As Vice President Kamala Harris received the presidential nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), thousands of people marched near the convention demanding an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel and the war on Gaza. The protesters, led by Palestinian and Jewish activists, represented a diverse coalition including anti-war veterans, climate justice activists, and labor organizers. Despite efforts by Democrats to keep the Palestine issue sidelined, the marchers made their voices heard, declaring Harris and President Joe Biden complicit in the genocide in Gaza. The protesters came from communities and movements that are often considered part of the Democratic coalition, warning that their votes could not be taken for granted unless the party takes concrete action to end the occupation and devastation in Palestine. Organizers estimate around 30,000 people demonstrated in Chicago over the course of the week, making Palestine impossible to ignore during the convention. The activists drew connections between the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the fight against racist violence and state repression in the U.S., challenging the Democratic Party’s complicity in both. The protests encountered a heavy police presence, with hundreds of riot police surrounding the march at all times. Despite the tension, the demonstration remained largely peaceful as the protesters demanded justice for Palestine. As Kamala Harris prepared to take the stage, the marchers continued their chants and songs, determined to keep the spotlight on the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the Democratic Party’s failure to address it.
Sounds like speculation to me. On the other hand, Trump said Netenyahu to finish the job, and called him as a private citizen to tell him not to agree to the Democrats ceasefire because it would help the Harris campaign.
You need to consider actually learning about what’s going on instead of clutching your pearls over politically impotent purity tests. Gaza is a wildly complicated geopolitical situation, as the top comment pointed out. You just come across as naive and uninformed.
I’m sorry what’s speculation on my part???
Second, Trump said that? Oh yeah, he means whatever he says all the time. He never lies, he never talks out of his ass, he ever makes promises he won’t keep
Meanwhile, the current administration has failed to act at every “red line” crossed by Israel and continues to ACTUALLY SUPPLY Israel with weapons to continue its genocide.
Sorry that my “purity test” is “no complicity in killing children”.
And I’m sorry to see you feel that killing children is “a complicated situation”.
Speculation.
The mental gymnastics here is too much for me to believe you’re sincerely suggesting this excuse. The Republicans are far more favorable to Netenyahu. To suggest otherwise is laughably out of touch.
Say you didn’t read the to comment without saying it.
1, that stuff is appropriated by Congress, the administration legally cannot deny supplying what was voted on. Legally, Israel is our ally, and our actions are limited, unless you prefer that American hegemony was entirely unchecked and the President could just do whatever they want regardless of how Congress votes? Maybe if leftists voted lesser evil instead of clutching their pearls, we’d have a Congress that would change things by now, but at least you get to be proud of inaction as the world passes you by.
2, as noted above, AIPAC is a powerful force in our elections, and there are more Zionists in this country than you think; this should be the case, it’s terrible, but it’s true and pretending it isn’t relevant does not achieve useful goals. A hard-line stance at this point will mobilize them and possibly cost Dems the election.
3, as noted above, Republicans would be objectively worse for Gaza, they’re open about that fact. The administration has been trying to broker a ceasefire for months, Trump has personally taken action to sabotage that same ceasefire.
Long term, the best strategy is voting Dem and applying pressure immediately after the election, when they can safely take action. Voting Republican is the worst strategy if you care about Palestinians; not voting is the second worst strategy, and ultimately achieves the same thing. When you can understand why careful deliberate action is necessary in complex and delicate political situations, you will be mature enough to have a potentially valuable opinion on geopolitics. If you think abstention is ever an effective strategy, then you are not yet mature.
Actually, the best strategy is to tell people you won’t vote for genocide before the election. Whether you do end up voting or not is immaterial to the pressure that can be applied when the party is at its most influencable, but telling people to wait until after the election to try and move the party is telling them to wait until their influence is at its minimum.
Nope. That validates progressives not voting, which can convince the progressive you’re talking to to not vote, which results in a Republican victory and more support for Netenyahu. That strategy hurts Gaza, we’ve been over this. It’s like you totally ignored all the logic in favor of repeating the same geopolitically ignorant taking points you’ve been fed by right-wing stooges trying to sabotage the neoliberal party in favor of the fascists.
Sorry I don’t feel represented by a political party that aids and abets genocide. Democrats have a chance to earn my vote and continue to squander it.
The logic is that if the party doesn’t have an incentive to change then it won’t.
Totally irrational. It’s not about who represents you most, they aren’t on the ballot. It’s about which of the two represents you more than the other. What incentive does the party have to sabotage their races (AIPAC influence is real) to court an uninformed bloc that’s unlikely to vote in the first place? Your abstinence is not incentive, no logic whatsoever.
I already know America is not a democracy, that’s why I don’t feel the need to vote in support of a corrupt system.
Depends, do they need our votes to win the election or not?
If they need our votes, they should start acting like they’re trying to earn them.
If they don’t think they need our votes, then they don’t have to represent us. And since they don’t represent us, we shouldn’t vote for them.
It’s perfectly logical, you just don’t like the conclusion that the logic points towards, because it betrays the party leadership as being self-interested, cynical, and willing to aid and abet genocide to preserve their bloody campaign funding.
Do you… do you think that if enough people don’t vote that the government will say “Shucks, guess we have to redo the election with better candidates”? If only one person in the whole country votes, they decide the winner. You gain absolutely nothing by not voting, all you’re doing is shifting power to those who disagree with you the most. This is just plain idiotic.
They need enough votes. If they think pandering to your demographic will cost them other demographics, they will not pander to you. Despite your claims, America is a democratic republic, granted with it’s own peculiarities in determining electoral votes. The candidate who wins the most votes wins the state. You will be left in the dust as irrelevant noise in the flood of people who know how to use their vote, and you will get zero representation. Congratulations.
Nope, there is no logic. It’s based on nonsense feelings with no correspondence to the functional mechanism of our elections. Abstinence has no effect, and in fact will probably push the party farther right to scoop moderates because they actually vote. Congratulations.
Agreed!