US 2024 Presidential Election

[tippy2k2]

Like I said, I don't support Israel's current actions.

Personally I think fighting back against Hamas is 100% justified, and I think that the Israelis have the capabilities to perform surgical strikes against Hamas leadership. I don't think that massive civilian casualties due to the use of bombing to kill suspected terrorists is justified when there are other means to reach the same goals without incurring the massive civilian death toll. I think that the US should be restricting export of arms to Israel to only allow for defensive capabilities until a cease-fire is reached.

Let's not pretend that the Palestinians are innocent people just fighting against oppression though. Palestinians have started every conflict with Israel, and have never stopped attacking Israel with rocket attacks, which is what Israelis use as justification for the oppression. There's a reason that the Israelis have the defensive capabilities that they do, and it's because they have been proven necessary due to the constant attacks against their civilian population over decades.

Neither side is innocent and the history of the conflicts between Israel and Palestine don't boil down to "one side good other side bad."

There were two big attacks yesterday.

Hamas launched a drone attack against an Israeli Army Base
Israel launched rockets and bombed a refugee camp in a hospital

I've got a pretty fucking good clue as to which one of these is the bad guy...

Netanyahu Says Israel’s Goal Is to Wipe Out All Possibility of Palestinian State

This is one of Netanyahu’s clearest statements yet about his goals for Palestine amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

truthout.org

Every time this fucker opens his mouth, it's to talk about how they intend to wipe out Gaza and everyone in it. If this asshole was in a movie, we'd all ridicule it for being so cartoonishly evil that there's no way anyone could possibly believe this shit...

 

[tippy2k2]

To be fair, Tippy didn't do that. I did. And if people are going to consequentialism me and others into saying we actually support Trump when we say we support Stein, I'm going to turn that right around and point out they support genocide if they support Kamala. If we're playing the reduction game, we can play.

My view on this is to turn their own line against them

Not everyone who votes for Trump is a racist but racism is obviously not a dealbreaker for them...
Not everyone who votes for Harris is Pro-Genocide but Genocide is obviously not a dealbreaker for them...

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

To be fair, Tippy didn't do that. I did. And if people are going to consequentialism me and others into saying we actually support Trump when we say we support Stein, I'm going to turn that right around and point out they support genocide if they support Kamala. If we're playing the reduction game, we can play.

I don't think that someone supports Trump if they vote for Stein. If they supported Trump they would just vote for Trump. I do think that people who protest vote for Stein are the people who feel they can afford and weather a Trump presidency should it happen. So I understand the anger from the people who think that a Trump presidency would have significant negative consequences for themselves.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

There were two big attacks yesterday.

Hamas launched a drone attack against an Israeli Army Base
Israel launched rockets and bombed a refugee camp in a hospital

I've got a pretty fucking good clue as to which one of these is the bad guy...

Netanyahu Says Israel’s Goal Is to Wipe Out All Possibility of Palestinian State

This is one of Netanyahu’s clearest statements yet about his goals for Palestine amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

truthout.org

Every time this fucker opens his mouth, it's to talk about how they intend to wipe out Gaza and everyone in it. If this asshole was in a movie, we'd all ridicule it for being so cartoonishly evil that there's no way anyone could possibly believe this shit...

Sure, but if the shoe was on the other foot do you think that Palestine would be acting differently from Israel? The goal of Palestine has been the destruction of Israel since its founding. Do you think that Israel would still exist if they were the oppressed minority and the Palestinians were the ones with the technological advantage?

There's no "good side" here. The leadership of both countries are scum. The military wings of both countries are scum. The civilians in both countries basically just want safety and to many of them that means getting rid of their mortal enemies across the border.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I don't think that someone supports Trump if they vote for Stein. If they supported Trump they would just vote for Trump. I do think that people who protest vote for Stein are the people who feel they can afford and weather a Trump presidency should it happen. So I understand the anger from the people who think that a Trump presidency would have significant negative consequences for themselves.

I know you don't, that's why I'm not leveling that criticism against you. You're solid.

I disagree with your stance on Israel/Palestine, though this isn't the thread for it. And if someone came at me and said they're voting for Kamala over say abortion, that makes a lot of sense, I get it. There is a lot of nuance. But saying "I'm not voting for Kamala over genocide" gets people to come out and say "oh so you support Trump then?".

 

[tippy2k2]

Sure, but if the shoe was on the other foot do you think that Palestine would be acting differently from Israel? The goal of Palestine has been the destruction of Israel since its founding. Do you think that Israel would still exist if they were the oppressed minority and the Palestinians were the ones with the technological advantage?

There's no "good side" here. The leadership of both countries are scum. The military wings of both countries are scum. The civilians in both countries basically just want safety and to many of them that means getting rid of their mortal enemies across the border.

OK, let me boil it down a different way then

One is an invader. One was there and the other showed up, starting taking land and homes from the other, and on a daily basis puts their foot on the neck with various rules and regulations that make it impossible for them to thrive

Palestine is fighting back against an invader. When Ukraine does it, people are all YAY! but when Palestine does it, everyone is like "There are no good guys here, just one side fighting against an invader and the invaders bombing women and children on a daily basis so really, who can say which one is correct?"

At this point, there's no use debating this. Either you've seen the videos and images being sent out on a daily basis from Palestinians being burned alive, bombed, gassed, and shot or you're putting your head in the sand and going LA LA LA BOTH SIDES ARE BAD LA LA LA IT'S SUPER NUANCED LA LA LAAAAA

To loop it back around to this thread, If Harris wants my vote, she needs to at least pretend like she's going to do anything different than Biden when it comes to Israel doing whatever it wants. The ball is in her court.

 

[Silvanus]

Palestinians have started every conflict with Israel [...]

This isn't true at all. To begin with, none of the periodic conflicts exist purely in isolation; they are also episodes of a broader ongoing conflict dating back over 80 years.

You could potentially draw lines between the outbreaks, and assign responsibility for "starting" each new episode, if there had been meaningful peace beforehand-- but that's not the case. Between each "conflict", there has been an ongoing campaign of displacement and violence directed by Likud (and Yesh Atid before them). Peace has not been peaceful, and during those periods of supposed peace, Israel has been responsible for the majority of the damage. We cannot write that out, when Palestinian attacks are often specifically in response to an intolerable and already-violent status quo.

But even if we did draw lines between each episodic conflict, divorced from the context of the wider conflict, the statement would still not be true-- because Israel has also reneged on truces and launched 'first' attacks that sparked them.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

OK, let me boil it down a different way then

One is an invader. One was there and the other showed up, starting taking land and homes from the other, and on a daily basis puts their foot on the neck with various rules and regulations that make it impossible for them to thrive

Palestine is fighting back against an invader. When Ukraine does it, people are all YAY! but when Palestine does it, everyone is like "There are no good guys here, just one side fighting against an invader and the invaders bombing women and children on a daily basis so really, who can say which one is correct?"

This is definitely not the right thread for this, so I'm only going to make one more response.

You say that Israel is an invader, but the territory of Israel was legally created and given to the Jews by the UN. The Jews didn't just show up there and start waging war to take land. First they legally bought land from the Ottoman Empire, and afterward they were legally given land. Now you can make the argument that the UN and Britain didn't have the authority to create a Jewish state in the region, but it's incorrect to categorize it as an invasion.

It's like if you lived in an apartment and one day your landlord showed up with a homeless guy and told you "this guy is going to live here now, you have to give him the second bedroom." You as the original tenant may not like it and think that it's wrong, and you can sue your landlord, but what you don't get to do is try to kill the homeless guy. And when you do try and kill the homeless guy and he retaliates by locking you in your bedroom while you scream about how you're definitely going to kill him if you ever get out, well the homeless guy isn't in the wrong for defending himself at that point.

The Palestinians could have sued the UN, instead they decided to start attacking the Jews and vowed to dismantle Israel, and after every war they fought and lost they subsequently lost additional land. And that land isn't "stolen" either. That's what happens when you start and then lose a war. That's how every border in the world was created, through war and conflict.

Now I'm not going to pretend that the UN and Britain unilaterally creating the state of Israel was the right thing to do. But it happened and was technically legal, and the Palestinians responded with violence.

Having said that, it's not like Israel gets no blame here. Israeli settlers are constantly moving outside of the established borders of Israel and taking land from Palestinians in the west bank. These actions are disgusting, and the fact that they are essentially sponsored and protected by the Israeli government is clearly illegal. If this war was being fought due to the west bank settlement then you would have a very fair comparison to the Russia-Ukraine situation and Israel would very clearly be the bad guy. That's not what the current war is being fought over though.

These are essentially 2 cultures that want to wipe each other off the face of the earth, and both are trying to convince the world that they are right to do so, and neither of them is right. Let's be clear, if the shoe was on the other foot and the Palestinians were the ones with the military advantage they would be doing the same thing to Israel that Israel is currently doing. Genocide is bad and we should be working to stop it, but it's difficult when the two sides actually IN the conflict don't even agree that genocide is bad, they just think that genocide specifically against THEM is bad, but are perfectly ok with it being against the other side.

I don't support Israel's actions in this conflict. They've repeatedly committed war crimes. They completely disregard civilian lives in their attacks. They've killed aid workers, prevented food and medicine from entering Gaza, and purposefully destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza. Again though, this isn't one side good other side bad. Hamas is perfectly happy committing atrocities and indiscriminately attacking civilian populations as well, and it doesn't look like the leadership of either side is actually interested in a ceasefire and end to the conflict.

If the rest of the world is more interested in the ceasefire than the actual parties fighting then a ceasefire isn't going to happen.

 

[dreng3]

I know you don't, that's why I'm not leveling that criticism against you. You're solid.

I disagree with your stance on Israel/Palestine, though this isn't the thread for it. And if someone came at me and said they're voting for Kamala over say abortion, that makes a lot of sense, I get it. There is a lot of nuance. But saying "I'm not voting for Kamala over genocide" gets people to come out and say "oh so you support Trump then?".

Regardless of Trump or Harris the US is getting a president that is okay with and, can reasonably be construed as, in fact in support of it. So seeing as both are equally horrible on that front we might as well turn our attention to other qualities.

 

[Agema]

Now I'm not going to pretend that the UN and Britain unilaterally creating the state of Israel was the right thing to do. But it happened and was technically legal, and the Palestinians responded with violence.

Across history, how many peoples can you think of had their lands stolen for settlement and/or economic exploitation who just peacefully accepted it? So why expect that the Palestinians should react differently to pretty much every single population taken over and occupied by a foreign power?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Regardless of Trump or Harris the US is getting a president that is okay with and, can reasonably be construed as, in fact in support of it. So seeing as both are equally horrible on that front we might as well turn our attention to other qualities.

I wouldn't even say that they're equally horrible.

Jared Kushner (Trump's son in law) has previously said that he would love for Gaza to be leveled because they're sitting on prime waterfront property. Given that Kushner was Trump's foreign policy advisor and was tasked with figuring out peace in the middle east (what an easy assignment), and has contacts in Israel I wouldn't be surprised if he was positioned to swoop in for the development of Gaza into beachfront resorts should the Israelis take it over and get rid of the Palestinian problem.

Jared Kushner says Gaza’s ‘waterfront property could be very valuable’

Donald Trump’s son-in-law also says Israel should bulldoze an area of the Negev desert and move Palestinians there

www.theguardian.com

Trump potentially has a vested interest in this war escalating and the destruction of Gaza.

One side is indifferent to the destruction and the other side relishes it.

 

[dreng3]

I wouldn't even say that they're equally horrible.

Jared Kushner (Trump's son in law) has previously said that he would love for Gaza to be leveled because they're sitting on prime waterfront property. Given that Kushner was Trump's foreign policy advisor and was tasked with figuring out peace in the middle east (what an easy assignment), and has contacts in Israel I wouldn't be surprised if he was positioned to swoop in for the development of Gaza into beachfront resorts should the Israelis take it over and get rid of the Palestinian problem.


Trump potentially has a vested interest in this war escalating and the destruction of Gaza.

One side is indifferent to the destruction and the other side relishes it.

Fair, but my point was rather that remarking on Harris as the genocide cadidate in a debate about third-party candidates is a fairly weak deflection as the only other viable candidate is also bad on the issue.

 

[Agema]

Given that Kushner was Trump's foreign policy advisor and was tasked with figuring out peace in the middle east (what an easy assignment),

He certainly wasn't there to figure out "peace". He was there to deliver a decisive win for the USA's main allies in the Middle East, chiefly Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia, casualties current or future be damned.

But I certainly degree that a pair of greedy, ethically-challenged, US property developers (one of whom is effectively blacklisted from much of the conventional financial market) would be extremely excited by the opportunity to mix with the powers that be in an area awash with investment funds and low ethical oversight.

And indeed:

Jared Kushner defends controversial $2bn Saudi investment

Donald Trump's son-in-law and ex-advisor also says he is not interested in a possible White House return.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Trunkage]

Shitting on people for voting FOR a candidate they agree with instead of AGAINST one they don't is super classy guys.

The Democratic Party does not represent their issues. Yes it's a broken two party system. Voting outcomes are recorded, post election they will have the chance to reflect on where they lost points, and consider (however shortly and against) where policy needs to shift to cover those loses. It is literally the only path in the two party system to even trying to be heard.

So yeah, we know, the system is broken and ultimately any vote outside the big two may give one an edge. But shut the fuck up about it. You're not clever, insightful, superior, or more moral, for feeding the system.

Let people vote as their conscience dictates, it's the tiniest iota of political power they have in hoping their voice is heard within the system at hand.

I live in Australia which has at least 4 major parties. I have never voted for the same party in the lower and higher houses

None of them represent my interests. It probably wouldn't happen when you have 10 parties.

I don't know why people think parties need to cater to them personally. It's not a thing

 

[Silvanus]

You say that Israel is an invader, but the territory of Israel was legally created and given to the Jews by the UN.

Hang on, wait a second here, because this is deeply misleading and inaccurate.

Firstly, there was a project to create a Jewish state in Palestine long before the UN existed. This project included encouraging large-scale migration and directed violence against the native population.

Secondly, the ruling force at the time of the 1947 vote was Britain-- it was Britain that first officially declared that a Jewish home should be created in Palestine, in 1917, when acting as a partial occupying power in a time of war. Britain acknowledged years later that the wishes of the population were not taken into account.

Thirdly, the 1947 vote by the UN endorsed a partition of Palestine to create a Jewish and a Palestinian state. The UN plan was absolutely not followed.

But even with all that aside: you're talking about an international organisation "legally" deciding to partition and give away land which one of its members was occupying after a war. That population was not a signatory. That population was occupied by a signatory. So that's a bit like arguing that a Russian decision about Donetsk is perfectly legally applicable there. It's legal... according to the laws of an organisation that is imposing itself, and has no right to be deciding what happens there.

 

[Trunkage]

‘Vengeful’ Trump withheld disaster aid and will do so again, ex-officials warn

Former administration officials say Trump deliberately denied funds to states he deemed politically hostile

www.theguardian.com

Uh-huh.

I would really love it if Trump yelling and screaming wasn't about himself for once. But alas, it's not

Just remember, if Trump is blaming someone else for something, it's because he has either done it or plans on doing it

 

[Trunkage]

Hang on, wait a second here, because this is deeply misleading and inaccurate.

Firstly, there was a project to create a Jewish state in Palestine long before the UN existed. This project included encouraging large-scale migration and directed violence against the native population.

Secondly, the ruling force at the time of the 1947 vote was Britain-- it was Britain that first officially declared that a Jewish home should be created in Palestine, in 1917, when acting as a partial occupying power in a time of war. Britain acknowledged years later that the wishes of the population were not taken into account.

Thirdly, the 1947 vote by the UN endorsed a partition of Palestine to create a Jewish and a Palestinian state. The UN plan was absolutely not followed.

But even with all that aside: you're talking about an international organisation "legally" deciding to partition and give away land which one of its members was occupying after a war. That population was not a signatory. That population was occupied by a signatory. So that's a bit like arguing that a Russian decision about Donetsk is perfectly legally applicable there. It's legal... according to the laws of an organisation that is imposing itself, and has no right to be deciding what happens there.

Can I just put this in here. It's a American Jew who is detail the history of the Jews from the start. He's up to 1929, and as you can see it's about Riots in Palestine back then


He has spent about 20 videos going through the 1880s to now explaining the MANY nuances around the time, criticising everyone, Jews, Palestinians, Allies and some Arabs. It might get people up to date on before the 1930s. Because it's a mess a hundred years ago, not just now

 

[Trunkage]

OK, let me boil it down a different way then

One is an invader. One was there and the other showed up, starting taking land and homes from the other, and on a daily basis puts their foot on the neck with various rules and regulations that make it impossible for them to thrive

Palestine is fighting back against an invader. When Ukraine does it, people are all YAY! but when Palestine does it, everyone is like "There are no good guys here, just one side fighting against an invader and the invaders bombing women and children on a daily basis so really, who can say which one is correct?"

At this point, there's no use debating this. Either you've seen the videos and images being sent out on a daily basis from Palestinians being burned alive, bombed, gassed, and shot or you're putting your head in the sand and going LA LA LA BOTH SIDES ARE BAD LA LA LA IT'S SUPER NUANCED LA LA LAAAAA

To loop it back around to this thread, If Harris wants my vote, she needs to at least pretend like she's going to do anything different than Biden when it comes to Israel doing whatever it wants. The ball is in her court.

I don't understand why people think 'right to exist' means they are allowed to kill anyone. It generally doesn't happen anywhere else in the world

 

[tstorm823]

Across history, how many peoples can you think of had their lands stolen for settlement and/or economic exploitation who just peacefully accepted it? So why expect that the Palestinians should react differently to pretty much every single population taken over and occupied by a foreign power?

In the long term, literally every civilization on the planet has eventually peacefully accepted being conquered.

 

[Agema]

He has spent about 20 videos going through the 1880s to now explaining the MANY nuances around the time, criticising everyone, Jews, Palestinians, Allies and some Arabs. It might get people up to date on before the 1930s. Because it's a mess a hundred years ago, not just now

A key thing to point out is that the other Arab nations really have not helped the Palestinians that much, and a great deal of the conflict and imperilment of Israel was theirs, not the Palestinians.

They invaded Mandate Palestine in the middle of the Jewish-Palestinian post-independence fracas and took what are now the Palestinian territories for themselves. Every subsequent war was between the Arab nations and Israel, with the Palestinians mostly onlookers as they didn't have a state or army. The last war was in the early 70s, not counting subsequent Israeli attacks on its neighbours and ongoing occupation conflicts.