I think your perspective is very…binary. Politics is mainly shades of grey.
I have no idea how this relates to my previous comments, and as you don't seem inclined to elaborate I guess we'll move on.
You don’t know if kamala wants to appear sympathetic or actually is.
The issue isn't whether Kamala is genuinely sympathetic or not; it's whether or not she has the will and political capital to take action on a view that is so politically controversial. Not only would she have to stand up to the entire Republican party in the House and the Senate , she would have to deal with backlash from Pro-Israel Democrats and from military and pro-Israel lobbyists. Kamala is a pretty typical corporate Democrat and has done nothing to suggest that she is willing to deviate from Biden's policy except in terms of PR. If you want to argue that she is, you'll need something amazing to back it up.
If you think there is no difference why protest at all.
I didn't say that protests don't make a difference -- they certainly can, given the right circumstances. The key is the public applying pressure at the right place and the right time -- when is typically when politicians are seeking election, as Kamala is now.
why not protest at trumps rally.
And what would be the point in that? Trump certainly doesn't care, nor has he a vested in interest in paying attention to pro-Palestine protesters, unlike Kamala.
Well actually, while the binary choice is almost the norm in US, it quite often happens everywhere else in the world on all levels of governance.
But not nearly to the same extent. Even in countries like the UK, which have historically been dominated by two main parties, members of smaller parties still win elections and hold seats in the national legislature. When was the last time a member of Congress represented a party that was not either Democrat or Republican?
Lobbyists are strong, but defeatist attitude is the only reason they have the strength they do.
Uh no. The actual reason is money and political capital.
Big changes can happen when participation is high.
Such as?
But in the current situation when the candidates are so far apart on the subject, but so very close in the polls, I don’t see logic in undermining the chances of the only candidate who might be considering a change of politics.
Well, the binary choice thing is almost solely a US problem. Pretty much all other democracies have a number of viable political parties to choose from. That's kinda part of the reason why the US political system is in such a mess. But I digress ...
then you try to push it the direction you want.
And unfortunately that's where this argument completely falls apart -- The US is more of an oligarchy than a democracy. There have even been academic studies that show that the general public in the US has virtually no influence on government policy whatsoever, given the overwhelming influence of lobbyists and billionaire/corporate donors.
Unless the elites would allow an arms embargo on Israel (and, surprise surprise, they wouldn't), the likelihood of progressives pushing Kamala to the left on this issue is basically zero.
The run up to an important election is the best opportunity for citizen groups to apply pressure on candidates because it's practically the only time that they can muster enough leverage to outweigh the interests of the billionaire class and the military-industrial complex.
Certainly from a mainstream political standpoint he appears to be fairly liberal with some progressive policies. However, the writer is using the term 'leftists' to mean socialists or left-wing "radicals" (whatever that means).
His stance of Israel is really what will be the clincher for leftists, as is the case with Harris. On the plus side, they are both taking a softer line in terms of how they discuss the genocide in public, but of course neither of them would ever utter the phrase with relation to the Palestinians -- that would be too radical.
Therefore, there's a lot of doubt as to whether either of them will break from Biden's policy of continuing to send bombs and military hardware to Israel, as both are apparently very much in the "Israel has the right to defend itself" camp.
You can bet they have their polling data that says otherwise. Shapiro was a deeply controversial pick who could have killed a lot of the enthusiasm, and he only helps in one individual swing state. Waltz Walz has broad demographic appeal, so they presumably weighed up both and decided that he was the better bet.
As someone who has lived in Thailand, I get why Thais were pissed. The hotel, the taxi, the public transport all look like they're from 30 years ago. Yes, you do still find run-down buildings and tuk-tuks in Bangkok today, but it's generally a lot more developed and modern than westerners expect on first arrival. Instead of showing the reality, the creators of this ad went out of their way to portray an outdated caricature.
To an outsider it might seem like nitpicking, but Thais are fed up with being presented this way to an international audience.
Because he is the owner of the very platform that helped to stir up the recent neofascist riots in the UK that led to POC being attacked and terrorized and properties looted and burned. His tweets are seen by millions of people, and greatly contribute towards online extremism and polarization.
I know that there is a tendency amongst people of Nutomic's ilk to view identity politics as little more than a bourgeois preoccupation. He said as much himself.
Yeah, that would definitely explain the hypersensitivity when it comes to any criticism of China or the USSR, valid or otherwise.
It still strikes me as counter-productive, though, as there are many people on Lemmy who have capitalism-critical views who could be persuaded to shift further left or become more interested in socialist causes. Banning them, or censoring them, or labelling them as idiotic liberals, only serves to undermine that endeavor. Socialism is dying fast enough in the west as it is.
Fair point -- having power decentralized certainly makes it more common for individual actors to act unilaterally in this way. However, in my experience the most egregious examples have been users being banned from Lemmy.ml for simply expressing a contrary opinion in a non-aggressive manner.
For a community that is so actively political, the tolerance for an open exchange of views is surprisingly low.
MBFC rates it as "highly credible" despite it publishing laughably bad hit-pieces on UN officials who openly criticize Israel.
I did a debunk on one of their articles that was removed from this very community due to disinformation, but I've posted a screenshot of my critique here for anyone who is interested.
I have another one - MBFC rates a site called UNWatch as "highly credible" when in fact they run trash-tier hit pieces on UN officials who criticize Israel. Their articles have been removed from WorldNews@Lemmy.world for disinformation.
Meanwhile...