Green Party’s goal is to make Kamala lose

[rodoheel]

I feel the need to stand up as the board’s resident leftist. I’ll just leave the argument here because I’ve had it several times. If liberals directed as much ire at the Democratic Party’s support of a genocide as they direct at a small subset of leftists, then it’s likely this wouldn’t be an election issue to begin with.

I'll bite on this one, as someone who considers himself roughly poised between a "liberal" and a "leftist." The Democratic Party does not "support a genocide." Liberals, by and large, do not "support a genocide." Many liberals, as well as the current Democratic administration, have been critical of Israel's government. Netanyahu is a right-wing thug is not popular at all among liberals, even Jewish liberals. The administration has attempted to use its political power and influence to change and moderate Israel's conduct, though I know it has not done so nearly strongly or publicly enough for pro-Palestinian leftists. But the administration is walking a fine line because it must also keep in mind, in an election year, the large number of "liberals" (and persuadable moderates) who either support Israel or are conflicted about whose side to take in the never-ending Middle Eastern debacle. The administration also has to consider that complete withdrawal of weapons and aid to Israel would strengthen and embolden Iran and its proxies in the Middle East. And whatever anyone thinks about Israel's callous campaign of death and destruction directed at Palestine and now Lebanon, no one (at least no one reasonable) thinks Iran is the "good guys" or is anything but a bitter geopolitical enemy of the US.

So what leftists should realize and acknowledge about Gaza and Israel is that even if you think the situation is morally simple and straightforward that it is nothing close to politically straightforward and simple. But instead, not only do leftists not acknowledge that the situation is politically complicated, they castigate the entire Democratic Party as "supporting a genocide," despite any reasonable person recognizing that this is unfairly reductive at best and outright deceptive at worst. It is simply naive and unrealistic to think that, in an election year, with so much at stake, Democrats should torpedo their electoral prospects simply to take the moral high ground on the Israel/Palestine issue. That is the continuous problem with leftists: they would rather be right than win. If your goal is to win the moral argument, by all means continue to accuse the Democratic Party of "supporting genocide," something that helps push leftist voters away. But if your goal is to save as many innocent Palestinians and Lebanese as possible, then we need to focus for now on supporting the only presidential candidate and party who have shown the remotest willingness to care about Palestinians and push back against Israel, rather than the party who will gleefully stand aside as Israel nukes Gaza to the ground then builds a shopping mall on the ruins. The attempts to move the party and electorate leftwards on the issue can come after that.

 

[StrangePackage]

stein herself, sure.

but how TF did the green party become hostage to this absolute nonsense? are there no adults in the room over there? wtf?

They have no money. No donors, no party apparatus.

Putin is paying to keep the lights on, so he gets to pick the candidate.

 

[StrangePackage]

Is the solution to the Israel problem to elect more progressive upstarts like Fetterman?

The solution to the Israel problem is to have two reasonable parties sit down and agree to difficult concessions on both ends to attain a lasting, workable peace.

In other words it's completely out of American hands, and suggesting that the Biden Administration is to blame for what the Israeli government chooses to do is asinine.

 

[mynameisbond]

They’re doing it with weapons that we give to them.

Members of Biden’s White House are going against DoD, DoS, and CIA recommendations in order to encourage Israel to attack Lebanon.

Saying that there is nothing the Biden admin. can do to stop this is what’s asinine. They should’ve cut off certain offensive weapons months ago if they were serious about a ceasefire. The U.K. recently did so.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/us-israel-military-hezbollah-00181797

It’s hard to attempt a “two state solution” when one of the parties is a nation created by displacing the native population and the other is a state sponsored terrorist organization.

 

[rodoheel]

It’s not about moral high ground for me. I think Harris continuing Biden’s stance is actively hurting her electoral chances. I shouldn’t have said the Democratic Party is responsible for a genocide, because it’s really just the Biden administration.

Biden has had a year now to use leverage to stop Israel’s actions by cutting off offensive weapons to them under international and U.S. law. It’s not leaving them defenseless to take away the 2,000 lb bombs they drop on Gaza.

Biden is out to lunch on this issue. Why is Brett McGurk running our foreign policy? Why is he able to make decisions overriding DoD and the State Department? And by the way, getting rid of Netanyahu isn’t going to magically solve these issues.

It’s gaslighting to say we can’t do anything about this in an election year when the administration has had four years to work on this. Clearly it wasn’t a priority for them. Nor was diplomatic engagement with Iran. Why not try to reenter into the nuclear deal?

All Harris has to do is make it clear that her administration will follow international law. Something the Biden admin is not currently doing. There is no evidence that her saying this will “torpedo” her election prospects. Nowhere have I advocated for Harris coming out in favor of a complete withdrawal of weapons and aid to Israel.

I have zero problems with specific, nuanced critiques of what choices the Biden admin has made or not made with respect to Israel. I, too, would prefer that we not send Israel any more offensive weapons. I would prefer that we come out more strongly against Israel when it demonstrably oversteps. But I generally don't hear leftists saying those sorts of things in measured, reasonable tones. Instead, it all gets boiled down to a flat moral right/wrong statement like "The administration is supporting genocide." It gets boiled down to protestors yelling at Kamala rallies that she's a murderer and war criminal. I don't think that's entirely fair, and more importantly I think framing critiques in those sorts of terms is what makes leftists (especially young leftists) stay away from the polls altogether, or throw their vote away on Jill freaking Stein. It makes it easier for voters - especially young voters - to reach the simplistic conclusion that "both parties are evil" and it therefore doesn't matter which one you vote for, because Dems are just as bad as Republicans. When in reality, even if you think Dems are just as bad as Republicans on Palestine (which I think is not the case, but fine) they are most assuredly not just as bad on a whole host of other important domestic and foreign policy issues.

 

[rodoheel]

Fair enough. I agree with most of what you’ve said in this post. I tend to give leftist college protestors the benefit of the doubt, which I guess is a bias of mine. I know that, generally, if they care enough to protest on this issue, then they know the history. College protestors, unlike me, are making a moral stand. They aren’t protesting as an electoral tactic.

I wouldn’t ever talk about Biden perpetuating a genocide to a group of voters I’m trying to persuade to vote for Dems. I don’t think that’s what this forum is. I don’t think it’s fair to say Kamala is a murderer or a war criminal either, that’s a pretty extreme example of what protestors chant.

Even then, my point about her breaking with Biden in an nuanced way stands. I think the protestors are smarter than people give them credit for, and they would recognize a nuanced shift in position.

She loses credibility every time she repeats the lie that they’re doing everything they can to get a ceasefire, though.

All fair. Good discussion.

 

[Caribou]

Those insane left folks aren't and never will be winnable

They only want to complain and really don't care about outcomes

Describes the far left, hyper online, Chapo podcast listening types to a T

 

[Zoo_View]

Agreed. That’s why a two state solution is a pipe dream at this point, perhaps it always was. At least as long as one state was an ethnostate. The solution is a one free state where everyone, Jew, Palestinian, whatever, has equal rights.

That’s never happening.

 

[mynameisbond]

Agreed. That’s why a two state solution is a pipe dream at this point, perhaps it always was. At least as long as one state was an ethnostate. The solution is a one free state where everyone, Jew, Palestinian, whatever, has equal rights.

I don’t see that ever happening tho

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I don’t see that ever happening tho

It happened to South Africa. It actually happened all over the world when different colonies reverted back to the natives with varying degrees of violence and varying degrees of success. Israel is really fighting against the tides of history at this point.

 

[finesse]

It happened to South Africa. It actually happened all over the world when different colonies reverted back to the natives with varying degrees of violence and varying degrees of success. Israel is really fighting against the tides of history at this point.

Your comparison is highly flawed starting with the disparity in arms, the difference in public opinion and that Gaza was not and is not a colony.

I see no point in going into any detail with you.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Your comparison is highly flawed starting with the disparity in arms, the difference in public opinion and that Gaza was not and is not a colony.

I see no point in going into any detail with you.

Every colonial power had a massive disparity in arms over their colonists. Public opinion changes and it's not heading in the Israelis favor. And It can certainly be debated if Gaza is a colony ,but Gaza sure seems to have some aspects of a lot of other colonies.

 

[finesse]

A leadership dedicated to the best interests of the people not included.

 

[finesse]

Remind me what happened to the PLO?

Relevance?

 

[finesse]

The distinctions I'm seeing are not the philosophical one but the pragmatic differences. Bottom line, nobody with any real power actually stands behind the Palestinians. A hell of a lot of them were forced to stay in the first place to create an embarrassment for Israel. They've been the redheaded stepchild to the rest or the world since.

Wake me up when any new country or multinational company enacts an embargo on Israel.

I doubt if you want us to sever our ties with Israel any more than I do. Otoh, I'm old enough to look at the NY Times poll posted this morning on the Political Poll thread, see that this situation is bottom on the list in the average American's concern, drawing less than 1% or peoples concern, and understand that it's going to take a long time for that to happen. It's damned sure not happening this close to an election. That's called realpolitik.

 

[KishiKaisei]

She’s been a Russian asset for a long time.

 

[finesse]

You just need to figure that this situation is about 3 decades behind the point SA was before apartheid ended. I think you're right that it's time and past time but there are a lot more hidden currents, especially in the West, than there were concerning SA.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

A leadership dedicated to the best interests of the people not included.

I think you're forgetting the leadership of a lot of post-colonial countries. For The citizens of plenty of those countries, it wasn't all hunky-dory once they kicked the occupiers out. It could be really good for the people that ended up on top though.

 

[Centerpiece]

Do you think any other nation or president, etc. can effect real change in that region? The battle lines and animosity were drawn decades ago, even centuries ago. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, O'Bama, Trump, Biden, Harris - they can all send money/weapons - or NOT send any money or weapons - to either side. The divisions and animosity will continue in that region. IMHO, to hold VP Harris as some how "responsible" for that fire drill over there is disingenuous at best if not literally laughable. Carter came the closest to creating "some" real change at Camp David in the 1970's.

Also, what exactly is the motivation behind the woman in the video/Stein/Green Party to sabotage Harris? Why would they want trump in the oval office? Specifics please - anybody?

 

[Centerpiece]

I do think that the president of the most powerful country to ever exist can affect change in the region. It starts with cutting off offensive weapons to Israel as long as they are using them to violate international and U.S. law. You can’t do anything else without starting there.

Got it. But as VP, can Harris do anything like that unilaterally? Did trump do that? No, he is Netanyayu's (sp? - sic) lapdog as much as he his Putin's. So given that, why would GP want trump instead of Harris? That is my main question. Yes, stop sending "offensive" weapons, I get that. But would trump do that? No.

Also, the GP is for: Ecology; Social Justice (demand a living wage and a real safety net.); and Democracy... Harris checks all 3 of those boxes. trumpy? Not so much.

No, I'm sorry Stein and the GP are way off base here in calling for trump over Harris... and it's not even close and really, no debate in which candidate will be better for the U.S. and the World.