Walz went from around 20% at the start of the day, to over 50% over the course of the day on polymarket.
Walz makes more sense than Shapiro does for winning the election.
Harris is a Democrat, and Shapiro is a very tempting unforced error. Defeat is right there in the very jaws of victory, and all Harris has to do is reach down and seize it.
Look, I’ve trained myself to not do what I’m about to do. I’ve sought professional help to stop me from typing exactly what I’m about to type. I’ve lost fingers to this mousetrap.
I really think Harris might be different.
She’s shown better political instinct than I could ever have hoped. She is like, actually working the opportunity, and frankly, seems to be good at it. Overcooked pasta was going to poll better than Biden. But it really seems like Harris understands that she needs to do better with specific groups, and progressives and Muslims, the undecided vote, is that group. PA and “never Trump” Republicans might just have to come along on this ride. Democratic politicians and party managers have spent their entire modern political history wishing they had Republicans for voters. It might be she recognizes what she needs to do to win.
She might be able to win with Shapiro, but it comes real fucking close and its a big fuck you to a lot of people, who specifically withheld their votes because of the US policy on Israel Gaza.
If she goes Walz, all the fucking blue-maga/ Biden bullshit artists here who sandbagged, like they know shit and were giving us, and people like @[email protected] grief can suck our collective dicks. If it wasn’t for a very small, but very vocal cohort of people CONTINUOUSLY ringing the alarm bell, we would be facing an absolute fucking blow-out in November. The Democrats deserve all the fucking criticism they earn, and if you have a problem with that, fuck off and go be a republican.
But maybe, just fucking maybe, Harris is different.
Maybe she could take a hard right and pick a Clinton?
If she wanted to demoralize progressives and energize republicans, sure.
Fuck. She’s picking a Clinton.
Maybe Chelsea? Fuck.
Representative Kathy Manning […] told Axios in a statement that […] his opinions on Israel are “in line with the position of the Biden-Harris Administration.”
Which is not good. The position of the Biden administration is a bad position and we were happy to leave behind with Harris. Branding aside, she wasn’t making policy for the administration and has already been less blindly supportive. Shapiro bringing us right back to where we were before is one of his major downsides.
Not only that, but the implications for the future. It puts him in the potential rising star category and makes him a contender for a future election - which puts us in a terrible position for that election. I’d love Kelly and I’d be okay with Walz.
Yeah, lefties just hate how Shapiro called Netanyahu “a dangerous and destructive force” and “one of the worst leaders of all time.”
This is all just attacks from the people who can’t attack Biden anymore but know they’d look bad saying Kamala isn’t left enough. They prop us Walz because they know he won’t get picked, even though he’s been just as bad as Shapiro on Gaza. Shapiro has been explicit when he’s said Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace, something Walz has not said afaik.
Make no mistake: there’s a reason the person who posted this is known for spamming anti-Biden content.
No other potential nominee has been as bad as Shapiro on Gaza. There’s a specific complaint about how he’s worse right there in the article.
“[He] was unique among the top VP picks in his willingness to deploy the National Guard on peaceful protestors. He even went as far as to compare peaceful university protestors to KKK ralliers.”
When Biden dropped out, I asked r2o in a number of their threads if they were going to cool it with the source-agnostic concern troll spamming. Never got an answer. It was pretty obvious where this was going.
“anything critical of Democrats is trolling!”
Yeah, no. I even said I’d still post critical news articles as well as positive news about Biden/Harris/Dems.
They’re lost.
Removed by mod
Removed, see the new rules on Civility in the sidebar.
It’s called engagement. I’m good at it. You’ll see me on the frontpage daily. I keep you entertained. Are you not entertained?
Removed by mod
You were fine until the end, Biden is not an active participant in Genocide. Removed for misinformation.
You’re wrong. He’s been providing weapons and funding used to commit the genocide, sometimes even doing so without Congress.
To claim that providing such invaluable resources via his own decisions isn’t participation is naive at best, disingenously excusing the crucial US role as inconsequential at worst.
No, he’s providing weapons and funding for the defense of Israel.
Israel is misappropriating that support for the Genocide.
Biden is not directly doing anything related to the Genocide, that’s all on Bibi.
If I give someone $20 for lunch and they blow it on drugs instead, I’m not actively supporting their drug habit.
No, he’s providing weapons and funding for the defense of Israel.
Israel is misappropriating that support for the Genocide.
Disingenuous it is.
At this point, he can’t have a shadow of a doubt what they’re using it for.
If you’re giving some $20 knowing full well that they’re going to use them for drugs, you’re not giving them lunch money. You’re giving them drug money.
Biden is providing weapons that he KNOWS are going to be used to commit genocide (which is in itself illegal according to US and international law btw), including weapons with no defensive purposes such as bombs.
Your “he’s just innocently providing for their self defense” excuse is absolutely ridiculous and I very much doubt that you even believe it yourself.
It’s not being disingenuous.
Biden has repeatedly stated, correctly, that Israel has the right to defend itself, as any other nation does:
The funding is intended for that defense.
Now, what Israel does with that support after we give it to them? That’s on them. We made the good faith donation, they’re the one abusing it.
That does not make Biden complicit in Israel’s crimes.
when someone deliberately does something violent to innocent people, attacking them *first * and you respond that they have the right to “defend themselves”, yes you are complicit.
Israel isn’t and has never “defended” itself. It is the instigator of this conflict.
Biden has repeatedly stated, correctly, that Israel has the right to defend itself, as any other nation does
Yes, but that’s demonstrably NOT what they’re doing and he knows it for a fact.
The funding is intended for that defense
That’s the official Hasbara gaslighting, sure, but it’s obviously not the truth.
Now, what Israel does with that support after we give it to them? That’s on them.
Not when it’s known beforehand. Again: providing weapons that you have reason to suspect MIGHT be used to commit war crimes is illegal according to both US and international law.
In the case of Israel, it’s far beyond a reasonable suspicion, it’s an absolute CERTAINTY.
We made the good faith donation
No. If it had been in good faith, it would have stopped the moment there was evidence that it was being used for anything else than the stated purpose. That point was DECADES ago and the weapons are still coming.
they’re the one abusing it.
Again: Biden KNOWS without a shadow of a doubt what they’re using them for. He would have to be sundowning as badly as the worst Republican conspiracy theories claim he is to not know. And he isn’t.
That does not make Biden complicit in Israel’s crimes.
Yeah, it ABSOLUTELY does. He KNOWS what those weapons are used for and still he keeps sending them. That he’s unconvincingly pretending not to isn’t a valid excuse and thus doesn’t absolve him of his complicity.
And this should be the point to end the argument. Well said.
Wrong on both accounts, since the entire world including Biden KNOWS what those weapons are going to be used for beforehand.
He’s not sending bombs and missile guiding systems for self defense. He’s sending them to be used to commit genocide and he knows it.
This is a clear illustration of how you don’t understand how things work in politics and diplomacy. I suggest you brush up before engaging in discussions where the topic addresses these things.
Not that I’m agreeing with OP or the “lefties”, but if that’s why you think they’re talking about it you’re missing a lot. It’s just not that simple, and putting it into terms like that certainly isn’t going to get people to think the same way as you.
Again, not trying to start a shit slinging match. I honestly will vote for Kamala either way, because that’s who my vote is for.
Preemptively labeling him “Genocide Josh” is no less reductive or divisive. Them putting it in terms like that isn’t going to get people to think the same way as them. Yet here we are, with them being given a giant megaphone and the party having to cater to their self-defeating absolutism.
I agree. Which is why Jeff said what they said. But doing what they’re doing because they did it first probably won’t help either side.
Once again, I am not taking a side or trying to sling shit. It’s not going to matter for me either way. I’m still voting for blue no matter who.
Neither will the “movement.”
That’s exactly what I just said. Am I going insane here? Neither of these things are good ways to deal with it. We need unity on the left, not infighting and misleading. It’s okay to call out BS when you see it, but name calling and misleading comments should be left out of it.
Tell OP. We’ve been trying to rationalize with them for a year, to no avail. Same old petulant bullshit, day in and day out.
I don’t love that he volunteered for the IDF, but I can also acknowledge that I’m a different person than I was 20+ years ago.
I’d prefer Kelly, personally.
I have the luxury of not growing up influenced by shitty adults, so maybe it’s easy to cast judgement, but his college statement was pretty seriously racist. And it wasn’t just quietly racist, but actively sending it in to the opinion section to have it broadcast to everyone at his school. I’m willing to accept that people can grow out of racism, but I’d find it pretty reasonable for the targets of that racism to strongly object to someone who went out of their way to write a racist opinion piece in college. And like, we could just choose someone without that stain.
Whose?
??
Whose college statement are you referring to? Shapiro’s, or Kelly’s?
Shapiro’s.
He did a school project on a Kibutz doing something there. It happened to be facilitated by the IDF but I believe was arranged through his synagogue
Kelly is no better on Gaza policy
I didn’t say why I’d prefer Kelly.
Reportedly Kelly is out at this point and it’s down to Walz and Shapiro. Source: AP, CBS within the past hour.
deleted by creator
And yet…
And yet.
Who was wrong about Walz.
Why do you think you were wrong?
What was I wrong about? Shapiro was the frontrunner.
deleted by creator
Hell yes!
The circular firing squad arrives, right on cue.
edit: What’s the over/under on the time it takes to get to “Genocide Tim”?
People just really dislike genocide it seems. It’s almost like they’d rather vote for people who don’t support it. The real question is why you apparently have such a problem with that?
Harris seems better on this and the party is basically united, so why fuck it up now? The fact that you jump to blame voters is embarrassing
I’ll take “more reductive absolutism” for 100, Alex.
I’ll take “more apologetics the abhorrent” for 100, Alex.
Tripling down doesn’t make you look smarter.
I don’t really care dude
Your desperate need to pigeonhole me as your enemy says otherwise.
I really don’t have any intention to do that, I don’t know you. Anyway looks like she chose correctly now. So it’s all good.
Genocide is something that should be reductively absolute.
Why do you think it shouldn’t be?
If you support genocide, that should be something you are saddled with for the rest of your life.
Some day you’ll interact with enough adults to learn that they’re not cartoons.
I’m 45.
Supporting genocide is a good reductive test for if someone has any kind of morality. Same as with racism.
The fact that you don’t recognize that, and think that not recognizing that makes you an adult that is not a cartoon says everything about your morality.
It says nothing about my age or how many people I interact with.
EDIT: You also didn’t answer the question on why you think Genocide shouldn’t be a reductive label.
Do you think that genocide is ever justifiable?
You also didn’t answer the question on why you think Genocide shouldn’t be a reductive label.
Seems like they’re avoiding answering direct questions about their beliefs or even fully explaining them. Why you might do that is anyone’s guess
Yessss. Feel the power of the dark side!
And you’ve never had a human conversation with a stranger who disagrees with you? At 45?! My dude, you’ve got a lot of things to catch up on.
I have. And you know what? Genocide isn’t a matter of disagreeing. The fact that you think it is says everything anyone needs to know about you.
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/no-genocide-josh-campaign-doubles-down-shapiro-vp-speculation-grows-1934107
