3 ms·

Between Trump and Harris, Trump was obviously a much worse choice for Gaza. Anyone equivocating the distinction between them doesn't care about Gaza at all and

• nulld3v 1y ago
  https://www.columnblog.com/p/if-harris-opposes-trumps-horrific https://www.columnblog.com/p/if-harris-opposes-trumps-horrif... > ### If Harris Opposes Trump’s Horrific Gaza Policies, She Should Say So > Her defenders insist she would have been “better on Gaza.” This is very possible. But why doesn’t she explain how in her own words? I'm still waiting.
• mandmandam 1y ago
  There is nothing 'performative' about refusing to vote for a candidate who promises to arm a genocidal regime currently doing a live-streamed holocaust. That's just your basic bare-minimum moral and legal duty as a human. The fact that such an assertion is a tolerated talking point in US society is absolutely damning.
  • root_axis 1y ago
    Israel was going to be armed either way, this is decades long u.s. policy and nobody was going to change that. The choice was between a liberal candidate that's at least nominally interested in good outcomes for Gaza and a candidate that's openly hostile to Gaza, the same candidate that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and enacted a total ban on Muslim immigrants in the u.s. Now, Trump is openly proposing ethnic cleansing so he can build hotels in Gaza. People who equivocate on lesser-of-two-evils are those who simply don't care about real outcomes.
  • chipsrafferty 1y ago
    But Trump promised that too.
  • Cipater 1y ago
    What about voting for a candidate that says America should let Israel "finish the job" while campaigning?