2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[dylansan]

Notably not Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris is running for President. If she becomes president, she will have agency. She has expressed no intention on differing from Biden on how she uses that agency.

You mean Biden? You do know that Harris is not the president right?

I'm more upset with the voter who decides not to vote for Harris (not that this question really belongs in reality, it's not something I need to choose between). The reason I'm more upset with that voter is because Harris is not Israel. She is not Netanyahu. She is not in charge of the Israeli military. She is not in charge of congress. She is not (yet) president of the US either. And the voter who blames her for the death of family members at the hands of Israelis is deeply confused about her role.

Your misunderstanding of this question tells me that you fundamentally don't understand these voters.

A Palestinian voter who withholds their vote for Harris is not doing so because they blame her for what's happening in Gaza, or because they confuse her for Biden. They do so because Harris is running for President and has stated her intention to continue Biden's policy, and continue to support Israel, a fact you seem unwilling to believe even when she says it herself.

These people don't want to see more of their family members killed by American bombs, and you can't understand why they wouldn't vote for someone who has expressed on multiple occasions unwavering commitment to Israel, who praises Joe Biden for his "integrity" and "big heart", and who works willingly within an administration arming israel without expressing any regret or interest in a policy change.

The reason for that appears to be an unwillingness to accept the agency or culpability of this administration, despite several facts I've brought up and sourced previously:

• The president does have the authority and ability to halt weapons shipments. Biden has already done so previously.
• Biden used emergency authority to skip congressional review to speed up weapons shipments to Israel. You cannot blame congress for Biden bypassing congress. If he opposed the weapons shipments, he would not be speeding them up, he would be delaying them as much as possible.
• US law prohibits arms support for governments that block life-saving aid or violate international law with US weapons.
• This administration illegally failed to act on 500 reports of US weapons being used by Israel to target civilians. There is photo evidence of US bomb fragments at sites where dozens of children were massacred. The US supplies 66% of Israel's weapons imports.

And an unwillingness to accept Harris' words at face value, when she says

"Let me be very clear: I am unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself."

Or when she expressed "unwavering commitment” to Israel, its right to exist and its security.

It doesn't matter that she says Israel should do more to protect civilians, or that the suffering of Palestinians matters. Those are not policy positions. They are platitudes. They don't represent actions she plans to take. Harris' policy position is unwavering commitment to Israel's defense, i.e. a continuation of the weapons shipments. And notably, Biden and his spokespeople make the same statements while making zero changes in policy or action. There is no reason to expect Harris to be different.

Harris has willingly tied herself to a war-criminal administration, praised its leader, and expressed full support for Israel and zero intention to differ from Biden on policy or action. Zero.* And you expect Palestinian-Americans to vote for her? Because she hasn't made Israel a pillar of her campaign? Because she says it's sad that Palestinians die?

I just. I just can't fathom this kind of thinking. That you would blame a voter for not wanting their family to be killed, rather than blame the candidate who can't even commit to not sending more weapons to the country that's been killing those family members for the past year. How. How can you feel anything but grief for these people who have an impossible choice?



* (Please provide evidence if you're going to disagree with me here. Evidence of a policy position or intended action that would end US complicity, not just talks of a future ceasefire or an expression of the value of Palestinian lives or concern for the humanitarian crisis. No "I hear you." Actual actions she plans to take that would end US complicity in war crimes and genocide.)

I said that philosophically aiding a murderer does not make you culpable inherently, which was a misunderstanding you seemed to be making. I listed what can make you culpable.

Which is bizarre considering I never said anything about inherent culpability of aid, and my example was not about food, but about giving a gun to a serial killer, something that is absolutely a crime if you know they are likely to use it to kill someone.

We should stop arming it. And that won't stop it. I think you over-estimate not just US voter agency in this, but US agency in it. We could probably stop it, but we'd likely have to go to war with Israel to make sure of it. And as much as I don't like what Israel is doing, I'm not to the point where I want to see the US go to war with them.

Stopping arms to Israel may not stop them, but it would A) reduce their ability to kill civilians (again, we supply 66% of their weapons imports), and B) remove our culpability in their actions.

If I don't give a gun to a murderer, it may not prevent them from murdering. But it's still the right thing to do for what I hope are obvious reasons? Unless you make it about food again?

It actually has caused some tension and pause within the democratic party. What makes protesting more effective is that you can send the message you want to send. Abstaining from voting is not clear enough, even when coupled with an email that asks Harris to do something she actually can't do.

Why would any Democrat care about a protest if it doesn't affect the amount of votes they get in an election?

I'm also not abstaining. I voted for a candidate whose policy best aligns with mine. Not a perfect candidate, but of course I never suggested that was a requirement.

I don't even judge Biden as harshly as you judge Harris.

Yes, that's part of the problem...

And Biden had a hell of a lot more to do with it than Harris. But republicans in congress have even more to do with it (and you've already stopped thinking about that haven't you?)

No? Republicans in congress, along with anyone who voted for these weapons shipments, can go to hell. I didn't vote for them either, believe it or not.

But again, Biden both has the ability to halt shipments (and used it once before) and bypassed congress to send weapons faster. So yes, I put a lot of Blame on Biden, the person who did that. And who, again, has not expressed any desire at all to stop sending weapons to Israel.

. She has not made statements of unequivocal support of Israel to the best of my knowledge. You quoted her making a statement (that was not unequivocal support), and left out the context that included the stuff that it's wrong for Israel to be doing.

Dude. I quoted her saying she was unequivocally committed to Israel. How is that not unequivocal support?

After meeting with Netanyahu, she started a speech by saying "I will always ensure that Israel is able to defend itself." She expressed an “unwavering commitment to the existence of the State of Israel, to its security, and to the people of Israel."

And according to CNN:
"Aides and allies who have talked with Harris – from her Senate days up through her being on the line for nearly every conversation Biden has had with Netanyahu – insist that substantively there is little daylight between her and the president."

Please tell me how she plans to ensure that Israel can defend itself if she doesn't plan to send weapons to Israel?

I wouldn't presume to tell them who to vote for, but I don't really see why her spoken support for, and putative future conduct regarding, Israel is of particular note over and above the actual, military support given by her boss and her boss's predecessor.

And theirs. And the dozen before them.

But it appears one Palestinian at least is urging others to do so:

Refaat was right about Ruffalo



He was also right about this:

 

[Famine]

Ruffalo

... isn't the Palestinian in the video, just a name and big account to get you to watch it.

 

[dylansan]

... isn't the Palestinian in the video, just a name and big account to get you to watch it.

I'm not stupid, but thanks. The point is that one Palestinian American who supports Harris really has no bearing on anything, and that it's just as easy to find a Palestinian (this one a beloved Palestinian journalist who Israel murdered in Gaza) who doesn't support Harris.

 

[TB]

Stop the count, amirite?

 

[Pupik]

2024 United States Elections Bingo Card
​

Maricopa County	The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania	Minnesota being blue every year since 1980	Florida's Miami-Dade County (un-hyphenated)	Voters Waiting in Lines, looking impatient
"Traditionally Blue County"	Some precinct resorted to paper ballots?	Footage of a former President whom just finished voting	Nebraska has three Congressional Districts, that's why	Down-ballot state election provoking potential misery/hope
Horrible weather at polling location	B-Reel of voters without faces	Free 'Swing State' Space * DO NOT drink to this phrase	State Decided with <3% reporting	Importance of a county with like 3000 citizens
"more purple than..."	Maine Splits Votes	Third Party winning >7% of vote, somewhere	"too close to call"	"Traditionally Red State"
Obscure candidate from 50+ years ago mentioned	Image of Flag waving for like 75 seconds because they forgot to go to commercial	Great Initiative that passes in one state, but eventually declared unconstitutional six months later	Dusty Election Analyst we haven't seen in 4 years, then kept in cold storage	"We'll have to do this all again in four years, so..."

 

[Famine]

The point is that one Palestinian American who supports Harris really has no bearing on anything

I mean, it has more bearing on whether Palestinians who can vote in US elections should vote for Harris than requesting that I tell them that they should. And I wasn't even looking for it - the video popped up on a search for Jill Stein apropos of @Obelisk's query above. It also appears to make a good point that one of the two candidates is able to be held accountable.

Perhaps you could cover, in a few sentences or less, for those of us who don't seem to get how it's controversial that a woman with no current power to arm Israel says that Israel needs to be mindful of how it "defends itself" in not killing Palestinian civilians in anticipation of her gaining that power - or why a Harris White House would be so much worse for Palestinians than a Trump White House which very definitely already did send weaponry to Israel and which a simple search appears to show Israeli newspapers absolutely stanning for (and Iran appears to be bricking it about).

I don't get how Trump > Harris for Palestinians.

 

[Danoff]

In previous elections, it was voting for Libertarian or independent candidates, even though there was functionally no chance they would win.

If I didn’t have reasons to vote Harris (already outlined above) then I would be giving that $1 this year too.

I've never thought of my vote for libertarians as a "screw you" $1. I was always trying to say that I liked the platform. If I couldn't find a platform I supported, I would abstain. It's more clear than voting for an insane person.

It could convey some apathy, but in some sense that's correct for your $1 concept. If you don't care to vote for either major candidate, you're apathetic in at least that regard.

Kamala Harris is running for President. If she becomes president, she will have agencyhttps://account.microsoft.com/devices/recoverykey. She has expressed no intention on differing from Biden on how she uses that agency.

I don't think that's true. She has expressed great concern about the acts Israel is perpetuating, and while she hasn't called out Biden explicitly, I think she has made it clear that her stance is less permissive than his. That's just based on speeches, she has not had real power to act on it to date.

Your misunderstanding of this question tells me that you fundamentally don't understand these voters.

A Palestinian voter who withholds their vote for Harris is not doing so because they blame her for what's happening in Gaza, or because they confuse her for Biden. They do so because Harris is running for President and has stated her intention to continue Biden's policy, and continue to support Israel, a fact you seem unwilling to believe even when she says it herself.

See above.

These people don't want to see more of their family members killed by American bombs, and you can't understand why they wouldn't vote for someone who has expressed on multiple occasions unwavering commitment to Israel, who praises Joe Biden for his "integrity" and "big heart", and who works willingly within an administration arming israel without expressing any regret or interest in a policy change.

Joe does have integrity and a big heart. And he has expressed interest in pushing back, but not so much interest that it took precedent over other matters, such as aid to Ukraine.

The reason for that appears to be an unwillingness to accept the agency or culpability of this administration, despite several facts I've brought up and sourced previously:

• The president does have the authority and ability to halt weapons shipments. Biden has already done so previously.

Congress can halt other money that the president is counting on. The president can temporarily halt some shipments, but not forever. Trump ran afoul of this when he tried to fleece Ukraine.

• Biden used emergency authority to skip congressional review to speed up weapons shipments to Israel. You cannot blame congress for Biden bypassing congress. If he opposed the weapons shipments, he would not be speeding them up, he would be delaying them as much as possible.

I need more information on exactly what you're talking about. Whether it's anti-missile defense, or whether it was early in the conflict, or whether that was in any way connected to Ukraine. It's so difficult to assess this as you've presented it.

• US law prohibits arms support for governments that block life-saving aid or violate international law with US weapons.

Sounds like a law we should be following.

• This administration illegally failed to act on 500 reports of US weapons being used by Israel to target civilians. There is photo evidence of US bomb fragments at sites where dozens of children were massacred. The US supplies 66% of Israel's weapons imports.precent

The Biden admin and the congressional representatives responsible for any insistence on Israeli aid should be held responsible.

And an unwillingness to accept Harris' words at face value, when she says

"Let me be very clear: I am unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself."

Or when she expressed "unwavering commitment” to Israel, its right to exist and its security.

She has always been very careful with this statement. It's right to exist and its security, not its right to lay waste to its surroudings. And she has called that out specifically, during her DNC speech and elsewhere. If you're going to continue down this path, I'm not really interested in this conversation. I've pointed out to you that you're inappropriately cutting this sentiment off.

It doesn't matter that she says Israel should do more to protect civilians, or that the suffering of Palestinians matters. Those are not policy positions. They are platitudes. They don't represent actions she plans to take. Harris' policy position is unwavering commitment to Israel's defense, i.e. a continuation of the weapons shipments. And notably, Biden and his spokespeople make the same statements while making zero changes in policy or action. There is no reason to expect Harris to be different.

Oh, so when she says one thing it's platitudes that need not be taken seriously, and when she says something else it's to be taken seriously. Cherry picking.

Harris has willingly tied herself to a war-criminal administration, praised its leader, and expressed full support for Israel and zero intention to differ from Biden on policy or action. Zero.*

No, you yourself just acknowledged it. You just don't take it seriously and then pretend it wasn't said.

And you expect Palestinian-Americans to vote for her? Because she hasn't made Israel a pillar of her campaign? Because she says it's sad that Palestinians die?

Absurd.

I just. I just can't fathom this kind of thinking. That you would blame a voter for not wanting their family to be killed, rather than blame the candidate who can't even commit to not sending more weapons to the country that's been killing those family members for the past year. How. How can you feel anything but grief for these people who have an impossible choice?

Harris is not Israel. She is not making Israeli military decisions. She is not president. Accept these facts.

* (Please provide evidence if you're going to disagree with me here. Evidence of a policy position or intended action that would end US complicity, not just talks of a future ceasefire or an expression of the value of Palestinian lives or concern for the humanitarian crisis. No "I hear you." Actual actions she plans to take that would end US complicity in war crimes and genocide.)

She has not been explicit in her plans to end the genocide OR her plans for support. She has not been explicit on Israel, intentionally, and likely she does not know what she can get from them and at what cost... because she is not president.

Which is bizarre considering I never said anything about inherent culpability of aid, and my example was not about food, but about giving a gun to a serial killer, something that is absolutely a crime if you know they are likely to use it to kill someone.

It does not make you inherently culpable to give a gun to a serial killer. If you know that they intend to use it to kill someone innocent, it might. The US should not be supplying Israel with weapons in light of their actions, and I support your call for the US to stop doing this. I do not support it over all else. I do not support it over a Trump win. I do not support it over the fall of Ukraine. I'm on your side for your issue. But I think you've inappropriately branded Harris, and you're not not on my side for my issues.

Stopping arms to Israel may not stop them, but it would A) reduce their ability to kill civilians (again, we supply 66% of their weapons imports), and B) remove our culpability in their actions.

I think they would kill civilians just fine, or maybe even at greater more reckless pace. And I agree that it's a good idea to stop aiding them. But not at every cost.

If I don't give a gun to a murderer, it may not prevent them from murdering. But it's still the right thing to do for what I hope are obvious reasons? Unless you make it about food again?

See above.

Why would any Democrat care about a protest if it doesn't affect the amount of votes they get in an election?

Lots of reasons. It's the clearest way to get your voice heard and your concerns addressed. It puts unrest and issues squarely on the front page. It puts it in the mind of others, and spreads throughout the voter base. Withholding your vote is not nearly as effective as spreading your position to many others.

I'm also not abstaining. I voted for a candidate whose policy best aligns with mine. Not a perfect candidate, but of course I never suggested that was a requirement.

I'll keep in mind that when push came to shove, you tried to shove my country off the cliff.

Dude. I quoted her saying she was unequivocally committed to Israel. How is that not unequivocal support?

Because she says it's support for their security and existence only. And she's careful to follow that with saying they do not have support to erase the surrounding region. How does this require explaining.

Please tell me how she plans to ensure that Israel can defend itself if she doesn't plan to send weapons to Israel?

We just deployed anti missile batteries over there.

I'm fairly disgusted that you couldn't bring yourself to see how important it is that Kamala wins here in the US. Not just for Israelis and Palestinians, but for many other countries and this one. Trump is a way bigger threat than Israel, even to Palestinians.

 

[Jezza819]

I think getting in before the 5 o'clock rush made it a lot easier this time. Less than 10 minutes total. Voted for Harris/Walz and any other Democrats that were running. Sadly that was only a few. Even more sad is that the seats on our Supreme Court are held by Republicans and they had no opposition.

 

[TB]

State Decided with <3% reporting

Vermont has 0% and NBC has given it to Harris.

"Traditionally Red State"

* raises hand *

 

[Danoff]

 

[Milouse]

Early county by county 2020->2024 WP comparisons shows:

• GOP raise in Florida
• Dems raise in Indiana

 

[Famine]

Incidentally, should any Americans feel the end of democracy coming after tonight and want to move out, I know of some lovely places near me that will be available in the next 18 months.

 

[Pupik]

Vermont has 0% and NBC has given it to Harris.

* raises hand *

Really? Not Sanders?

 

[05XR8]

Incidentally, should any Americans feel the end of democracy coming after tonight and want to move out, I know of some lovely places near me that will be available in the next 18 months.

I got a sixteen year head start. No disrespect. Couldn’t bank on these elections.

 

[Tornado]

All the more reason it's bizarre that Biden and Harris are so willing to throw away Muslim and Arab votes to support a country that apparently doesn't need our help.

1. Harris isn't President of the United States right now. She's actually chosen her words regarding Israel extremely carefully considering her campaign rival and alleged US ally Netanyahu have been actively conspiring against US interests to deliberately put her in a position that makes her look as weak as the man she's replacing on the subject to a much larger (and, let's be frank, much more powerful one) voting constituency of US politics. She's been given a no win scenario over an issue by her opponent and I'm not sure how she could have navigated it better than she has, even if it is the topic that she's been thumped the most over (which has been Trump's intention from the start) and the only glaring deficiency that she's had in her campaign since starting it.
2. You cutting off my post immediately before I noted how weak Biden has looked on the subject (nevermind the rest of it) to try and act like you've found a great gotcha just makes you look foolish.

Here you go. Half a dozen threads going right now of self hating liberals tripping over themselves to talk about how Harris is just as bad as Trump because of vaguely gestures Palestine for you to choose from to post in; at least until President Trump executes the owner of the forum on CSPAN right after he bombs Gaza and Iran himself on Netanyahu's behalf (but only after deporting Palestinians living in the US back there). Your principled stand against something the country in question will do regardless of who wins today will fit right in.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Kamala Harris is running for President. If she becomes president, she will have agency. She has expressed no intention on differing from Biden on how she uses that agency.

Your misunderstanding of this question tells me that you fundamentally don't understand these voters.

A Palestinian voter who withholds their vote for Harris is not doing so because they blame her for what's happening in Gaza, or because they confuse her for Biden. They do so because Harris is running for President and has stated her intention to continue Biden's policy, and continue to support Israel, a fact you seem unwilling to believe even when she says it herself.

These people don't want to see more of their family members killed by American bombs, and you can't understand why they wouldn't vote for someone who has expressed on multiple occasions unwavering commitment to Israel, who praises Joe Biden for his "integrity" and "big heart", and who works willingly within an administration arming israel without expressing any regret or interest in a policy change.

The reason for that appears to be an unwillingness to accept the agency or culpability of this administration, despite several facts I've brought up and sourced previously:

• The president does have the authority and ability to halt weapons shipments. Biden has already done so previously.
• Biden used emergency authority to skip congressional review to speed up weapons shipments to Israel. You cannot blame congress for Biden bypassing congress. If he opposed the weapons shipments, he would not be speeding them up, he would be delaying them as much as possible.
• US law prohibits arms support for governments that block life-saving aid or violate international law with US weapons.
• This administration illegally failed to act on 500 reports of US weapons being used by Israel to target civilians. There is photo evidence of US bomb fragments at sites where dozens of children were massacred. The US supplies 66% of Israel's weapons imports.

And an unwillingness to accept Harris' words at face value, when she says

"Let me be very clear: I am unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself."

Or when she expressed "unwavering commitment” to Israel, its right to exist and its security.

It doesn't matter that she says Israel should do more to protect civilians, or that the suffering of Palestinians matters. Those are not policy positions. They are platitudes. They don't represent actions she plans to take. Harris' policy position is unwavering commitment to Israel's defense, i.e. a continuation of the weapons shipments. And notably, Biden and his spokespeople make the same statements while making zero changes in policy or action. There is no reason to expect Harris to be different.

Harris has willingly tied herself to a war-criminal administration, praised its leader, and expressed full support for Israel and zero intention to differ from Biden on policy or action. Zero.* And you expect Palestinian-Americans to vote for her? Because she hasn't made Israel a pillar of her campaign? Because she says it's sad that Palestinians die?

I just. I just can't fathom this kind of thinking. That you would blame a voter for not wanting their family to be killed, rather than blame the candidate who can't even commit to not sending more weapons to the country that's been killing those family members for the past year. How. How can you feel anything but grief for these people who have an impossible choice?



* (Please provide evidence if you're going to disagree with me here. Evidence of a policy position or intended action that would end US complicity, not just talks of a future ceasefire or an expression of the value of Palestinian lives or concern for the humanitarian crisis. No "I hear you." Actual actions she plans to take that would end US complicity in war crimes and genocide.)

Which is bizarre considering I never said anything about inherent culpability of aid, and my example was not about food, but about giving a gun to a serial killer, something that is absolutely a crime if you know they are likely to use it to kill someone.

Stopping arms to Israel may not stop them, but it would A) reduce their ability to kill civilians (again, we supply 66% of their weapons imports), and B) remove our culpability in their actions.

If I don't give a gun to a murderer, it may not prevent them from murdering. But it's still the right thing to do for what I hope are obvious reasons? Unless you make it about food again?

Why would any Democrat care about a protest if it doesn't affect the amount of votes they get in an election?

I'm also not abstaining. I voted for a candidate whose policy best aligns with mine. Not a perfect candidate, but of course I never suggested that was a requirement.

Yes, that's part of the problem...

No? Republicans in congress, along with anyone who voted for these weapons shipments, can go to hell. I didn't vote for them either, believe it or not.

But again, Biden both has the ability to halt shipments (and used it once before) and bypassed congress to send weapons faster. So yes, I put a lot of Blame on Biden, the person who did that. And who, again, has not expressed any desire at all to stop sending weapons to Israel.

Dude. I quoted her saying she was unequivocally committed to Israel. How is that not unequivocal support?

After meeting with Netanyahu, she started a speech by saying "I will always ensure that Israel is able to defend itself." She expressed an “unwavering commitment to the existence of the State of Israel, to its security, and to the people of Israel."

And according to CNN:
"Aides and allies who have talked with Harris – from her Senate days up through her being on the line for nearly every conversation Biden has had with Netanyahu – insist that substantively there is little daylight between her and the president."

Please tell me how she plans to ensure that Israel can defend itself if she doesn't plan to send weapons to Israel?

Refaat was right about Ruffalo



He was also right about this:

I think it comes down to a pretty simple question - is a Donald Trump presidency worse or better for Palestinians than a Kamala Harris presidency. There are no other practical considerations on this issue.

So do you think Donald Trump is better for Palestinians than Kamala Harris? Because that would be...remarkable.

If Donald Trump is elected tonight, I think Gaza will literally no long exist in 4 years. Netanyahu will be given tacit permission to run over the enclave, and he will try to do it as fast as possible. All the residents of Gaza will likely confined to a very small area, which will resemble an actual prison even more than it already does. The rest will be settled by Israelis, gleefully. The west bank will continue to be eroded and I'd guess that most Muslims will be pushed out of Jerusalem too. You think Joe Biden is bad for Palestinians, wait till you see Bibi & Trump, round 2. It's just a shocking rejection of reality to protest vote on this issue. The crazy thing is that you think you have some kind of moral authority on this issue, when in reality you are the one making the decision that could imperil Muslims not only in the middle east but in the USA too.

 

[Blitz24]

I think it comes down to a pretty simple question - is a Donald Trump presidency worse or better for Palestinians than a Kamala Harris presidency. There are no other practical considerations on this issue.

So do you think Donald Trump is better for Palestinians than Kamala Harris? Because that would be...remarkable.

If Donald Trump is elected tonight, I think Gaza will literally no long exist in 4 years. Netanyahu will be given tacit permission to run over the enclave, and he will try to do it as fast as possible. All the residents of Gaza will likely confined to a very small area, which will resemble an actual prison even more than it already does. The rest will be settled by Israelis, gleefully. The west bank will continue to be eroded and I'd guess that most Muslims will be pushed out of Jerusalem too. You think Joe Biden is bad for Palestinians, wait till you see Bibi & Trump, round 2. It's just a shocking rejection of reality to protest vote on this issue. The crazy thing is that you think you have some kind of moral authority on this issue, when in reality you are the one making the decision that could imperil Muslims not only in the middle east but in the USA too.

Donald Trump is bad for America. Donald Trump is worse for the Palestinians.

 

[Tornado]

The crazy thing is that you think you have some kind of moral authority on this issue, when in reality you are the one making the decision that could imperil Muslims not only in the middle east but in the USA too.

That's the part that truly gets me. Trump has already made it a core tenet of his domestic policy to basically mass deport people; to the extent that his campaign has come out and specifically noted that the distinction of whether they are in the US legally or not isn't relevant to him when doing up lists. Oh, there are Palestinians who are in the US legally after claiming asylum? That sounds an awful lot like a woke way of saying terrorist sleeper agent, so back to Gaza they can go as soon as he's done rounding up all the Mexicans and jailing them.


If she loses because of Israel then this election was basically impossible for her to win regardless of how well she had run her campaign and how badly run and reprehensible Trump's has been; but that carries with it all of the blame on her loss being pinned on the people who publicly made that their single issue to rail against just before the election. Just like it did in 2016.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Here you go. Half a dozen threads going right now of self hating liberals tripping over themselves to talk about how Harris is just as bad as Trump because of vaguely gestures Palestine for you to choose from to post in

 

[Daniel]

I got a sixteen year head start. No disrespect. Couldn’t bank on these elections.

Twenty-eight year headstart for me.

 

[Obelisk]

Current map as called by the AP.

MI, PA and NC are all key states, and all are currently blue. My friend from PA and I have noticed that Pittsburgh is blue so far, which is highly unusual according to him.