I disagree. Kamala could have cried ‘from the river to the sea’ or even ‘free Palestine now!’ I really don’t think it would have made those reluctant democrats get off their couches. The apathy goes beyond foreign affairs and you’re overestimating the general populace. Online discussions of geopolitics don’t mirror the real conversations Americans are having. So whire IP is big here, I hardly believe my Mom who is a dem is thinking about it much. Its really the grocery bill.
If they weren’t going to vote for the party focused on brokering a peace deal and instead chose to enable the one that wants to effectively glass all of Palestine, then it wasn’t ever going to be an issue regardless of what K said.
Neither party is interested in brokering a y deal that doesn’t include Israel genociding Palestinians.
Biden could have ended it by ceasing arms transfers, which he is legally required to do, since it was found the arms were to be used to aid a genocide. That’s US law.
We’re all familiar with the Leahy law talking point. I get it. Thank God Biden wasn’t running for president, and Kamala was on the ticket. I see we are still stuck on equating Kamala with Trump in terms of IP policy. This understanding is juvenile and betrays any chance for moving forward into a meaningful conversation. Have a good one.
Harris said she would let Israel keep doing it’s thing, and just talk about it.
That’s essentially “funding the genocide”, no matter how you split it.
And yes, people decided to NOT choose between two pro-genocide candidates. You are, of course, free to ignore that, and act still confused about why she lost support in cities with large Arab populations.
Your paraphrasing and retelling is doing a lot of lifting. While it’s true that her messaging sucks, policy wise it was never a 1:1 with Trump. I’m too tired to argue about it though if you’ve made up your mind about which reality is true already.
I disagree. Kamala could have cried ‘from the river to the sea’ or even ‘free Palestine now!’ I really don’t think it would have made those reluctant democrats get off their couches. The apathy goes beyond foreign affairs and you’re overestimating the general populace. Online discussions of geopolitics don’t mirror the real conversations Americans are having. So whire IP is big here, I hardly believe my Mom who is a dem is thinking about it much. Its really the grocery bill.
It would have convinced a sizeable [Arab] American citizens to vote, rather than stay home to avoid voting for Genocider A or Genocider B.
If they weren’t going to vote for the party focused on brokering a peace deal and instead chose to enable the one that wants to effectively glass all of Palestine, then it wasn’t ever going to be an issue regardless of what K said.
Neither party is interested in brokering a y deal that doesn’t include Israel genociding Palestinians.
Biden could have ended it by ceasing arms transfers, which he is legally required to do, since it was found the arms were to be used to aid a genocide. That’s US law.
We’re all familiar with the Leahy law talking point. I get it. Thank God Biden wasn’t running for president, and Kamala was on the ticket. I see we are still stuck on equating Kamala with Trump in terms of IP policy. This understanding is juvenile and betrays any chance for moving forward into a meaningful conversation. Have a good one.
Harris said she would let Israel keep doing it’s thing, and just talk about it.
That’s essentially “funding the genocide”, no matter how you split it.
And yes, people decided to NOT choose between two pro-genocide candidates. You are, of course, free to ignore that, and act still confused about why she lost support in cities with large Arab populations.
Your paraphrasing and retelling is doing a lot of lifting. While it’s true that her messaging sucks, policy wise it was never a 1:1 with Trump. I’m too tired to argue about it though if you’ve made up your mind about which reality is true already.