Harris vows at Michigan rally to ‘do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/03/kamala-harris-michigan-arab-muslim-americansOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/03/kamala-harris-michigan-arab-muslim-americansOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
276 replies
All the one-issue voters: uhh... what now?
Well, now Democrats will start coming up with excuses for why conditioning or ceasing arms sales to Netanyahu isn't within her power.
EDIT: I already voted for Harris.
It is within the President's power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.
(While this could maybebe overruled by congress, it would be a huge blow to Israel in the interim)
So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:
This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.
The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that's why the House pushed this act.
So if the Dems wanted to repeal this bill, they would need to control the house, correct?
Nah, the bill was never passed in the senate so it isn't law at all. Just unenforceable posturing.
If Democrats controlled the House the bill would likely not have passed there in the first place.
In any case it doesn't matter because the Senate will probably never vote on it, and even if they did and it passed Biden would veto it.
It's also important to understand that this bill would not add any new arms transfers to Israel, but only compel the completion of existing transfers which the executive branch had chosen to withhold.
Ultimately, the point is that Congress does not have the authority to force the transfer of US military equipment to a foreign power. The disposition of military equipment is the purview of the Department of Defense, and trade with other national governments is the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both of which report to the President.
Thankfully it costs nothing to not send weapons.
This is essentially the crux of the issue. Congress can designate funds in the budget for aid to Israel and they can specify what the funds are for (military equipment, humanitarian aid, loans, etc), but they don't have the authority to perform the actual transfer of the funds (or material paid for by the funds) to Israel, that falls under the authority of the executive branch. Congress can provide the money but they can't actually force the spending of the money.
Praise be to the system of checks and balances.
I don't know why you're getting downvotes, I think you've got it right.
people are panicing because harris might lose and acting like morons towards anyone who doesn't unequivocally support her atm. add to that many people don't understand how the system works on top of it. 🤷 its no matter internet points are useless to me anyway. =)
It is, yes. But Democrats are fucking outstanding at inventing bureaucratic hurdles to stand in the way of things they ran on but don't want to do.
Is this the new "I condemn hamas" disclaimer everyone is required to have in their comments in order to criticize the democratic party?
Always has been. "I voted for the person, you can't say I'm voting for Trump or third party."
We have to otherwise we get smug liberals posting strawmen.
Two days before the election with no substance?
With no time for AIPAC to completely rat fuck the election and get Trump elected. Give her some time to help prevent the destruction of democracy and if she doesn't move on the issue then she'll reap what she sows.
This was my thought as well. I get the feeling she's been fairly quiet on the subject until now due to the power AIPAC has in our politics. If she spoke out this whole time, I'm sure they would have thrown all their financial and political power against her.
I hope we're right.
Me too. Although even once Harris takes office, AIPAC would still have a lot of power and influence. But I'm choosing to remain optimistically hopeful here.
All we need to do is freaking STOP standing in the way of the UN. How many times has the US vetoed the UN in attempts to assuage the horrors being visited on these Gazan people.
Yep, hopefully Harris will be able to direct the US reps at the UN to stop doing that much.
Unfortunately it seems there's a law that requires the US to defund where the UN recognizes Palestine as an independent state (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/unesco-votes-to-admit-palestine-over-us-objections/2011/10/31/gIQAMleYZM_story.html / https://archive.is/67xzK ) but I don't think that applies to the scenario you just discussed.
(I also don't get how that law works with the US supporting a two state solution - how can the US support a two state solution, one of which being Palestine - and defund those who recognize two states too?)
You're not dont worry. But heres hoping she somehow wins either way. Otherwise we're fucked.
Even given that, "end the war as soon as possible" is an open ended statement. The war would end if everyone in Gaza was dead, and that could happen pretty quick if all the gloves came off.
Still, saying something is nice.
Making peace by making a desert
But the next election will be the most important election ever and Republicans will be ready to commit N+1 genocides if elected.
yawn thats magical thinking. If that was the case she'd have committed to enforcing America's laws on not arming genocidal forces if she was serious about. All she did was trot out some tokens and say the same thing she's said the entire campaign.
Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo....
This seems about the same
Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won't look so much like pandering
Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners ("detainees") in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it's highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn't want to move any of them to the US, because they didn't want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???
The president isn't supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we've allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.
He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It's one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.
Who can blame the president for ruling over a hidden torture camp full of innocent people? It's out of their hands. That's just how USA works. \s
Uh, yeah, it literally was. Unless you're saying that you want the president to be able to do whatever they want, even when a majority of congress and courts say no.
This might give you some better idea of what happened.
That might all be true but it only really illustrates my point - this too isn't deliverable. But lying can buy some votes
It's not lying under any conventional definition of lying though. Saying something is a lie usually indicates deceptive intent, along with a knowledge--or a reasonable belief--that something you're saying isn't accurate. If I believe that the earth is flat, and I say so, am I lying? Or am I just wrong?
Biden said that he would cancel student loans; he's done everything in his legal authority, and a few things that weren't, to try an cancel them out. Do you think that the fact that SCOTUS prevented him from doing so makes it a lie? Or was he unable to follow through due to factors that he couldn't directly control?
For fuck sake... HE TRIED
Nothing? This is nothing new from her. Its no commitment..its vaguely worded trash.
How does Trump's "You've got to finish the problem" sound? Because to me that's not vague at all.
Sounds like a problem of you vote for him. Im certainly not 😂 nor is my state.
It's hilarious how libs think this is any different from what genocide joe has been saying for the past year.
Oh shit, breaking out the hits! Can we throw a "Brandon" in there and get real sentimental about it?
Looking for some nostalgia?
Mmmmmm bi partisan police state.
Yeah, Trump would send flowers, right?
As someone who is frequently called a single issue voter over a number of different issues:
Ummm what? Her statement was insultingly empty (the entire article is air) and the title contradicts what she's been saying for 6 months. I'm not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn
Do they have billboards saying "reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity"?
They should. The overwhelming majority of Biden voters voted against Trump more than for Biden and I'd bet the farm that, while probably to a significantly lesser degree, Harris is going to win in the same way.
The Dem leadership hasn't updated the pillars of their electoral and policymaking strategy since 1992 and it really shows.
Even when Harris or Walz say something truly based that gets the Left hopeful for real change in the right direction (which has happened a few times), some apparatchik always takes pains to point out that it's "not part of the platform" 😮💨
Press releases walking back good things she said was kind of the hallmark of her primary campaign in 2020 too.
Yeah I really wish she had been saying this before yesterday.
Easy, they refuse to believe her.
After all, if she didn't sow discord by pointlessly undermining the president while an essentially powerless Vice President, she must love genociding brown people even more than Trump does somehow.
I mean like, I would believe her if she rolled out a plan for how the US is going to stop funding Israel? Or a plan for holding the Israeli military accountable? Or maybe I would believe her if she didn't hold a press conference last week gaslighting us that Israel has to right to defend itself?
I agree. I'm just hoping they've made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn't intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.
It's her or Trump, and there's zero chance Trump will make things better, so anyone who cares about Gaza and has a realistic outlook on the situation should support Harris.
Progressives should start working on a primary challenge the moment the polls close. Democrats should never have the opportunity to claim a mandate on this issue.
Maybe. I'd prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she's going to be. We're forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we're seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more "gettable" moderates and conservatives instead
If she shows some progressive bona fides, she'll have no problem. Without the threat of a progressive challenger, I'm afraid we'll get 4 years of centrists screaming that she's the most progressive president since FDR and expecting everyone to buy it, like they did with Biden. And that's at best. At worst, they'll gleefully announce that moving to the right works, double down on Gaza, and THEN announce that she's the most progressive president since FDR.
As though they have ever tried.
EDIT: Responding to your edit:
Democrats do that in response to the sun rising in the morning.
She had no problem disagreeing with him when he called Republican voters garbage. She had no problem differing from him when she promised to put a Republican in her cabinet.
It's funny how she can move to his right as much as she wants, but never to his left.
Biden calling Trump voters garbage was a gaffe. His own office walked it back. It's way easier to depart from the president on a throwaway line than on a year-long policy that an all-too-large and ignorant chunk of the population still supports.
I'm not satisfied with her public position on Gaza so far, either. But, since the notion that Trump will make anything better is ridiculous, the only plausible course is to get her in office and then pressure the shit out of her.
And in case anyone's thinking it, the idea that Jill Stein successfully spoiling into a Trump victory somehow means he'll take her foreign policy advice is magical thinking.
I just read you are concerned about 3rd party voters spoiling the election. Understandable given the mathematically flawed voting system most states use.
With state level electoral reform, we can get rid of First Past The Post voting and the spoiler effect that comes along with it.
citizens would be free to vote how they wish safe in the knowledge their vote would still be counted against those they don't want in public office.
We could pass this one state at a time. Some states have already replaced FPTP voting, and more are working towards it with referendums.
Given how possible electoral reform is, and your concern with 3rd parties being a spoiler, I invite you to stop by my asklemmy post to discuss your new commitment to replacing First-past-the-post voting in your state after the election.
I forgot that I need to append "I already voted for Harris" to anything that isn't fawning worship, or Democrats' sanctimonious lecture reflex kicks in.
Problem is it's not believable you voted for Harris after doing nothing but speaking out against her for months now. Guessing you voted for trump just based on your words on lemmy
This is exactly why this discussion is insufferable. You have literally been told how this person voted but you are so convinced by your own bullshit (ie that anyone mad about US support for genocide must, for some god damn reason, support Trump) that you don't even believe it.
I cannot wait for the 6th so that we can have this conversation without it getting sidetracked by overly loyal democrats condescendingly explaining how first past the post works as if we don't know already.
Restoring comment after the content that earned the removal was itself removed.
I didn't read this
I've already voted for her, but I don't believe her.
This is a vague plea for peace without any indication of what things she believes (and more importantly, publicly acknowledges) would be "in her power". Is the limit of her power sternly worded letters, arms embargoes, or intervention? Because I'm pretty sue she's not opening the door for US peacekeeping troops in Gaza, though that would be in her power (at least for a short term).
But like, with Harris we get to see if she's willing to do anything meaningful, and maybe as public sentiment continues to turn against Israel she'll be embarrassed enough to do something. It's not a hopeful position to shoot for, but it is technically better than the alternative, and there other issues at play where the difference is not so limited.
The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience. In places like Michigan they're doing this, but outside seing districts they've been banging the war drums for Israel.
So the lack of faith in the messaging isn't without warrant.
Yes, it's this shady practice called, "campaigning".
No disagreement that the campaign is, in fact, doing the campaigning thing.
A good campaign presents their intended policies consistently and favorably. It sells the electorate on casting their vote.
A poor campaign favorably presents inconsistent policies in a vague manner. It erodes faith in what the electorate is voting for.
Yes specifically when they think her ads in different states with different messaging are not going to be shown around.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364100748112
She represent the regular two faced career politician, which should work in regular election, but the Israel genocidal work in Gaza and war crimes expose these politician.
You linked to faux news. So i will not click the link nor does anything that you said have any meaning.
This is just a stupid take because almost all news agency are own by someone trying to push different agenda.
Yes okay a biased "news agency" would be fine. But faux news is just that, fake news.
No other "news agency" had to legally argue in court that they are an entertainment-only product and no reasonable person would take their "reporting" as fact. Like a broken watch, they might sometimes be correct, but they are literally propaganda.
Bibi hates her, so that’s a good start.
Considering that him and Trump talk all the time, I would say he isn't excited for Harris. He knows when the war is over, he is fucked. Remember, he tried to remove their supreme court before the war.
Yes... That's what "Bibi hates her" means.
I bet ypu are fun at parties.
Ypu!? I love that guy! They are a party animal...
Kind of a day late dollar short scenario
I mean I already voted for Harris because I don't wanna die in a Trump Brand Concentration Camp, but, she really couldn't have said this any fucking sooner?
She had to wait until the day before the election so that AIPAC doesn't have enough time to ratfuck her for it.
Unfortunately, that's how things work here if you're critical of Israel in any way.
Instead the majority of people who oppose genocide have seen how she has continued to pledge her support. They have seen how children, women and men have been blown to shreds and burned alive with weapons the Biden-Harris administration has sent.
This reeks more of a desperate attempt to peddle to voters now that she realizes genocide is indeed a red line for some voters
I really don't want you people to have to find out the hard way just how fucking stupid all of this anti-Harris shit is so close to the election.
Because that would mean that millions of Palestinians would be killed when the current genocide is turned up to 11 after President Trump gives Netanyahu a blank check. I really don't want that. Stop trying to get Trump elected please.
With AMOC collapse happening actively, she is probably our last hope. We don't have more time to "protest" vote or whatever. We need her now.
8 billion people and all megafauna and megaflora and pretty much everything in the ocean is relying on this election. Gaza is sad, but those people will die to horrific climate change anyway if Trump is elected.
We demanded for almost a year that the Democrats need to stop supporting genocide. Instead Biden, Harris and the other party elites would rather hand the US to Trump than to stop more Arabs being murdered. Maybe she proves us wrong and actually puts Israel in check. But everything action so far has been the opposite of that.
Answer one simple question: Do you honestly believe Trump will be better for Palestinians?
I believe the US is a white supremacist empire, founded on a settler colonial genocide, which is part of why it now supports another settler colonial genocide.
There will be no change to that in the current political system. It requires a fundamental political change, probably revolution, but certainly the dismantling of the current political parties to change that.
Maybe Trump will speed up the genocide of Palestinians, but the Democrats are equally committed to it, as they have thrown away every chance to end it, while taking every chance to perpetuate it.
So your floor here is "throw gas on the fire". Got it. You admit at best he'll be the same, and you're advocating for it. Your stance doesn't seem sane for someone who wants less pain and suffering.
Didn't answer the question. The choice is binary at this point. You can support the one person who's actually said they'll try and stop it, or you can throw your support in the trash and help the opposition that's said "Finish the problem" when referring to the people of Palestine.
Trump Brand Concentration Camp is very apt. It succinctly expresses that the whole thing exists only for his personal monetary gain and he's escalating to extremes for his grift.
She did, repeatedly.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
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
Good thing no Palestinians have been turned to ash in that time
She isn't personally doing the genocide, so it's not like she can stop it. All she can do is call for it to end.
Did she call for the USA to stop sending arms to Israel or at minimum set some red lines
Nope, she repeatedly called for a cease fire and two state solution instead.
Wow the protesters were dumber than I thought
I don't know. Election day is tomorrow (Technically today as I'm typing). For sure late, but maybe not too late.
Most states have early voting
Yeah, but most votes don't happen early. She's also said this before. It's not the first time.
Step 1: FOLLOW US LAW AND STOP GIVING THEM WEAPONS
Let's see if she ever gets this far. I am not holding my breath
The genocide in Gaza.
It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.
I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. "in my power" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she's committed to, let's say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.
But skepticism alone isn't analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over "Uncommitted" conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She's not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.
But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.
I hope she wins. But if she doesn't the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.
This is something that a lot of people don't think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn't much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they're even more spineless than I realized. For all the "Trump isn't fit" gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don't care about compromise, and in fact they don't want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that's what gives them so much power.
On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.
It sucks, it's not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I'm not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.
I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump's chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.
But feel free to "neener neener" about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher
No, unlike your argument, I'm not arguing we split hairs over semantics.
Unless.
She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.
No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes "splitting hairs" isn't just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.
Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It's time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris' words is not useful.
Way to stay on message
This reads as a joke but it’s actually true 😂
Fucking liberalism in a nutshell.
What so you mean?
So you're looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit "classical liberal." In this case critical of the "its not practical" preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.
No, it's utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn't even a political position.
No idea how you plan to achieve your goals when your first step is Holocaust denial.
I will wait until she gets elected, and then if she continues to refuse to call it a genocide, then I will hold her accountable then.
But first, the existence of Palestine as contingent on her winning. Like literally.
By... what mechanism?
Genocide and war aren't mutually exclusive. The Holocaust happened during WWII.
As opposed to? Conservatism? How do you expect that to be different? Because in terms of president, those are your two options right now.
Actual leftism. Liberalism is a Conservative movement.
State level electoral reform to replace first past the post voting. Introduce competition into the voting system.
Apparently no one in the comments has been paying attention. She's been saying these same lines about Gaza since the convention speech.
There's been a lot of FUD about it and .ml has been running wild denying anything even remotely pro peace from her.
At any rate literally all we need at this point is a president that tells Netanyahu he either accepts a negotiated return of remaining hostages and withdraws or he loses our weapons support.
But Biden is also doing his best to pump up their ammo supply so the next president actually doesn't have the influence Biden could have had. It's 2024 and I'm ashamed we didn't learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames. They've been shamelessly giving Israel our best military technology with no regard to their political situation. College students called this as the most likely path 2 decades ago, and here we are appearing to be caught by surprise.
Fun fact, there's a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.
It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there's never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.
Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.
What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can't find that law.
I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it's here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There's actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn't really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
I just read that law and it's far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.
Section 1 just defines the title.
Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don't bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in "should". That has a specific legal definition that includes, "but it's not required."
Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
Section 6 mandates some reports.
Section 7 defines terms.
The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. "No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter..."
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it's here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There's actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn't really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
We did learn. Just all the wrong lessons. Iran taught us that you can ride a wave of hate for 50 years. South Africa taught us that you crack down on the BDS movement day one and keep the media on lock for your Apartheid friends.
I hate that you're right. I want to live in a country that's actually moral.
Then you need to find a different planet.
What did South Africa do to BTS?
Boycott Divest Sanction
Yup I was born yesterday, and I'm wholly incapable of reading.
3rd party voters: "I'm not voting for Harris until she condemns the Gaza war!"
Harris: *says she condemns the Gaza war*
3rd party voters: *desperate scrambling sounds to find something else to be a single issue contrarian*
I'm really hoping I'm wrong about that, but I'm seeing it on this thread.
Have you been to a protest or talked to pro-Palestinian voices. The demand has always been to stop weapons shipments to Israel, even before October 7th. This isn't moving the goal posts, the goal posts have been there for decades, it's just both parties have and continue to ignore them.
Strawmen are the only kind of people they have rebuttals to, not any actual thinking humans.
I mean for context something like 70 million early voters already cast their ballot, so this quite literally cannot change their vote and that number is roughly half of the entire votes cast the entire last election. So in all likelihood, roughly half the people you're mad at can't react at all because of how long she waited.
They do not want to condemn the war.
The want to end the genocide.
there goes the goalposts
Empty rhetoric about "war" has never been a worthwhile "goalpost". We've had more than a year of that already from genocide joe.
It's always been about ending the genocide and reversing zionism more generally.
No, the goal post has always been that she'll enforce America's laws regarding weapon shipments until israel behaves. This is not that. This 'ill continue the Biden policy of committing a genocide and periodically send sternly worded letters that do nothing.'.followed by 'israel has a right to defend itself' platitudes.
Harris needs to commit. And this is not that. No goal posts have been moved. Shes trotted out some tokens and said the same thing shes said every time.
Debunking the strawman is not moving the goalpost.
You do not get to set the demands for other voters. And then pretend they have been met when they are clearly not.
Why should they give a fuck about your "demands" when you change them immediately once met?
Kamala already promised not to impose a weapons embargo on Israel. She still does not call it a genocide. No demands have been met.
What does she mean by everything in her power? Nuking Gaza so the "war" ends? Send in the American military to fight in Gaza?
Liberals will see no problem choosing polite, handwringing genocide over rowdy, bombastic genocide. They fall so easily for style points and optics completely devoid of substance.
20 years from now, when the only choices are between a dem who wants 20 genocide and a republican who wants 21, liberals will still be frothing at the mouths, blaming anti-genocide leftists for the country's devoluton into fascism. This is the logical conclusion of liberal "pragmatic utilitarianism"
-Mike Davis
The demands haven't changed. They've always been, and this is really quite simple; stop sending weapons to Israel while it's engaging in genocide. The goalposts have not shifted.
Aren't most polls against the genocide, so it would've helped? Even the goalposts you're providing don't acknowledge it as a genocide.
Third-party voters as a whole don't matter nearly as much as the handful of Muslims in Michigan that this message is directed towards. Also, this message is not significantly different than what she's been saying since the DNC. Her big misstep wasn't her messaging on Gaza; it was ignoring the Uncommitted leaders entirely.
Yep, the Democrats didn't even allow a Palestinian to speak at the DNC, but they had how many Republican politicians come on stage?
The Democrats have ignored the Muslim/Arab community almost entirely this election cycle, and are now freaking out because their Status-Quo policy decisions might have cost them the election.
And when you point this out on Lemmy, you're screamed at for being a Trump supporter and wanting Gaza leveled. No, we just wanted our party leadership to reflect the wants of the majority of their constituents for once.
Exactly. The progressive base is somehow never big enough to win the Democrats the election, but if they complain at all about the party or the candidate, they immediately become large enough to cost the Democrats the election.
[sigh]...that being said, if you haven't already, please go vote for Kamala today, especially if you live in a swing state.
Seems a little too little too late for it to move the needle much, especially given how much early voting has happened. Harris’s position on Israel has been so bizarre, pretty sure Israel has even been actively working against Democrats this whole time anyways.
Way to late and it's ridiculous she waited till desperation to take a good stance.
It's basically the same pattern Biden followed. Even when he did fits and starts of good things, it was way too late and only felt like he was doing it for political reasons, not because he had a change of heart.
Biden very clearly was saying things to try and keep a lid on domestic unrest. He literally parroted, (and still does) whatever Netanyahu says. Then he always blames Hamas for Netanyahu tossing in a known deal breaker at the last minute, (occupation of Gaza), even though Biden said he doesn't want that either.
Biden's entire conduct over Israel has been in bad faith.
Harris could not possibly have the same line as Biden so far because she doesn't have control over weapons shipments or negotiations. All she can do is call for peace, and yeah those calls get tainted when your boss is saying the exact same stuff in bad faith. But if we aren't smart enough to realize she cannot possibly be operating in bad faith at his level until January 20th, then we deserve everything we get.
Peace has always been her call. We have yet to see how she would work for it because she isn't in the hot seat yet. We have a choice between someone calling for peace, but not really pro Palestinian, and someone calling for ultra death squads.
Grow up.
With early voting and the roar of everything this is too late to make a huge wave difference I think.
What's up with the grow up comment. I'm just talking about the strategy being ineffective. It's completely random.
Because your comment reads like the standard .ml stuff trying to tie her to Netanyahu no matter what she says.
There is somehow always a moving Boogeyman in here.
And yet it's everyone else that has to grow up.
I was told to grow up the other day for simply pointing out why Muslim/Arab voters may be struggling internally with voting for Harris. Just, y'know, applying empathy and putting myself into someone's shoes who has way more involved in that than I do.
When I pointed out that this is why Democrats lose voters (they're condescending and dismissive to their own party because their issues/concerns aren't "convenient" right now) I'm screamed at for supporting Trump and how much worse it would be.
100,000 voters cast protest votes during the primaries in just Michigan alone over the Palestinian genocide, it's clearly an important issue to your constituents and they deserve to be treated with respect. Not condescension and insults, as if they can't possibly comprehend their choices here.
IIRC she said she wouldn't remain silent, and then didn't really say anything committal or concrete.
It's completely in her power to stop whitewashing a genocide and creating false equivalences by calling it a "war".
Not if she wants to get elected. I've said since the convention that they're trying their best to not piss off either side and that's mostly been their strategy. Even when she's releasing statements on the death of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders she's very careful to say, as an American leader, I'm glad this dude, who killed Americans, is dead.
Of course that was evidence of her being a flaming Zionist to people who want Trump elected.
Yeah, no. Just not true. 6 point bump lol you fucking clown. I don't think you understand how much power the Israel lobby has here. She would 100% lose if she came out strong against the genocide.
Wait until she is elected, then criticize her if she refuses to call it a genocide.
Just to clarify, elected? Or inaugurated?
I'd like to see her take an appropriate position soon, but am not optimistic.
AIPAC - they throw their weight around and a candidate is in big trouble.
Most of those Democrats aren't campaigning on BDS either and the polling is inconclusive. It turns on how exactly the questions are asked. The only concrete thing we've actually seen from them is that Americans want their president to negotiate a peace as soon as possible.
She's not negotiating anything yet. She's working with cards dealt by someone else. And she will be doing so as President too because that's the life of a third party mediator.
If you want someone who will wave a magic wand and expect results, vote for Trump.
I don't know what country you think she's running to be president for, but Netanyahu is not going to be her subordinate. She cannot simply order the end of the Gaza war. She also doesn't get to choose the representatives in Congress. This isn't a party system where representatives are pre-approved and seated in order. She gets the representatives that each district sends. Obviously there's some influence there but there's also limits, as the entire ordeal of being primaried shows.
So I don't know what else to say except welcome to American Civics 101. Pocket constitutions are on the table on the right, and political sports regalia on the left table.
I really hope you aren't American because you don't actually have the first clue as to how we elect Congress. She can't even refuse to seat representatives. There's 435 districts that elect their own representative, and they're the only ones that can fire that representative. She could remove support for their next election but the party would need to make sure to line up a replacement and gear up to support their replacement in the inevitable primary fight. They cannot do that 215 times. They can't do it 4 times. It took AIPAC to unseat one of the 4 left most Democrats. Their entire attention is on districts that are threatened by Republicans. And if you think they're going to primary a proven winner in a purple district then you're really smoking something.
So when the House party leader speaks. The President listens.
Nor have you considered that Israel could easily continue the food blockade under the guise of a continued war, without American bombs. It doesn't take the US to manufacture bullets. That's why the end of the war, and not just weapon shipments is desirable.
How much are your Mossad handlers paying you to type this?
You may already be aware that tone policing is a major component of .world moderation, so incivility is liable to get you censored or even banned. But it also creates a lot of user reports which fill up our report queue, even though we don’t admin .world.
Not until after the election. She's walking a wire trying to get nonMAGA republicans to vote for her in order to save Democracy. They need to at least pretend to believe she won't completely abandon Israel. If she can beat Trump, she'll then be free to call a genocide a genocide. In any case, Trump wants to end the war by letting his buddy Bibi nuke Gaza and just fucking kill all the Palestinians. A "final solution" as it were.
Out of the people say that shit that aren't Russia shills, the only ones left are morons who like pretending to be morally perfect. They really like feeling falsely superior.
Libs joking about genocide. Standard fare. Reflects their representative.
Sounds like you misunderstood me entirely but good to know your first reflex is being a jerk
He was agreeing with you…
Lol a comma would really help the end of your first sentence
(It's the second, not the first)
(And now this comment is pointless)
Trump would do the same thing but in his case it means letting Bibi level Gaza and then buying some land to build a tacky resort on it.
Yeah stopping the slaughter is better than completing it.
It won him some Muslim voters though. Yesterday, I saw one interviewed on TV, paraphrasing: "He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, started no wars and promised to end the war in Gaza."
Is it stupid? Yes. Is it what a potentially tipping demographics thinks? Yes.
Source:
Good that needs to happen.
Bruhhhhhhh why the fuck couldnt you say that like 1 or 2 months ago? Why last minute?
In her defense she did say that a couple of times:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/26/kamala-harris-benjamin-netanyahu-us-visit-palestine-israel-gaza-war
But then at times she also said they wont be supporting arms embargo on Israel. Still orders of magnitude better than a lunatic who says he is a actively supporting Israel on doing whatever they want to do:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/us-israel-trump-phone-call-netanyahu-gaza-cease-fire-2024-election.html
The fact that some people equate these two candidates based on their Gaza politics is insane.
The only people i kinda get are those with families there. But at the same time my family still voted for the shitty opposition instead of the even shittier leading party when i still lived in hungary even tho their views on trans rights was, lets say, not perfect. This of course mattered because trans rights are the first dominoes and i have a trans family member. So yeah the better option is still better than absolute chaos. Idk why this is so hard to get.
I get that they are angry (rightfully) at the world at doing jackshit against genocide but still on a practical level they are not helping against a party whose supporters think that the middle east should be bombed out of existence. At least many of the democrat supporters are joining weapon embargo and anti war rallies and they will have more power against the government if it's the Democrats.
I agree but i cant really do anything with it. I live like 6000kms from the us. The shit part is that it will effect me as well as other people who cant do shit about it.
You're still not saying the magic words harris. Repeat after me: 'i will enforce american laws regarding war crimes until israel obeys international laws regarding war crimes and genocide'. You've waited too long and i doubt you'll do it before you need to tomorrow.
Its easy to see how she's more focused on the israel hostages than Palestinian population, a group who as our own diplomatic core has informed the admin shes a part of, will be returned in a ceasefire agreement. Hamas already agreed to return them, at least before israel starting offing those leaders first. Only israel is the issue.
Actually I'm pretty sure you just demanded that she look into the disagreement in Israel. Which she did, so you owe her now. Stop changing your demands! It's your fault they ignore the left. /s
child, shes well aware of whats going on in gaza. they, the biden admin, knows exactly the situation and they know its a genocide. They've known most of this year. I certainly didn't demand she look into it. I'm demanding she apply the US law as written to israel.
Sorry to have accidentally trolled you, I was being sarcastic.
We're not in a vacuum. Two things can be true. She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose power, work to end the genocide, and find a two-state solution - that is, if Hamas and Bibi will allow it, which they won't.
This binary all-or-nothing, zero sum bs is just toxic and ignorant.
Yeah it’s clear she wants a two state solution.
I'm not invested in the Likud Party losing if the war continues to expand and drag on.
The issue isn't with her "pro-Israel" policy, it's with her "pro-Genocide" policy. That's what's driving the protests.
And that's the rub. Is she really 'pro genocide'? That is the question
"Hey, i have murdered some 40.000 people, most women and children. Can you send me more weapons?"
"Well sure, here ya go. Need any more troops deployed with it, so no one in the region can try to stop you?"
More clear of an endorsement isn't possible aside from going there personally to murder the women and children herself.
But the question remains, will things be better, worse, or the same under Trump?
Like it or not, at this stage of the game there are effectively two candidates. To paraphrase South Park, you can vote for the douche bag or the turd sandwich. Neither is a very good option but one is certainly worse than the other if you're paying any attention at all. Abstaining from voting for Harris in a swing state is tantamount to a half vote for Trump.
So sure, continue letting everyone know what the current administration is doing wrong. I'm all for valid criticism of our government. Post facts, link sources, and post ways that people can voice their displeasure to their elected officials.
Trying to sway votes away from Harris is not the answer. Because again, like it or not, the shitty choice that we've been handed in this scenario is bad or worse. Please stop advocating for worse.
I don't even know how to respond to this. It's filled with so much hyperbole that there's nothing factual to refute or discuss. All I can say is that I vehemently disagree with your opinions on the matter.
What pro-genocide policy? Name one Kamala Harris, pro-genocide policy.
Because it seems to me that she just stated that her goal is to end the genocide. Seems like a pretty counterintuitive way to be "pro-genocide"...
And if you knew anything about politics in Israel, then you would 100% be invested in the Likud Party losing.
Sending weapons to the army committing the genocide is a very clear endorsement of it. Judge politicians by their actions, not by their promises.
And not only was sending those weapons a clear endorsement of the genocide, it is illegal by US law. The whole administration and majority of congress should be under investigation and in jail.
And who is the current President of the United States?
Is it Kamala Harris? No?
So my question stands: one "pro-genocide policy"
Who is current vice-president?
Her entire campaign was based on the fact that she is the continuation of Biden. Having proper primaries after Biden dropped out was argued against, saying she is already on the ticket. Her team is largely Bidens team. Distancing her from the administration she currently serves in and saying she is the continuation of that doesn't work.
Frankly if she was opposed to genocide the only decent thing would have been to resign from her position in the current administration. You cannot be against genocide while serving a genocidal president.
Like her ads I'm sure she has a more pro Israel slant in other cities.
Yeah im sure you'll condemn netanyahu as a dictator with an illegitimate claim to power. Im SURE you'll stop selling billions of dollars in weaponry to them. Seriously though, vote Harris
Finally some positive words now for acting on it, if she gets a chance.
In a presidential democracy she has all the power if she wants it.
I'm glad all of the users I've tagged in the past month decided to congregate in this thread to show everyone how full of shit they've been this entire time.
Well done.
And I am a prince from Nigeria who will give you money if you send me your information
Literal last minute shilling bruh
If she had said this once like even 2 weeks ago, people might have actually listened
Never even mentioned Republicans.
My point is she spent her entire campaign ignoring this problem until literally the last minute.
People already voted on Sunday in Michigan. Even if you think this would have changed people's minds, she could have said it 2 days ago and still had more effect.
Bullshit, she's been saying basically that same sequence of lines, starting with the convention speech (maybe even before but I don't remember), at rallies and in some interviews. I think her saying it with protesters shouting at the rally made the media hype it up a bit more, but what she said yesterday is pretty much the same lines she's used on the topic the whole campaign.
The only variation has been the first few words. She started out with "Now is the time to ...blah blah blah" to "I will work hard to ... blah blah" to now "I will do everything in my power to ...blah blah". After that intro phrase, the rest of the lines have been the same every time.
Why do so many people feel the need to announce their blocks on lemmy?
Block me as well. Don't forget the ritualistic reply to my comment publicly announcing your block!
Like this?
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
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
Biden sure said a lot of things, but how much did he actually do?
The supreme court disagrees
Do you mean the ones beholden to Trump, or are we talking about different Supreme Courts?
It's the same thing but a different guy.
"Sorry, best I can do are harsh words of condemnation."
"Harris slams proponents of war in Gaza"
Still better than Trump by a huge margin.
Which isn't much, congress controls the money and military aid given. Outside of joining the war and placing our military where IDF is and seeing if that will end war crimes, there's not a lot on the table and Bibi isn't going to take a single threat seriously, he knows the US is chained to Isreal with millions and millions of dollars in lobbying.
Can't remember at the moment what it's called, but there's a law making it illegal for the US to support war crimes. If the president ceased aid to Israel on those grounds, congress would have to be unusually united to override it. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it'd be a difficult fight to pick when Israel is being so brazenly genocidal.
The Leahy Law.
Zionism is an ongoing war crime that's around 100 years old.
There are no troops that will stop it by watching.
I'm sure Netanyahu also wants it to end right after he gets his sadistic goals.
As of mid 2024 the lowest estimate I found was >7000 Palestinian children dead, as compared to a highest estimate of <100 Israeli children dead. Any child dead is too many but it shows that this is not a war, it's a slaughter.
I voted for Harris because any alternative is asinine, but we should expect that the arms shipments to Israel will continue unless we pressure our politicians.
If you just had said that two months ago, it would have saved me so mando idiotic conversations...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/26/kamala-harris-benjamin-netanyahu-us-visit-palestine-israel-gaza-war
Nah, it would have just kicked the can down the road, leading to accusations that promises mean nothing. [email protected] is already doing so a post or two below you.
But yeah, she should have said that from the start.
Just lie, these assholes don't really care. -US politicians.
What is even the point of doing anything you promise. Just look at all the shit donald trump didn't do and the toughest questions he had to answer was what his hair routine is.
Oh thank fuck
trump will do that because there's no way kamala wins at this point
I think it's fair to say we all want the death and suffering to end. I'm curious, however, about the overarching goals of those advocating for Stein and such. Some people have suggested that Russia and China stand to benefit the most from America cutting off support to Israel. Russia has certainly vied for influence in the region and generally picks up whatever America leaves behind for pennies on the Ruble.
To summarize my question: if the US cut off support to Israel with the intent of ending genocide, wouldn't Israel simply partner with Russia or China instead?
I don't see how this helps Gaza, but it seems like to make the situation worse.
It's a chance worth taking. Worst case scenario is that USA opposes a genocide instead of contributing. Best case is that the genocide ends.
What's with the fictional quote?
Ignoring that, I think the best and worst case scenarios are too optimistic.
Worst case: Israel continues war with support from Russia and/or China. US loses influence and ally. Atrocities increase. Violence spreads.
In that case the US can just arm the resistance groups. Nothing bad has ever happened by doing that.
Right?! I think that's probably a real risk
Why would either of those countries pick up such a pointless financial burden, though? The US has spent $17.9 billion in military aid just since October 2023. I'm not sure Russia could afford to sustain that sort of spending long-term, and even if they could, what do they get from it? They get another piece of baggage to further isolate them on the international stage, while also conveniently pissing off local Muslim populations they've been cultivating influence with, and potentially stirring things up back home with Muslim separatist groups that have been known to pop off the odd attack or civil war from time to time.
Likewise, China can get all the natural resources Israel could offer them on better terms and at lower cost elsewhere, without any of the drawbacks that backing Israel in the absence of the US would bring them. China already has a presence in the region in relationships with Gulf states, they don't need Israel. What, Israel is going to win them over with some cheaper citrus, or something?
People keep saying, "But what if Russia or China backed Israel instead?" without any reason for either to do so.
Appreciate the insight!
Look who comes crawling back after banishing Palestinians at the DNC.
This is the power of not voting for these politicians. They will only listen when they have to earn your vote.
And she only starts pandering after Trump lets Arabs on stage. Funny how that works.
In any case she is VP right now. Trump can lie about anything he wants. He is not in power. Kamala can not.
Speaking directly to people with child brains
The replies I'm getting are filled with the broken english and rote talking points of Russian shills
Trump said that too and it apparently won him some Muslim votes. People with child brains are a major undecided demographic.
Edit: I am not saying Muslims are any more child-brained than the general population. As a source for the first sentence, watch this clip from yesterday's Czech TV news (key quotes start at 1:28):
Czech TV is a public source that is trying to be as neutral as possible (which of course helps extreme views as the reporters feel the need to include them). I don't think this coverage is a bad source for a basic understanding of the situation.
Thank you for being one of the rare honest liberals that admits that this is purely cynical lip service and that you can't end a genocide by voting for the nazis committing it
not that you get much credit for that from me. you are after all a nazi acting like that cynicism is a good thing
You couldn't be any more convincing that no one should ever listen to you. I know people like you are allergic to actually doing anything that will progress what you supposedly believe, but at least you could not insult people who are literally agreeing with you.
I'd rather be allergic to progressing towards my believes than actively support genocide. But I don't think that's how this works. I think the people I'm alienating myself towards are already unforgivable nazi trash who are diametrically opposed to the better world I would like to create. You on the other hand want to preserve comfort for yourself at the cost of millions of lives just because they're brown and across the world. So this childish mean girls shit you just tried to pull isn't the worst thing about you by a long shot.
"Actively." There's that word. What does that mean? Usually it means you're doing something that causes another thing. Let's go with that for a second. Let's say I don't vote for Harris. Does the genocide end? Almost certainly not, so my action is not perpetuating it. If Trump wins do more people die? Probably, so taking action that causes that is actively creating that situation (and doing nothing is still a choice).
Harris at least has said continuously she wants to stop it. I'll actively be part of that instead of actively being a part of making that not happen. Fuck off you genocide enabling ignoramus. Go ahead and pretend like you're doing something in your quite place.
Mental gymnastics. You are voting for the people committing the genocide. Not helpless onlookers.
Oh? Did Harris say something you liked? The day before the election? Well of course she must be telling the truth. And there's absolutely zero evidence to the contrary! It's not like she said "war" and not "genocide" even in this statement you're holding up as her being anti-genocide. That would mean you have the object permanence appropriate to call "baby brain."
Mental gymnastics. You're helping people who want to commit genocide and expand it get elected.
She's said many things I like, and as I said she's said this many times before. This isn't the first time, but I don't expect you to know that. Go sit in your corner. You aren't informed and only want to complain about not getting your way, while also not working towards that.
Haha! You got me! Go team burning children alive with white phosphorus! Yay!
Blood soaked nazi
Well you're one of the child brains in this case so good for you I guess? If your single issue is between someone who can't suddenly fix your problem overnight while trying to stop fasism and a fascist who promised genocide in the place you care plus where he wants to run as president then you need to think about your choice.
The president can literally fix this problem overnight
What the fuck planet do you live on
🤡
Removed for ableist slur.
Of all the things you could bring up to say 'Trump bad' you chose that?
Just a little reminder that the second there's an opportunity for liberals to be homophobic they're going to throw me under the bus?
That you're willing to let millions of people die so you can go back to ignoring politics and if you lose you're going to join the side of my oppressors and blame your victims for deserving it?
I didn't need a reminder; you're already doing that under Biden.
But thanks for reminding me how condescending you can be despite being the dumbest motherfucker in the room.
Save your hollow words. I already voted for Jill Stein.
The Palestinians have taken to the streets to sing songs in your honor. You've saved them!
Nah, they've already been good and thoroughly fucked by your Lord and Savior and Daddy Biden
You, and people like you, really need to open a history book. Make sure to cross reference with past foreign relations strategies.
We can start with the first Nakba
You voted for trump without admitting to it. The terrible reality of first past the post is the enemy here:
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
We need a system that doesn't convert votes for the candidate you want into a vote for who you hate the most. It's awful being bound to crappy rules.
Love me some CGP Grey. Glad to see to understand the source of the issue here. Hope you have time to stop by my asklemmy post to discuss how to best resolve this critically flaw voting system after the election.
Bunch of 16 year olds condescending to people "Hey have you heard of the electoral college?!"
"That's Republican, we count those."