Oh fun, please explain how she’s presiding over the genocide when she’s not the president?
Comment on Is American politics really as seemingly satirical of itself as it is portrayed?
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 week agoShe’s the only candidate on the ballot who is actively presiding over a genocide. That should be disqualifying, but I guess some people definitely decency differently.
almar_quigley@lemmy.world 1 week ago
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 week ago
Apart from trying to sell the genocide every chance she gets, Harris is part of Biden’s cabinet. Ostensibly, she’s leading the team that’s making the genocide happen. Or are you implying that Harris has had a do-nothing job for the past three years? Not exactly a shining qualification for the presidency, but I suppose that would make her a little less complicit to genocide if it were true.
almar_quigley@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Do you understand the difference between president and vice president? She’s also not on the cabinet. That’s for cabinet members. My point is she’s not presiding over anything. Biden is in charge. And your claim moments seem to be repeating propaganda nonsense.
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 week ago
She’s also not on the cabinet.
If you’re going to damn your soul by endorsing an ongoing genocide, at least get some basic facts right. The vice president serves on the cabinet by statute.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Biden reiterated in his ONLY press conference that she has been in agreement with every policy decision. She has repeatedly said she wouldn’t change a thing. And that $5m in AIPAC money comes with strings attached.
kartoffelsaft@programming.dev 1 week ago
I’ve seen the occasional post here on lemmy making this point. I don’t see anything factually wrong in saying she’d likely keep status quo or even make it worse. But when I see this said the one thing that I always wonder is never addressed:
How would the outcome be better if you voted against her?
Like, I have to imagine that someone making this argument thinks Trump would improve the situation. Because if that isn’t the case, then this is not a decision I’m making at the voting booth, so saying she’d continue genocide as a reason to vote against her falls flat (and, if you’re wondering, is why people are quick to downvote this argument). Is the hope that Trump will see the artillery shells sent to isreal as “librul policy” and axe it on that basis? Or that he’ll do such a bad job that he’ll get assassinated/arrested/overthrown? Something else entirely?
Enlighten me, because I can’t envision Trump making anything better.
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 week ago
Who’s saying that? It’s not about making the situation better or worse at this point. Neither candidate wants the genocide to stop and it’s debatable that it could be worsened. However, Harris is guilty of actively and materially supporting this genocide, which is more damning and disqualifying than any of allegations against Trump. Apart from that, losing the election is the closest that Harris and her party will get to actually being held accountable. Maybe this kind of feedback will get the Democrats to change their strategy. Maybe not. At least I won’t be cosigning genocide.
Seleni@lemmy.world 1 week ago
More damning? I would think trying to overthrow the government and trying to install himself as a dictator would be just as bad.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Worse
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 week ago
What an incredibly deranged response. Over nine hundred families have officially been exterminated in Gaza. Realistic estimates put the death toll there over the past year well above 100,000. How many people were actually killed on January 6th?