Because I did and they don’t lol. The fact that you can’t point to a specific one is on you.
Say no to authoritarianism, say yes to socialism. Free Palestine 🇵🇸 Everyone deserves Human Rights
Because I did and they don’t lol. The fact that you can’t point to a specific one is on you.
Go ahead and point to a specific policy, because your articles don’t mention any. Feel free to use any of mine, where it’s actually about policy
Understanding why the Harris campaign’s strategy of moving to the right to try to court Republican voters, instead of moving to the left with popular progressive policies, was a demonstrable failure is not an endorsement of Trump.
A trump term is significantly worse. It’s straight up fascism. Which is why it’s so frustrating how terrible Harris’ Campaign was that she depressed voter turnout by like 14 million people. And for what? Instead of galvanizing support from everyone with a progressive platform, her neoliberal platform only accomplished normalizing right-wing disinformation like on immigration.
I did. None of them are about policy
It’s as if the Democrats ran on a neoliberalism platform instead of one with progressive policies. Very obvious to anyone who looked at even a single source of the ones I cited about public support for progressive policies.
That was a rhetorical question. People want progressive policies that improve their lived experience. That goes for the majority of republican voters too.
Do you understand the difference between labels and policy?
Democrats chose to not run on progressive policies that are popular and address the material conditions that affect everyday Americans. Progressive policies that are also popular with Republican voters and would’ve instead fractured the Republican base, bringing more people to get out and vote Democrat across the board.
That’s why I linked a multitude of polls to show what the vast majority of people want…
Republicans call Democrats radical communist marxist stalinist leftists regardless of what policies they run on. Doesn’t matter. Democrats chose to not run on progressive policies that are popular and address the material conditions that affect everyday Americans. Progressive policies that are also popular with Republican voters and would’ve instead fractured the Republican base, bringing more people to get out and vote Democrat across the board.
How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days
“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
We know that Biden’s/Harris’ 2024 Campaign failed to produce enough turnout to win against Fascism. What could they have campaigned on to improve turnout? Universal healthcare is one of the many popular progressive policies, popular for both Democratic and Republican voters, that they could have ran on but decided not to.
How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days
“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
That’s a pretty good summary. I will add that the partition plan was deliberate tactic by Ben-Gurion to set a precedent for the Ethnic Cleansing needed to create the Settler Colonialist Ethnostate within Palestine. The alternative presented by Palestinian Representatives was a Unitary State for both Israelis and Palestinians.
The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.
On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.
Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:
While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements
The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
Hamas proposed a full prisoner swap as early as Oct 8th, and agreed to the US proposed UN Permanent Ceasefire Resolution. Additionally, Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
Cool, I agree with that. Considering the settlements in the West Bank, I don’t think separation is the right way to go about it. I think integration with equal rights, including right of return, and a regime change with a Bi-National secular government is necessary. I agree with Ilan Pappe and Avi Schlaim on a One-State Solution.
I also agree that practically no one in either the Democratic and definitely Republican Administrations care about a genuine peace. It’s all either Financial with the MIC and for some ideological. I think change is only possible with public pressure built with organization and solidarity, both in the US and also other Western Nations.
They certainly have, with the military and international support by the US and other Western Nations. That’s exactly why Israel needs to be pressured by international support to stop and agree to a permanent ceasefire that includes the liberation of Palestine.
I don’t understand your position. Do you support conditional aid or an arms embargo? How should the US pressure Israel to stop the genocide?
Ok? They also use far more than just bullets to kill Palestinian children. I don’t understand how this is an argument against implementing Conditional Military Aid. Nor against continuing to violate US and International Humanitarian Law.
The only argument I see from that is to not only end supply of military weapons, but also intervene to stop the genocide, which I would agree with.
It doesn’t matter if it’s conditional or not, the Genocide will continue as it’s not dependent on our aid.
It absolutely does. We are the main provider of weapons. It would be a major pressure point for them to stop, as well as influence other western nations to do the same. It also matters according to US Law (Leahy Law) and International Humanitarian Law.
They started it in Gaza before our aid even got there.
We’ve been the main provider of military aid for far longer than a year.
That’s the key difference between unconditional military aid and conditional military aid. The weapons are being used for genocide, and we have continually sent those weapons unconditionally for over a year.
The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/
We can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel’s genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.
I feel like you have to understand the circumstances of those affected most by this genocide to understand. It’s easy to be logical and vote Harris as she is the least worse option, but that’s harder to do when directly affected. I consider the blame to be entirely on the Democratic Administration and Harris’ Campaign Strategy. They have had every opportunity to change course, and them deciding not to may very well cost them the election. I will not blame anti-genocide voters, especially those who are directly affected and have lost loved ones.
I’m still voting for Harris, on the basis that change from public pressure is far more unlikely under Trump.
The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/
Here you can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel’s genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.
Harris, instead of breaking from Biden on this issue, has not deviated. She has repeatedly ignored the voices of Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans on this issue. These people are directly affected, they have friends and family in Palestine and Lebanon that have been killed by Israel. She has not only taken their votes for granted, but has offered no concessions and ignored their voices. People are angry at Biden and Harris for this. They desperately want change, but they don’t see that from the Democratic administration.
Despite Trump’s horrendous track record, he has gained in their support solely because of how Harris has campaigned. It’s not logical, but it’s hard to be when directly affected by the actions of the current administration and no prospect for change. Advocating them to vote for the ‘lesser evil’ doesn’t work when the ‘lesser evil’ is directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Trump successfully framed himself as a Dove and Hillary as a warmonger in 2016. He’s using that same tactic now. It would be a completely unsuccessful framing if Harris pivoted to Arms Embargo or Conditional Aid, but that has not happened.
Breaking from Biden would be a major boost in voter output.
Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.
Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.
I agree that the rational and correct choice was still Harris. I voted for Harris and told others to vote too.
If you’re talking about the turnout of the general public, my point is that running on being the ‘lesser evil’ and moving to the right in an attempt to get republican votes is not a successful method to motivate tens of millions of Americans to get out and vote, even if the greater evil is Fascism. Americans are overworked and uneducated. It’s the campaigns responsibility to motivate them to vote by offering them policies that will improve their daily livelihood. It’s ultimately on the campaign to earn those votes. The data is clear that progressive policies are popular with everyone, that includes Republicans and independents on top of Democrats. The decision to take those voters for Granted without offering them enough on the policy front, and instead move to the right, was a calculated decision by the campaign that failed.
Polls on campaign messaging
How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days
“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads
Polls on policy
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
If you’re talking specifically about the turnout of Arab/Muslim voters in swing states, I discussed that here. Harris’ decision to take those votes for granted by refusing to break from Biden was again a calculated decision that did not pay off. All the data showed that if she did break from Biden and call for an Arms Embargo, which is very popular, she would have gotten significant gains.