No, the blood is on liberals who allow the Democrats to support a genocide and get away with it without losing their votes to an anti-genocide candidate. Also on the Democrats for making their platform regressive and boring in favor of their donors so people lose interest in them and they lose.

So it’s the leftists fault for not voting hard enough between two pro-genocide candidates. What were we supposed to do to vote against the genocide, vote third party?

I use lemmyverse.net for finding communities

If supporting Kamala is your definition of a leftist echochamber you clearly haven’t browsed Lemmy much

I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.

Blinken stated here:

In speaking with him the other day after he made his decision about not seeking re-election, what he’s intensely focused on is the work that remains over these next six months to continue the efforts, the work that we’ve been doing, particularly trying to bring peace to the Middle East, ending the war in Gaza, putting that region on a better trajectory

However, as you said earlier:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.

Regarding:

There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published

I would like to hear more on this.

A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion.

I did come across this where apparently Israel secured funding through a deal with the Obama administration.

I’m not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isn’t stopping the military aid which I would like to hear, but it seems to me like both the Obama and Biden administrations are the ones that pulled us into the genocide and that Blinken is playing the “we are working toward a ceasefire” card while not stopping the genocide, and figures like Harris are also playing the same card while pushing the same anti-protest rhetoric as Zionists. This article does suggest that Harris isn’t going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like there’s at least some chance she might deviate from what Biden is currently doing; however, the article also suggests that she will have a similar approach to foreign policy as Biden. Aside from that, with the track record of Democrats historically supporting Israel and siding with donors against the interests of people along with their recently having dropped multiple progressive issues, I don’t think people are convinced that Harris (and many Democrats in general) is going to stop the genocide (not saying that Trump who openly supports Israel is going to be any better).

I’m trying to understand how this system works and came across this article from Al Jazeera which, if I’m reading it correctly, is saying that the US did determine gross human rights violations but the Biden administration is refusing to apply the Leahy Law. Doesn’t this mean that Biden does have the authority to stop sending military aid but isn’t, or am I misunderstanding something? Also, aside from Leahy Law why can’t he veto the military aid?

TikTok is popular because it’s addicting, not because it’s useful, so I don’t understand why anyone would use this.

Trump is targeting mostly far-right evangelicals who have a common vision on what they want the country to look like. He has a lot of energy when doing so, and because of how similar their interests are he could get away with all sorts of stuff and they would still vote for him.

Harris (and Democrats in general) is the only alternative mainstream candidate that everyone else has, and that “everyone else” consists of all sorts of people with conflicting interests: liberals, neoliberals, centrists, progressives, leftists, different religious groups or cultures, varying economic demographics, racial minorities, LGBTQ, and immigrants for instance. They’re trying to appeal to all of them at once, but because they don’t have a shared vision, nobody is happy and they get more scrutinized. To make at least some of them happy, they need to focus on certain groups and deprioritize the interests of other groups. However, once they do that then the groups they deprioritize get angry since they no longer have representation, and the groups that are still there remain skeptical because of the history of not working for their interests in the past.

The advantage that third parties like PSL have is that from the start, they’re trying to appeal to a specific group of people with a common vision like Trump is instead of trying to play both sides with conflicting groups and making nobody happy. The problem (aside from the election duopoly bought out by corporations) is that they are a very small political minority so they have no real chance of winning the election without winning over people from other groups which is a challenge, especially when there are many more unknowns when it comes to progressing than there are when it comes to reverting to a previous state so there is more fragmentation due to those sort of disagreements.

A lot of (and probably most of) the people supporting Stein currently are Muslims whose main interest in voting is regarding the genocide, and on social issues are generally more conservative (and may not agree with her on stuff like LGBTQ) and may not align with either major political party so likely wouldn’t be voting otherwise. I’ve seen a lot of Muslims support Stein on social media and the Stein rally I went to was almost entirely Muslims which is where I’m getting this impression. This is a case where the main parties need to earn their votes, and voting for Stein does not mean voting for Trump because they might not have voted blue either way.

(And regarding Lemmy drama most of the people here are voting PSL anyways so trying to convince people here not to vote for Stein is pointless because it’s the wrong audience.)

So now we’re going to have AI training other AIs

Well considering how Dallas is one of the “bluest” parts of the state (aside from Austin) and yet its full of conservatives who are about to successfully defund our barely functional public transit system, I doubt it.

Considering how I’m in Texas where Trump is going to win regardless of who I vote for, I’m considering voting third party as a threat to the Democratic Party to fuck off with their far-right politics and if enough people do that in solid states then maybe it will help scare them into platforming less shitty candidates. In a swing state or barely blue or red state though where voting actually determines who wins then voting blue is probably the better option since the contest is between Harris and Trump and Trump is worse.