Harris calls for ceasefire in Gaza, two state solution

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

Just now, MessyTop said:

oh my god  daddy

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

3 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

LMAO!!!!! That's it, I'm emigrating

[Guest]

After the last hours in which she completely transformed the election for a dream start I have nothing but trust that she picks the right person for this campaign as vp

[StarstruckIllusion 53,777]

50 minutes ago, LateToCult said:

Wonder if this is a sign she’s chosen Shapiro to be her running mate. However middle of the road this statement is, it’s as pro-Gaza as you’re ever gonna get from a politician running to be president. Having Shapiro on board could possibly free her up to be this bold.  

Even outside of Gaza, he’s bad on public education, teachers unions, and his office had an SA scandal… https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/05/josh-shapiro-mike-vereb-00120223

I really think any mid western Dem will lock up PA tbh…

[PartySick 174,922]

1 minute ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I definitely get the logic that picking a popular Dem from a swing state might secure *that state* but I don’t think that’s the only factor worth considering.

Off topic but something Harris's campaign has done that I'm a huge fan of is narrowing their focus. They're quite literally shooting for 270 on the dot where as in 2016, Clinton's campaign was going for states like Missouri and Texas while ignoring states she should have won easily. Biden's campaign did some tightening in 2020 but had the same problem. Even Biden's 2024 campaign was spread thinner and going for states he lost in 2020 (like Florida and North Carolina) but feasibly could have won then and now.

The Harris campaign said "nah" and have decided to put everything they can into retaining the key states they need to win. With Biden's massive war chest, the crap load of money she's made since then, and the three-fold foolery of the Trump campaign both gunning for states they'd never win (Minnesota, Virginia, New Jersey), not being prepared at all for Kamala replacing Joe, and picking freaking Vance as the running mate, it's feasible that the VP pick could quite literally come down to wanting to retain a certain state.

Pennsylvania is probably the most important state for either campaign to win, so Shapiro would be her bet from that angle. He's incredibly popular there.

There's also three things to consider with that pick:

1) Like @LateToCult said, having a Jew as her running mate does shield her massively from allegations of antisemitism and gives her a little more freedom to speak openly about Gaza, as she clearly wants to do. That's just the nature of identity politics.

2) She could also pull on the leash a bit to make him temper his nonsense and adopt a "yes, we stand with Israel, but all this death is wrong and senseless" tone. He needs to be educated, not demonized.

3) I have to keep reiterating that the Gaza issue is not one Americans feel strongly about. Even young voters list a dozen domestic policy issues above it, very few consider being pro-Israel (but against the war crimes) to be a deal breaker. Shapiro's condemnation of Palestine protests would likely not lose her many votes at all. She does stand to lose support by not being supportive enough of Israel though. That's just the nature of the American electorate.

[PartySick 174,922]

1 minute ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Even outside of Gaza, he’s bad on public education, teachers unions, and his office had an SA scandal… https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/05/josh-shapiro-mike-vereb-00120223

I really think any mid western Dem will lock up PA tbh…

I'm officially on team Kelly myself. Astronauts are hot, not sorry

[allanrocks 211]

2 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

 

It’s so outrageous how some people think Kamala and Trump are on the same level when they clearly are not. 

[LateToCult 42,254]

29 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I don’t necessarily like the optics of her using a Jewish pol as a human shield against accusations of antisemitism and I can’t help but feel like having an ideological divide that wide on the same ticket might not be good from a governing POV. We’ll see tho. 

Oh I think it’s slimy but I wouldn’t put it past them. Just look at the last three presidents. All picked VPs that acted as a shield to some degree (except for Trump’s current VP pick). I agree with you though. Two different ideologies on the same ticket could get messy, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

28 minutes ago, MessyTop said:

what list are you talking about? He’s on top on every poll. 

Um , I wouldn’t dismiss Pete that fast, Pete is the only one ever to win a Primary plus he’s the only Democrat on the daily in Fox News trying to reach to republicans.

Pete Buttigieg Favorite to Become Kamala Harris' Running Mate
https://www.newsweek.com/pete-buttigieg-kamala-harris-running-mate-odds-presidenital-election-192825

I wouldn’t put too much stock into these kinds of polls. For starters, the margin of error is pretty large. Second, he has the most name recognition among all of those. Naturally, he’s going to be near the top.

Kamala is in a tricky situation. She’s a woman of color that had to bypass the primary elections because of Joe’s late drop out. It’s gonna be very hard for Pete to be her pick. Identity politics aside, he also hasn’t won a state-wide general election in his career. Beshear, Cooper, Shapiro, Whitmer, and Kelly have all proven that they can get people to vote for them in red and competitive states. It’s an uphill battle for him. Never say never but I don’t like his odds.

[FATCAT 60,984]

3 hours ago, Emvee said:

I’m all for pressuring Kamala Harris on this issue… after she wins the election. 

And honestly? She had the closest voting record to Bernie of any other Senator when she was in the Senate. I'm willing to bet she's further left on this issue than she can publicly be. Israel is still an important ally in the region, and she probably sees first-hand how important some of their intel is to keeping Americans safe. It's a tightrope.

[Borisapillar 10,167]

2 hours ago, LateToCult said:

Pete is probably near the bottom of the list.

 

Reporting for homophobia 

[Franch Toast 27,776]

2 hours ago, PartySick said:

I'm officially on team Kelly myself. Astronauts are hot, not sorry

Plus he's an identical twin. That would be so much fun for the secret service 

[Didymus 34,380]

lol

Netanyahu does not WANT a ceasefire. This is just empty babbling meant to somehow paint her as sensible person. And this is after tens of thousands of civilians have died and we have had proof upon proof that Israel is deliberately targeting them? That this is a genocide? And she is still repeating the same ol self-defense story we have had to swallow for months now?

Another useless Democrat. It shocks me how many people are willing to hypnotize themselves into the delusion that she has good intentions. The Obama effect is back. She will soon too be droning people and hospitals to rubble and people will excuse her because surely she is not a bad person. ****ing pathetic. This is why some people would prefer Trump to be president, because people will not lose their vigilance, sit back and let a supposedly good person ruin lives. I prefer Kamala to win but the vigilance and protesting must increase, not decrease. She has to prove herself and this is not good enough.

[Didymus 34,380]

4 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Israel is claiming that what they are doing is in response to 10/7, she clearly distinguishes that that excuse is impermissible. What else do you want her to say? 

That what Israel is doing is illegal? That the US is violating its own laws by continuing to provide Israel with weapons? That Israel is conducting a genocide? That Israel is an apartheid state? That Israel must be forced to commit to a ceasefire and a two-state solution? She has said none of those things, ever, even though they are the most logical things anyone could say.

You say "impermissible" but we've heard this Kamala speak for months now. It literally means nothing. When Kamala was asked if Israel could legitimately bomb a refugee camp, she refused to answer and, after going on an off-topic "every civilian death is horrible" tangent, simply said "we are not telling Israel how to conduct its war".

Kamala, on this issue, is just as much a fraud as her Democrat predecessors. She was hosted by AIPAC for god's sake. She is a pawn. The protesting must continue.

[PartySick 174,922]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That what Israel is doing is illegal? That the US is violating its own laws by continuing to provide Israel with weapons? That Israel is conducting a genocide? That Israel is an apartheid state? That Israel must be forced to commit to a ceasefire and a two-state solution? She has said none of those things, ever, even though they are the most logical things anyone could say.

You say "impermissible" but we've heard this Kamala speak for months now. It literally means nothing. When Kamala was asked if Israel could legitimately bomb a refugee camp, she refused to answer and, after going on an off-topic "every civilian death is horrible" tangent, simply said "we are not telling Israel how to conduct its war".

Kamala, on this issue, is just as much a fraud as her Democrat predecessors. She was hosted by AIPAC for god's sake. She is a pawn. The protesting must continue.

She literally told the dude to his face that the deaths he's caused are inexcusable and the only path forward is a ceasefire. It's worth taking the gamble that her moving farther and farther into decrying Netanyahu's killing spree will translate into policy and ever increasing pressure on Israel to stop what they're doing before they cause irreparable harm to their alliance with the States.

Especially when the only other possibile outcome is for the office to go to the guy that wants to literally nuke the place.

Calling her a fraud does nothing but make the people who care about this issue unmotivated, making them feel as though voting isn't important in this election, and making it all the more likely that Trump wins.

Palestinians will not care about leftists' purity tests when nukes are obliterating the entire Gaza Strip and Israel has the US' enthusiastic blessing to annex it and the West Bank, or when the two countries go to war with Iran, which Trump recently said should "be wiped off the face of the Earth".

A marginal improvement is always better than a total regression and failure.

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,373]

24 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That what Israel is doing is illegal? That the US is violating its own laws by continuing to provide Israel with weapons? That Israel is conducting a genocide? That Israel is an apartheid state? That Israel must be forced to commit to a ceasefire and a two-state solution? She has said none of those things, ever, even though they are the most logical things anyone could say.

You say "impermissible" but we've heard this Kamala speak for months now. It literally means nothing. When Kamala was asked if Israel could legitimately bomb a refugee camp, she refused to answer and, after going on an off-topic "every civilian death is horrible" tangent, simply said "we are not telling Israel how to conduct its war".

Kamala, on this issue, is just as much a fraud as her Democrat predecessors. She was hosted by AIPAC for god's sake. She is a pawn. The protesting must continue.

In what world would basically any Vice president or sitting president ever say that? lmao. Like I fundamentally agree with you, but one President alone isn’t going to rewrite 75 years of US foreign policy. Also: I was specifically addressing the *rhetorical* claim that what she had said was contradictory, not whether what she said was addressing the issue to the fullest extent necessary, so I’d appreciate you not unloading as if I was attempting to justify US foreign policy re:Israel. I was simply asking, “Realistically, at this point in time, what do you expect her to say?”