693
I have problems with people who abstained. The hard thing is, how do you change voter behavior?
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
693 points (88.9% liked)
Political Memes
6050 readers
2709 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She used the only power she had to try to negotiate a ceasefire. What you are saying simply isn't factual.
The only thing she wanted to change about bidens administration was to add more Republicans, the same administration that was regularly sending arms to Israel. Palestinians weren't allowed to speak at the dnc. She had plenty of opportunities to show support for the Palestinian people, every time she supported Israel instead.
She didn't add as many republicans as Trump did. Trump want to put American boots on the ground in Gaza for the US to take control. How many Palestinians did Trump allow to speak?
If those are your concerns, you chose poorly.
Nice deflecting from your rebutted "factually untrue"
To answer this new prompt, just because Trump supports genocide doesn't mean you needed to accept Kamala supporting genocide
I chose not to engage with your strawman. It was not a rebuttal. She tried to negotiate peace. That's a fact. Trump wants to remove all Palestinians from Gaza and take it for the US. That is a fact.
There was no strawman. What did I say that was untrue?
Also
“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
edit
I decided to go ahead and provide sourceshttps://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-administration-planning-680-million-arms-sale-israel-source-2024-11-27/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/dnc-palestine-uncommitted-speech-ruwa-romman-1235085916/
Can't really cite a source for this, I would actually need you to find an instance where she had an opportunity and didn't support Israel.
A strawman isn't untrue. It's just irrelevant to the argument.
You said she enabled genocide. In reality she worked for peace. That was all the power he had. So you were unequivocally wrong.
It seems you and I have different ideas of what enabling genocide looks like. Your opinion seems to be that her working for a ceasefire means she worked for peace. I find that argument weak partially because that was her just doing her job (unsuccessfully), and the ceasefire was only ever temporary and lacked justice (a prerequisite for peace). My opinion is that siding with the genociders counts as enabling genocide. She had the power to speak against Israel and show support for Palestine but did not use that power, she used her voice to say that Israel has the right to war. I also assume she had some power at the DNC and didn't use it to let a Palestinian speak. Everything I know about what her positions were, based on what she said, her input to the public discourse, puts her firmly on the side of Israel, the genociders.
You can disagree with my opinion, but I haven't made any statements that are "unequivocally wrong". The paragraph above is the first time I tried to represent anything but my own opinion, and I still don't think I did a strawman with it.
Her job is the only official power she had and she used it to stop the killing and get hostages released. That is directly trying to stop the genocide. Saying otherwise is counterfactual
So you don't think her voice had any power? If no, that brings into question why she was picked for the role at all. And it's not "counterfactual" to say that the deals she was making was for pausing the genocide as opposed to stopping.
Can you think of a time a VP came out and directly contradicted their President's foreign policy?
Yes, that is counterfactual. Stopping the war was always the ultimate goal. Pauses were just the compromise.
Is that a good thing? Is that acceptable even when it includes standing by genocide? But when she's running her own campaign seems an excellent time to distinguish herself from her predecessor. Especially when she got that spot because polling showed Biden couldn't win. Even more when she's specifically asked what she'd have done differently per my source from earlier.
The war will not stop as long as both exist. The past 75 years of conflict have shown that. The goal as stated was only ever going to end with pauses.
That's still compromising with and defending the genociders. This evergreen meme
Also this quote feels relevant
It just is. It's an unspoken restriction of her job. Nobody gets elevated to that position unless they unequivocally back their boss.
So you're in favor of genocide, but just mad at which side is losing.
To repeat a question, is that acceptable even when it includes standing by genocide?
I'm in favor of dismantling all theocratic colonialist states. I'm opposed all genocide of any people, especially when that is based on religion or bigotry. To be clear, the state is not the people it supposes to represent.