Kamala Harris' first stop on the "107 Days" book tour was interrupted multiple times Wednesday night by protesters denouncing Israel’s war in Gaza, but the former vice president pressed on with calm.
I disagree. Harris was the driving force behind some major lawsuits that gave millions of dollars back to senior citizens who were defrauded by billionaire’s corporations. Trump has never, and would never do anything like that. Harris has largely tried to do the right thing throughout her political career, presumably because that is what is politically beneficial for her and she seems to want to leave a positive legacy. In other words, whether she actually cares about people or not, she’s a career politician who has consistently demonstrated that she wants the public to believe she cares about people. Out of the two options we were given, she’s clearly a better choice if you want someone who can be pressured into doing the right thing. Trump is more concerned with doing whatever he wants, then convincing his sycophants that it’s good for them, after the fact.
Harris has only tried to do the right thing if it was politically convenient. Remember in the debate when she called out the racist history of Biden? Magically she dropped all that when she became his VP. Similarly, she was willing to run with the genocide platform because she thought it would help her chances at the presidency. Yes, she’s the better choice, but even the better choice is not good enough. Neither candidate was willing to do something about the genocide and I think that’s something important to recognize.
It doesn’t mean I think she wasn’t the better candidate and it doesn’t mean I think people shouldn’t have voted for her, but when we’ve come to the point where genocide is being actively supported with Biden sending billions of dollars in weapons to the cause and Harris hitching her trailer to that dumpster fire (and this is supposed to be the “good” party) then the situation is just absolutely fucked.
I’m not sure what your argument is meant to accomplish. I’m not a Kamala Harris supporter. I don’t think she’s actually a good person. I’m fully aware of how broken the democratic establishment is… Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making, I guess…
If your goal was to stop the genocide, you should’ve voted for the person that values human lives
I said:
Neither of the top two candidates qualify.
Then you disagreed citing isolated examples of caring about human lives while ignoring the platform of genocide she hitched her wagon to. I pointed out how her examples of “caring” were out of political convenience. If you acknowledge that she’s not a good person, then you agreed with me from the beginning but decided to try to defend her anyway.
I’m not defending her. I’m trying to make the point that she has, and will respond if there’s enough political pressure. That’s all I’ve been saying. Yes, she has demonstrated that she wants the public to believe that she values human lives. I would take a politician that does that over one that does nothing but create chaos. I never said she’s actually a good person. Stop putting words in my mouth and try to understand what I’m saying before you respond.
The people protesting the genocide weren’t enough political pressure? She essentially told them to shut up and then ignored them. Tell me, how would she be more willing to listen to them after she didn’t need their votes?
No, unfortunately, the amount of people protesting during the election wasn’t enough. If we had protests like the anti-ice/no-kings protests, with a Harris administration at the helm, it might make a difference. The real pressure, however, would come from the recent gathering at the UN and the (very late) release of the UN’s independent commission that found that Isreal is, in fact, committing genocide in Palestine. UK and Spain formally recognizing Palestine’s statehood would’ve likely had a huge impact, especially now that 145 countries have joined them. There would also be considerable pressure being applied by democratic congressmen/congresswomen because every single one of them would be in danger of losing their seats if there’s no action on the progressing genocide. Things are a little more complicated for the people leading the governments of the world. Unfortunately, We The People, have to work a little harder to get want we want from our government, and that’s not going to change overnight. IMO, the people who sat out the election don’t get to call themselves the “pro-palestine” movement. By not voting, they may have made their voices heard, but in the worst way possible, given that the result was Trump winning the election. That outcome is objectively worse for everyone affected by the genocide in Palestine, and every minority in the US.
You may not want to acknowledge that you (if you didn’t vote for Harris) contributed to Trump getting back into office. But, it doesn’t matter how you feel. Your feelings don’t change the way political machinations work. Longterm strategy and effort is what changes that. Everyone that didn’t vote chose the short-term, shortsighted strategy, and look where it got us.
I disagree. Harris was the driving force behind some major lawsuits that gave millions of dollars back to senior citizens who were defrauded by billionaire’s corporations. Trump has never, and would never do anything like that. Harris has largely tried to do the right thing throughout her political career, presumably because that is what is politically beneficial for her and she seems to want to leave a positive legacy. In other words, whether she actually cares about people or not, she’s a career politician who has consistently demonstrated that she wants the public to believe she cares about people. Out of the two options we were given, she’s clearly a better choice if you want someone who can be pressured into doing the right thing. Trump is more concerned with doing whatever he wants, then convincing his sycophants that it’s good for them, after the fact.
Harris has only tried to do the right thing if it was politically convenient. Remember in the debate when she called out the racist history of Biden? Magically she dropped all that when she became his VP. Similarly, she was willing to run with the genocide platform because she thought it would help her chances at the presidency. Yes, she’s the better choice, but even the better choice is not good enough. Neither candidate was willing to do something about the genocide and I think that’s something important to recognize.
It doesn’t mean I think she wasn’t the better candidate and it doesn’t mean I think people shouldn’t have voted for her, but when we’ve come to the point where genocide is being actively supported with Biden sending billions of dollars in weapons to the cause and Harris hitching her trailer to that dumpster fire (and this is supposed to be the “good” party) then the situation is just absolutely fucked.
I’m not sure what your argument is meant to accomplish. I’m not a Kamala Harris supporter. I don’t think she’s actually a good person. I’m fully aware of how broken the democratic establishment is… Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making, I guess…
You said:
I said:
Then you disagreed citing isolated examples of caring about human lives while ignoring the platform of genocide she hitched her wagon to. I pointed out how her examples of “caring” were out of political convenience. If you acknowledge that she’s not a good person, then you agreed with me from the beginning but decided to try to defend her anyway.
I’m not defending her. I’m trying to make the point that she has, and will respond if there’s enough political pressure. That’s all I’ve been saying. Yes, she has demonstrated that she wants the public to believe that she values human lives. I would take a politician that does that over one that does nothing but create chaos. I never said she’s actually a good person. Stop putting words in my mouth and try to understand what I’m saying before you respond.
The people protesting the genocide weren’t enough political pressure? She essentially told them to shut up and then ignored them. Tell me, how would she be more willing to listen to them after she didn’t need their votes?
No, unfortunately, the amount of people protesting during the election wasn’t enough. If we had protests like the anti-ice/no-kings protests, with a Harris administration at the helm, it might make a difference. The real pressure, however, would come from the recent gathering at the UN and the (very late) release of the UN’s independent commission that found that Isreal is, in fact, committing genocide in Palestine. UK and Spain formally recognizing Palestine’s statehood would’ve likely had a huge impact, especially now that 145 countries have joined them. There would also be considerable pressure being applied by democratic congressmen/congresswomen because every single one of them would be in danger of losing their seats if there’s no action on the progressing genocide. Things are a little more complicated for the people leading the governments of the world. Unfortunately, We The People, have to work a little harder to get want we want from our government, and that’s not going to change overnight. IMO, the people who sat out the election don’t get to call themselves the “pro-palestine” movement. By not voting, they may have made their voices heard, but in the worst way possible, given that the result was Trump winning the election. That outcome is objectively worse for everyone affected by the genocide in Palestine, and every minority in the US.
You may not want to acknowledge that you (if you didn’t vote for Harris) contributed to Trump getting back into office. But, it doesn’t matter how you feel. Your feelings don’t change the way political machinations work. Longterm strategy and effort is what changes that. Everyone that didn’t vote chose the short-term, shortsighted strategy, and look where it got us.