatedly calling for an immediate cease fire and a two state solution in Israel = “genocide”.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
“Monday’s meeting in Washington, D.C., comes one day after Harris called for an immediate, temporary cease-fire in Gaza to facilitate an exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners and detainees. Harris is expected to continue pressing Israel to pause the fighting and allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.”
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
“Vice President Kamala Harris met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in private Thursday and followed it with a strikingly forceful call on his government to get a cease-fire deal done and ease the suffering of civilians in Gaza.”
September - https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/harris-trump-presidential-debate-election-2024/card/harris-calls-for-ceasefire-in-gaza-while-trump-claims-she-hates-israel--isokhfqmy6EgRGrUOSuK
“Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated her call for a ceasefire-for-hostage deal in Gaza while expressing sympathy for both Israelis and Palestinians affected by the conflict. Harris condemned the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on southern Israel but said “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed” by Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza.”
Do you get something out of mis-representing what she said and did? Or were you just not actually paying attention?
So what is your solution be since Gaza is so important to you? Do you want to be absolved of your voting decision?
Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won? As in, showing more support for the genociding party and demonstratively siding in all points with the genociders with not even rhetorical pushback, just pure endorsement of the genocide? Which lesson will analysing this election yield again?
If it must be fully spelled out, it is that you cannot rope people whose politics is premised on empathy into supporting genocide and you will lose unless you demand better. If you want to fight against the forces of reaction, you cannot triangulate towards them, you have to actually have a semi-principled political program, not one premised on tokenization and “vote for us or the other guy will kill you even more”.
You seem to be wrong. Donald Trump didn’t demand better and he didn’t lose. The more pro-genocide party objectively won.
You must not have read this part. Republican politics don’t rely on empathy, but democratic policy supposedly does, thus less turnout for a less empathetic democratic candidate.
That’s a very narrow grouping you draw there. Because in that group you are describing, the democrats got the most votes bar none. Nobody in that narrow category got even got close.