784
Harris vows at Michigan rally to ‘do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
784 points (99.2% liked)
politics
22730 readers
3435 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All the one-issue voters: uhh... what now?
Well, now Democrats will start coming up with excuses for why conditioning or ceasing arms sales to Netanyahu isn't within her power.
EDIT: I already voted for Harris.
It is within the President's power to use executive authority to halt the military financing to Israel.
(While this could maybebe overruled by congress, it would be a huge blow to Israel in the interim)
So in May the (majority Republican) House passed H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act:
This bill attempts to force the completion of arms sales to Israel. This basically amounts to the legislative branch meddling directly with how the executive branch conducts foreign policy and defense policy, which the White House objected to (completely correctly). Biden threatened to veto the act if it were sent to him. The bill was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar on May 21, 2024, and has not been voted on. It will probably not go anywhere at this point.
The executive branch has already been actively delaying some military equipment transfers to Israel, that's why the House pushed this act.
Thankfully it costs nothing to not send weapons.
This is essentially the crux of the issue. Congress can designate funds in the budget for aid to Israel and they can specify what the funds are for (military equipment, humanitarian aid, loans, etc), but they don't have the authority to perform the actual transfer of the funds (or material paid for by the funds) to Israel, that falls under the authority of the executive branch. Congress can provide the money but they can't actually force the spending of the money.
Praise be to the system of checks and balances.
I don't know why you're getting downvotes, I think you've got it right.
people are panicing because harris might lose and acting like morons towards anyone who doesn't unequivocally support her atm. add to that many people don't understand how the system works on top of it. 🤷 its no matter internet points are useless to me anyway. =)
So if the Dems wanted to repeal this bill, they would need to control the house, correct?
Nah, the bill was never passed in the senate so it isn't law at all. Just unenforceable posturing.
If Democrats controlled the House the bill would likely not have passed there in the first place.
In any case it doesn't matter because the Senate will probably never vote on it, and even if they did and it passed Biden would veto it.
It's also important to understand that this bill would not add any new arms transfers to Israel, but only compel the completion of existing transfers which the executive branch had chosen to withhold.
Ultimately, the point is that Congress does not have the authority to force the transfer of US military equipment to a foreign power. The disposition of military equipment is the purview of the Department of Defense, and trade with other national governments is the purview of the Department of Foreign Affairs, both of which report to the President.
It is, yes. But Democrats are fucking outstanding at inventing bureaucratic hurdles to stand in the way of things they ran on but don't want to do.
Is this the new "I condemn hamas" disclaimer everyone is required to have in their comments in order to criticize the democratic party?
Two days before the election with no substance?
With no time for AIPAC to completely rat fuck the election and get Trump elected. Give her some time to help prevent the destruction of democracy and if she doesn't move on the issue then she'll reap what she sows.
This was my thought as well. I get the feeling she's been fairly quiet on the subject until now due to the power AIPAC has in our politics. If she spoke out this whole time, I'm sure they would have thrown all their financial and political power against her.
I hope we're right.
Me too. Although even once Harris takes office, AIPAC would still have a lot of power and influence. But I'm choosing to remain optimistically hopeful here.
All we need to do is freaking STOP standing in the way of the UN. How many times has the US vetoed the UN in attempts to assuage the horrors being visited on these Gazan people.
yawn thats magical thinking. If that was the case she'd have committed to enforcing America's laws on not arming genocidal forces if she was serious about. All she did was trot out some tokens and say the same thing she's said the entire campaign.
As someone who is frequently called a single issue voter over a number of different issues:
Ummm what? Her statement was insultingly empty (the entire article is air) and the title contradicts what she's been saying for 6 months. I'm not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn
Do they have billboards saying "reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity"?
They should. The overwhelming majority of Biden voters voted against Trump more than for Biden and I'd bet the farm that, while probably to a significantly lesser degree, Harris is going to win in the same way.
The Dem leadership hasn't updated the pillars of their electoral and policymaking strategy since 1992 and it really shows.
Even when Harris or Walz say something truly based that gets the Left hopeful for real change in the right direction (which has happened a few times), some apparatchik always takes pains to point out that it's "not part of the platform" 😮💨
Press releases walking back good things she said was kind of the hallmark of her primary campaign in 2020 too.
Easy, they refuse to believe her.
After all, if she didn't sow discord by pointlessly undermining the president while an essentially powerless Vice President, she must love genociding brown people even more than Trump does somehow.
I mean like, I would believe her if she rolled out a plan for how the US is going to stop funding Israel? Or a plan for holding the Israeli military accountable? Or maybe I would believe her if she didn't hold a press conference last week gaslighting us that Israel has to right to defend itself?
I agree. I'm just hoping they've made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn't intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.
It's her or Trump, and there's zero chance Trump will make things better, so anyone who cares about Gaza and has a realistic outlook on the situation should support Harris.
Progressives should start working on a primary challenge the moment the polls close. Democrats should never have the opportunity to claim a mandate on this issue.
Maybe. I'd prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she's going to be. We're forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we're seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more "gettable" moderates and conservatives instead
If she shows some progressive bona fides, she'll have no problem. Without the threat of a progressive challenger, I'm afraid we'll get 4 years of centrists screaming that she's the most progressive president since FDR and expecting everyone to buy it, like they did with Biden. And that's at best. At worst, they'll gleefully announce that moving to the right works, double down on Gaza, and THEN announce that she's the most progressive president since FDR.
As though they have ever tried.
EDIT: Responding to your edit:
Democrats do that in response to the sun rising in the morning.
She had no problem disagreeing with him when he called Republican voters garbage. She had no problem differing from him when she promised to put a Republican in her cabinet.
It's funny how she can move to his right as much as she wants, but never to his left.
Biden calling Trump voters garbage was a gaffe. His own office walked it back. It's way easier to depart from the president on a throwaway line than on a year-long policy that an all-too-large and ignorant chunk of the population still supports.
I'm not satisfied with her public position on Gaza so far, either. But, since the notion that Trump will make anything better is ridiculous, the only plausible course is to get her in office and then pressure the shit out of her.
And in case anyone's thinking it, the idea that Jill Stein successfully spoiling into a Trump victory somehow means he'll take her foreign policy advice is magical thinking.
I forgot that I need to append "I already voted for Harris" to anything that isn't fawning worship, or Democrats' sanctimonious lecture reflex kicks in.
Problem is it's not believable you voted for Harris after doing nothing but speaking out against her for months now. Guessing you voted for trump just based on your words on lemmy
This is exactly why this discussion is insufferable. You have literally been told how this person voted but you are so convinced by your own bullshit (ie that anyone mad about US support for genocide must, for some god damn reason, support Trump) that you don't even believe it.
I cannot wait for the 6th so that we can have this conversation without it getting sidetracked by overly loyal democrats condescendingly explaining how first past the post works as if we don't know already.
Restoring comment after the content that earned the removal was itself removed.
Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo....
This seems about the same
Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won't look so much like pandering
Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners ("detainees") in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it's highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn't want to move any of them to the US, because they didn't want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???
The president isn't supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we've allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.
He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It's one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.
Who can blame the president for ruling over a hidden torture camp full of innocent people? It's out of their hands. That's just how USA works. \s
Uh, yeah, it literally was. Unless you're saying that you want the president to be able to do whatever they want, even when a majority of congress and courts say no.
This might give you some better idea of what happened.
That might all be true but it only really illustrates my point - this too isn't deliverable. But lying can buy some votes
It's not lying under any conventional definition of lying though. Saying something is a lie usually indicates deceptive intent, along with a knowledge--or a reasonable belief--that something you're saying isn't accurate. If I believe that the earth is flat, and I say so, am I lying? Or am I just wrong?
Biden said that he would cancel student loans; he's done everything in his legal authority, and a few things that weren't, to try an cancel them out. Do you think that the fact that SCOTUS prevented him from doing so makes it a lie? Or was he unable to follow through due to factors that he couldn't directly control?
For fuck sake... HE TRIED
It's hilarious how libs think this is any different from what genocide joe has been saying for the past year.
Yeah, Trump would send flowers, right?
Nothing? This is nothing new from her. Its no commitment..its vaguely worded trash.