politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah. And they're going to continue to be, unfortunately. No pro-Palestinian person is capable of being elected president.
If Harris were willing to be a 1-term president, she could try to force a policy change after she was elected, but even so she'd be constantly fighting congress, who would probably just override whatever veto she threatened. Congress is bought and paid for (with very few exceptions).
It's a little older, but Pew did a fairly comprehensive survey back in March, and public opinion in the US still favored Israel. So Harris would have to buck not only majority public opinion, but it she did it now, she'd give Trump an enormously effective weapon to attack her with, something the Trump campaign is still struggling to find.
I honestly don't know what a practical answer is. Even if she privately disapproves of Israel's actions, I don't think she has any alternative of she wants to stand a chance at being elected.
One thing Harris can do without consulting congress is supporting full Palestinian membership at the UN.
She just has to instruct the state department to instruct the US ambassador to the UN to vote for Palestinian membership. Palestine would be an international recognized state within a week.
It would be the first substantial progress on the Israel-Palestine situation since 1967.
She can do this while continuing to provide military support for Israel. But it would increase legal and diplomatic pressure on Israel.
Perhaps more importantly, it would send a message to Israel: We are willing to depart from the status quo. Don’t take our protection for granted.
This would be great. She needs these voters and her current approach of calling the people asking for an end to the genocide of the Palestinian people Trump supporters has and will continue to backfire. I think we could all agree that the Walz pickup seemed like a step in the right direction, but her rhetoric has signaled more of the same. There is some argument saying that this is triangulating around AIPAC, but she also needs to recognize that neither AIPAC or Israel want her to win this election, so you don't gain an ally by capitulating to them or their rhetoric,
I think if she did what you suggest, she would stoke their ire, but honestly, I don't think they have the influence they're claimed to. If Democrats had actually stood behind the incumbent squad during those primaries, they would have won. The problem was that D's were all too eager to throw them under the bus. If they had, they would have shown AIPACs weakness in the ability for money to control outcomes, which itself is extremely valuable. Harris needs to be setting up for a wave election and that makes the influence of AIPAC relatively moot. I think she should do what you suggest.
I didn't know that. It'd still cost her AIPAC support, which could be devastating in the next election, but that would be fantastic of she could pull it off and stay in the running.
I also struggle to see what she can do. She cannot break with the current administration on foreign policy, given that she is the VP. Simply put, we don’t really know her position, and she can’t reveal it either. Dissatisfying? Sure. Understandable? Definitely.
I have no doubt she'll continue current policy. Honestly, it's not a conspiracy theory to claim Israel has a tight grip on American politics, in a number of ways, and has had for decades. Even if you discount the vast sums of money they contribute to political campaigns at all levels, and the voting blocks they control, they've been our strongest - and only really constant - regional ally in the Middle East. And there's that public sentiment to consider.
It's an uphill battle, and you're right that at the moment she's shielded by her position; however, I doubt she'll shift position is elected. She's shown no sympathy for Palestinians, has shut down protesters, and is still talking the support-Israel even as they commit gross war atrocities.
But regardless of her personal feelings, which we can't know, I think she's going to toe the line Israel draws for her. Like any US President.
This is such a weird assumption. Americans support a ceasefire. Why do we think Kamala will lose the election if she says "Weapon transfers will stop until a ceasefire is reached"? She will instantly gain the rabid support of progressives who will fight tooth and nail to get her elected.
Did you just skip over the Pew study?
For that rabid support, she'll lose far more support from pro-Israel PACs, and pro-Israel communities. These losses would far outweigh the gains she'd get from progressives, none of whom are going to vote for Trump anyway. Trump's even more pro-Israel than Kamala; a pro-Palestine voter would have to be a utter moron to not recognize that Kamala is a better option for Palestinians than Trump. She may keep sending Israel money, but at least she's not actively telling Israel to go ahead and start building gas chambers.
Which one? I see one study saying only 13% of dems have any confidence in Bibi.
To be clear. I'm not suggesting Biden should turn on Israel, he won't. I'm suggesting he threaten to cut support to Israel unless Bibi stops doing a genocide. If you can find me a study that says most americans don't support a ceasefire then maybe I'll change my position.
Yeah, fair. There are a lot of data points in there, and it really depends on how you squint at the results.
Maybe you're right about public opinion. I do still believe that if the AIPAC decided to, say, throw their weight behind Trump, and withdraw contributions to Democrats who sided with cutting support, that it would be a huge advantage to the GOP. They've spread something like $24M in this 24 election cycle, alone; they have an outsized influence on local elections, backing pro-Israel candidates in primaries. With such a tight race, that's a dangerous gamble.
But perhaps I'm overestimating their influence. I know the Jewish community in the US is more divided on Israel's invasion than they usually have been. Still, this election is the most important in my long lifetime, and I'm being quite risk adverse.