• ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    You unconditionally support a genocide for just two years and suddenly you’re a “war criminal.” So much for the tolerant left.

      • ceenote@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        She had complete control over her own campaign platform, where she chose to be in lockstep with Biden.

        • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          This. It’s up to the politician to build a platform that gets as many votes as possible. The DNC and Harris choose to ignore their base, shout down the Muslim vote, and took more money from special interests groups than Republicans.

        • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I wouldn’t say that, she was beholden to the party donors that would have stopped sending money to all of the corporate Dems if she had a different stance. Biden also wasn’t going to let her distance herself on any of his stances. It was a lose-lose situation from a messaging perspective.

          The more ethical choice would have been to have stop taking the big donor money and to have distanced herself from Biden’s stance, but likely still would have lost by doing that given she was trying to win over the average swing state voter.

          Personally, I think looking forward, that the corporate Dems that are taking money from pro-Israel PACs should be told they can either keeping taking those donations and be primaried, or they can stop and they will have the support of the voters. Ideally we want progressives but convincing the the corporate Dems to not put money first does matter.

      • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Enough to have a backbone? To stand on morality? No one made her back genicide. Like the fuck we talking about?

        • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Nothing you said answers the question. What specific actions do you think Harris can take as VP to stop what POTUS is intending to do?

          • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            It doesn’t matter. Even more so the less power she had to change the situation. All she had to do while vp was say was I don’t support, agreed with, nor play a part in the genicide happening in Palestine. She could have said during the campaign that she would stop all weapons going to Isreal and that she’d hand over anyone that helped kill innocent people. She has nothing to lose. Her silence proved she wasn’t ready to be president. If she can’t stand up to special interest groups with no real skin in the game, do you think she’ll magically gain morality once in power? And additionally, what a dumb political move that is ultimately! Not a single vote was gained by backing Isreal, because Republicans were going to back them anyways. Pro genicide people aren’t going to vote Democrat, full stop. She was more afraid of losing money rather than the election.