Since when did Israel NOT be an ally? Like it or not, its FACT. Neither of us know how to solve that region. Do I think a genocide is occurring? Yes. Again, when it mattered: who did you think would have better addressed the situation? Decisions were made. Elections matter. Here we are.
Since when does "being an ally" have anything to do with whether or not you choose to fund a genocide? I think a good first step would be to not arm a country engaged in the systematic murder of innocents and children, but that's my red line. There were 12 candidates on the general ballot.
Israel is an ally of the US. At war. It's been tit for tat in that region longer than I've been alive. How that war is conducted can be influenced. The country was given a choice as to who might do that. 12. Get real, only 2 mattered. Anyway, decisions were made. Elections have consequences.
Ah, I see now. It's OK to for the US to fund an "ally" (who was already engaged in a decades-long system of oppression) to engage in genocide, because history is complicated. Yes, it was influenced by us sending weapons and money to Israel to conduct this genocide. Oh, you're a Pick Me liberal.
You're right about one thing: elections have consequences. It would have been nice if Harris had listened to the concerns of her "base," instead of running to count center-right votes. Instead, she lost, and even if every third party voter in a swing state voted for her, she still would have lost.
This phony liberal blame game is tedious and tiresome. Y'all lost two slam dunk elections against the worst candidate in American history. No candidate is owed a vote, and if you can't see how your blind allegiance to a false binary is what got us here, I don't know what else to tell you.
A man is drinking heavily at a bar. His friend gets him drink after drink. The drunk friend gets up to leave and asks for his keys. Friend hands them over. He crashes into a minivan killing a family. When asked about it his friend replies "of course I gave him alcohol and his keys, I'm his friend!"
If your ally is committing genocide you have a duty to stop them. More, because they're using your weapons and you have more leverage over them than third parties.
Ok, so in this case, the country was asked to pick which friend to go drinking with. They're all drunk, nobody volunteered to do the right thing & be designated driver. One gives keys. The other, has enough wherewithal left to call cabs for everyone. Who should the country have picked?
This wasn't an analogy for the election, I was illustrating why "they're an ally" is a bad defense for supporting them in committing genocide.
Nobody will disagree with that. But that's not what the reality is now is it? There was in fact a choice. Nobody was perfect (all irresponsibly drunk), but one thought, "hey we can't drive, let's call cabs". People looked for "perfect" based on their definition. Ended with the keys guy.
Many people are disagreeing with that! Everyone who says "of course we supply them they're an ally" is disagreeing with that!
Facts aren't "disagreeing". In your analogy, they're all friends. They all chose to drink. Nobody did the right thing (to volunteer designated driver). Nobody is a "saint". One just had "enough" awareness to call cabs.
She promised to do nothing different from Biden. She promised she would never place restrictions on weapon transfers even as the whole world watched children being burned alive in front of cameras. In an improvised hospital bed in a tent, with the IV visible against the flames.
Harris promising that she would not limit arms to Israel or do anything different from Biden is the exact opposite of calling cabs in this analogy. She promised that there were no circumstances where she would withhold those keys.
Nope. Back to the analogy: Yes, she's also drunk. Didn't volunteer to be designated driver. Not a saint. But, there's a cab there.
She literally promised to keep doing everything Biden had done. Statements about "too many deaths" mean absolutely nothing without a way to achieve that, and the *only* way to achieve that is the way she explicitly ruled out.
I guess we'll never know. But you were looking for the cab. It's right there. And ABSOLUTELY FALSE about your analysis of "the only way". It's called a CEASEFIRE. That doesn't stop the US from arming its ally, nor reverse anything in the 1st sentence
One of the many frustrating things about this old argument is that so many of the people who are angry at Biden and Harris were legitimately excited when he stepped down from the campaign, because they thought there was a chance she could be moved on this. It was her campaign that disabused them!
You can argue that it was a cynical and poorly thought out lie and she actually would've reversed course but that is entirely speculation bordering on fan fiction. People need to hold the politicians who made these catastrophic decisions accountable or *this will happen again*
