This is the best outcome imo. I wasn't ride or die for Harris when she became the nominee, but she has been running a near perfect campaign thus far.

@The -pi-guy, @Ryuu96, @sundin13. All responses from anybody who is not listed here will be ignored. I can't be taking on the whole forum again like yesterday.

(The bottom of this quote post is what I'm referring to. Y'all should follow how you said you'd behave. I would appreciate it.)

Please read what I have written. Be detailed, just I have been detailed with your response. This is all I ask.

"A big one is that they're generally not as cohesive as conservatives have tended to be. There's quite a difference between Manchin and Sanders for example." When examining their individual ideology, there is a difference between the two. And similarly, there is ideological difference amongst repubs: Consider Mitt Romney and Matthew Gatez, for instance. When examining their individual voting record, it's hard to say there is more difference between dems versus repubs. 538 has put out what they call a "Biden/Trump Score". Looking at the "Biden/Trump scores" of Manchin (87.9%/50.4%), Sanders (90.9%/16.1%), and AOC (91.1%/17.4%) in comparison to the Trump scores of Gatez (15.9%/85.0%), Romney (58.2%/75.0%), and Cruz (13.8%/92.1%), it is clear that there is neglegable difference between the parties when it comes to how often they'll rally behind their party in power, though there will exist some distinction when it comes to being open to voting for the other parties policy positions. When examining rhetoric, it is true that "The Squad" (excluding Rashida Tlaib...for obvious reasons, i.e. her home country is being ethnically cleansed by the Israeli state) had stood firmly behind Biden up until the day is dropped out, even more than individuals like Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, etc. And it remains true that they stand firmly behind Kamala Harris.

"Another one is that they're not generally playing the same game that conservatives have been. "When they go low, we go high"." I don't think that's a fantastic example (I believe Hillary Clinton has used the verbatim line "When they go low, we go high." in the past), though I'm not going to dispute this point. Yes, I agree that optically the parties are vastly different from one another. What I'm arguing is that in their legislation, they are only marginally distinct.

"But there are tons of differences. How they treat trans people, and climate change and science and education." Yes, I agree that they support trans people in their rhetoric, and they don't outright dismiss climate change for being a hoax (not that Trump is doing this...though I do know some in the party prolly are). Never denied that there are optical differences. When looking at policy, however, it's hard to say there is truly much difference. Climate change is the easiest to debunk: Simply refer to this Retuers article (https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/OIL/lgpdngrgkpo/). This article also demonstrates Biden's tendency to rely on all-talk-no-action with respect to addressing climate change: https://apnews.com/article/greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-biden-coal-oil-2184db68945d5b10864c2525b9204ef7. When looking into trans issues, it is disturbing that this issue has become one of politics.

When dicussing education, it's interesting that Biden actually cut funding to the Department of Education this most recent fiscal year (https://www.k12dive.com/news/fy-24-budget-proposal-education-department-cut/711098/). That being said, however, I'm not going to die on the hill that dems are the same to repubs (more speicifcally, Trump) in this respect: There does exist substantial difference. Granted, it's the difference between bordering-on-nothing versus actively gashing into public funding, I will confess the difference exists nonetheless. As far as what students are learning? I don't believe there will be much difference between Harris nor Trump. Changing ciriculum is no easy feat, and so the only influence either politician would have is via small shifts in federal funding and executive orders.

"The only way that both parties are the same is if you're discounting incremental change. A big part of that is very little changes quickly. There's not a stark difference in how my life is going between Trump's presidency and Biden's. But conservatives don't seem to discount incremental change. They'll vote for Bush on the premise that he's pro-life, and they'll vote for him again even though he's changed nothing. And then they'll vote for the next guy, and then in 20 years they've finally overturned Roe v Wade. They seem like they're in it for the long haul. I've been very concerned with how I've seen a lot of people talk about Trump's second presidency being the end of democracy. Because I think we should recognize that even if it didn't end up meaning that, having the door being opened up to it more, should be concerning enough. Having the Overton window shift more to make people think it's a little more acceptable should also be concerning enough." maybe I'm just getting tired of typing lol, but I'll just agree with what you're saying here. I just wish the dems would reverse the changes of the repubs as opposed to solidify them. Why didn't Biden bring the corporate tax rate back to 39%, for instance? Why didn't Biden make much effort to codify Roe v. Wade when he had both chambers? Why doesn't Biden stop the increased militarization of our police, borders, etc? It's these decisions which lead me to believe that dems don't actually have a true interest in enforcing an agenda, but rather are looking to play with as many political footballs as they can. They are responsible for creating this illusion of choice in elections, they are actively preventing better parties from rising up. if we "vote blue no matter who", how will this ever tell the party leadership that we do not want republican policy solidified? That's just my take. Agree or disagree.

"But they need to be able to defend themselves too, I think we can say that and make the distinction that defence does not mean slaughter everyone in sight, they need to be able to defend themselves against attack because they are surrounded by countries that want them dead." I'm confused. I'm no foreign policy expert, but from what I've heard, it was the Israel military officials who have been launching first strikes and going aggressive in deterrence campaigns throughout the middle east, no? It doesn't make sense to me why neighbors of Israel would be interested in attacking Israel unless attacked first. They know the influence that the US has with Israel, and they understand that a war with Israel would mean turning their state into another proxy state for the US. Correct me if I'm wrong...

"But I do not believe Hamas nor Netanyahu give a fuck about how many innocents have to die in their zealot war, I believe they both need and want the war to continue as long as possible because they both hold on to power due to the war and the moment this war stops" I heavily disagree with this. Jimmy Carter in an interview from 2008 said it best when he explained the desires of Palestinians are entirely in protest of Israeli aggression. HAMAS' rockets are killing but rather create sound pollution. If you look at death tolls, HAMAS hasn't killed any more than 300 Israelis since October 7th, whereas Israel has killed over 39k (which this number itself is probably an underestimate when noting how Israel has specifically targetted hospitals in Gaza, which are responsible for counting death tolls).

If Israel wanted the war to end, it would be over. HAMAS has agreed to a ceasefire in early May (terms and conditions laid out here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas), but Israel rejected it on count of it asking too much. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/06/middleeast/hamas-ceasefire-offer-gaza-war-mime-intl/index.html). From what I read on the agreement...I don't see anything that could possibly be seen as too much. All it states is that Israel need removes its military forces from the border of Gaza, all hostages will be exchanged, etc. It's some of the most bare-bone, vanilla agreements one could write...you tell me, do you see any problems with the proposed ceasefire?

"I'd stop all offensive aid because Israel is slaughtering whoever they feel like and trying their best to escalate things." But in any case, it seems we agree on the next steps US needs to take.

"First of all, Harris isn't President. She has no power over foreign policy over Israel at the moment, so it isn't really accurate to portray current policy as Kamala's policy." When did I make the claim that Harris was responsible for the genocide? I mean, I do believe Harris does hold some responsibility here, let's not act like the VP has no power in this...but I never mentioned anything to this effect in my initial comment. I might be missing something, so please point out if I did so, or maybe if I wasn't clear somewhere.

"She has made it pretty clear that she is more critical of Israel than Biden and seems more willing to enforce consequences against Israel than Biden. You admit that there is a clear difference between the positions that Harris expresses and the positions Trump expresses. That should be the end of this conversation. The two are objectively not identical." Nope. Not end of conversation because the conversation was never about their rhetoric, rather their policy. I expressed in my initial post how they are different in terms of how sympathic she is (not sure why you restate that in your response as if I hadn't already...), but when it comes to what the actual difference will be in enforcement, I said that "I'm no foreign policy expert, but these many many signs seem to indicate that Harris will be a continuation of the Biden administration. I don't know how exactly the different the difference will be, though the outcome will be roughly the same between the two." This is my point. Argue to that, and please stop making this into a competition of "Who's right?". (The best way to argue against what I'm saying: Explicitly provide the policies which Harris will enforce that'll distinguish her from Trump in terms of how the Palestinians will be protected. Also, counter the points that I make which suggest she will still be aggressive on Palestinians.)

"That said, even Biden is markedly different from Trump. He has been central in the push to get aid into Gaza." Please see these four sources and respond accordingly: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-resolution-ceasefire-humanitarian-6d3bfd31d6c25168e828274d96b85cf8, https://www.npr.org/2023/12/24/1221467493/u-s-declines-to-vote-on-un-resolution-to-send-aid-to-gaza, https://www.sanders.senate.gov/in-the-news/sanders-casts-sole-democratic-vote-against-bill-to-send-14b-to-israel/, https://apnews.com/article/un-israel-palestinians-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-vote-350c86ef261bf1a00a2515cf22764de5, https://truthout.org/articles/report-us-has-secretly-sent-israel-over-100-weapons-shipments-in-last-150-days/. It would be greatly appreciated if you did actually sit down and take the time to read these points. I don't udnerstand how you could argue that it's the repubs, when in reality its seemingly a bipartisan agreement to support israel and clentch down on Gaza.

"Allowing Trump to gain power would objectively make that worse." Please cite evidence backing this assertion.

"We can also look further into Trump's presidency to see some of the more controversial actions he had taken, which likely wouldn't have happened under Democratic leadership. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, both very controversial actions which inflamed tensions. Further, Trump officially recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Golan Heights is disputed territory which is illegally being settled by Israel in violation of international law. One of these settlements was named "Trump Heights" in acknowledgement on Donald Trump." Yep. Never denied that Trump has been far more pro-Israel than Kamala and Joe. What I'm saying is that the Palestinians won't really be noticing any changes. Please address this point.

You just ignored all the points I made demonstrating their differences and then posted some sources which....don't refute anything I said.

You are clearly not worth my time.

If you want, read all the arguments in my post again about the differences between Biden's Israel policy and Trump's and try again. If not, hope you have a good day.

I’m confused. Did I not quote every sentence from your post and address them all individually? There must be a misunderstanding…please elaborate. I’ll respond if you can explain what need be revised.

You objectively did not.

Here is the heart of my post again. Maybe you'll do better if you read it a second time:

That said, even Biden is markedly different from Trump. He has been central in the push to get aid into Gaza. Even before this war, when Trump was President, Trump halted humanitarian aid into Gaza. One of the first things Biden did as President was restore that aid. As the war went on, repeatedly, funding was provided for humanitarian aid due to the pressure from Democrats which was resisted by Republicans. These millions of dollars of aid simply would not have come if Trump had his way. Gaza is already struggling under a food crisis. Allowing Trump to gain power would objectively make that worse. Biden also was central to efforts to get this aid into Gaza, taking actions such as Air Dropping aid and negotiating to allow aid to enter through Israel controlled border checkpoints. 

As far as actual military support of Israel, I personally would like Biden to go further in resisting Israel's killing of innocent civilians. That said, they have pushed back publicly against some of the actions of Israel and have withheld certain munitions and threatened to withhold additional munitions if a certain red line were to be crossed. 

We can also look further into Trump's presidency to see some of the more controversial actions he had taken, which likely wouldn't have happened under Democratic leadership. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, both very controversial actions which inflamed tensions. Further, Trump officially recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Golan Heights is disputed territory which is illegally being settled by Israel in violation of international law. One of these settlements was named "Trump Heights" in acknowledgement on Donald Trump.

EDIT: Quick side note in relation to one minor comment you've made: "The damage has already been done". While a lot of damage has been done, there are still a hell of a lot of people suffering in Gaza. This decision has the power to save some of their lives. The damage isn't just in the past, it is also in the future if we don't choose to act. Step one of that action is voting for Harris. Step two is getting out and pressuring her to do what is best for the people of Gaza. Another massive difference between the two is that Harris can be pressured by voices on the left advocating for peace. Trump will probably just send more bombs if the left tries to pressure him. 

I was. I wanted to talk about something that no one else was thinking that could become a possibility. I noticed that it took a while for Barack to endorse Kamala and noticed that the news was specifying that Barack and Michelle endorsed Kamala. I thought it was odd to mention her. And I gave it a thought that if the democrat party isn’t afraid to change nominee then what is to hold them back to change it again? (My thought process, not a question). I was thinking who could be an actual candidate with a big name that had a positive image from a normal person’s pov. It couldn’t Newsom, he’d be 2028 nominee and would think it would be a waste to run this time. And I figured that Michelle, according to normal people, would seem as a strong central lean left figure option.

But I guess I was wrong again for thinking outside the mainline media left, center and right. Hahaha no big deal. That’s why people make guesses, because we don’t know what’s the final outcome. 

What are your thoughts on her VP pick? MN gov Tim Walz. And why do you think she didn’t pick Josh Shapiro? (These questions are for anyone)

Great pick. Just a good dude with "normal dad" vibes. Great counter to Vance's weirdness. Also, being the guy who essentially sparked those "weird" attacks, he clearly is a good at messaging. He's also good at selling a lot of common sense left proposals as common sense (like free lunches for children), especially to people in the midwest/rust belt. 

I also think that his experience and how much everyone in Congress seems to like him will make him a real asset in the VP position. 

As for Shapiro, he has far too much liability. Right now, Kamala's campaign is built on energy, hype and momentum. The Walz pick runs with that momentum. A Shapiro pick would send that momentum into a wall. Maybe he would help in PA, but it feels like way too much of a risk. Maybe in a few years when he gains more experience and the conflict in Gaza isn't in the headlines he'll be able to step up on a Whitmer ticket or something, but this just isn't his time. 

okie doke. How is Trump “markedly” different from Biden/Harris? Give evidence. Rhetoric is not evidence because we’re not talking about rhetoric. What are their proposed policy strategies. Because while Biden may have earned some “brownie points” with his Gaza humanitarian packages (which are entirely for show, please see my previous post where I included links demonstrating the many many ways in which Biden has active,y gone out of his way with the party to ensure aid does not get into Gaza), he has also contributed tens/hundreds of billions of dollars in aiding Israel and has exerted far greater effort to strand Gaza at sea than to help. What difference are you referring to? Again. Be specific. Trump halting humanitarian aid to Gaza is exactly what Biden did with the UN. Small legislative packages don’t overpower this fact alongside many others. Re-read my previous response, and you’ll see maybe then you’ll understand what I’m getting at.

yeah, redlines have been crossed and Biden continues sending military aid. Redlines are ignored and only established for the purpose of “show”. And Biden withheld one singular package of munition…which eventually was sent to Israel regardless. Again, bad point.

Those actions Trump took, yes, Trump is pro-Israel. Not sure what you want me to say. Biden and Harris are also both pro-Israel. Maybe less so in their rhetoric , but their policy positions are seemingly near identical for the people of Gaza. Trump confirming the Golan Heights as being apart of Israel is irrelevant to the discussion of who will stop sending military aid to Israel, and who will work with the UN so as to ensure humanitarian aid gets sent to Gaza.

What else do you want me to say? I’m not gonna bend over and starting sucking up to you. You have to make strong arguments if you want me convinced on your stances. Where am I wrong? And how do you counter all those links I’ve provided? Read through them, rationalize them.

Biden is markedly different from Trump. He has been central in the push to get aid into Gaza. Even before this war, when Trump was President, Trump halted humanitarian aid into Gaza. One of the first things Biden did as President was restore that aid. As the war went on, repeatedly, funding was provided for humanitarian aid due to the pressure from Democrats which was resisted by Republicans. These millions of dollars of aid simply would not have come if Trump had his way. Gaza is already struggling under a food crisis. Allowing Trump to gain power would objectively make that worse. Biden also was central to efforts to get this aid into Gaza, taking actions such as Air Dropping aid and negotiating to allow aid to enter through Israel controlled border checkpoints. 

As far as actual military support of Israel, I personally would like Biden to go further in resisting Israel's killing of innocent civilians. That said, they have pushed back publicly against some of the actions of Israel and have withheld certain munitions and threatened to withhold additional munitions if a certain red line were to be crossed. 

We can also look further into Trump's presidency to see some of the more controversial actions he had taken, which likely wouldn't have happened under Democratic leadership. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, both very controversial actions which inflamed tensions. Further, Trump officially recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Golan Heights is disputed territory which is illegally being settled by Israel in violation of international law. One of these settlements was named "Trump Heights" in acknowledgement on Donald Trump.

I'm not doing this BS where you say nothing and keep demanding more from me. I'm too old for this shit. You argued that the two are identical and you don't seem to care about evidence plainly demonstrating that they aren't because you still don't like how either of them handled the situation. That criticism is fair (again, it is a criticism of Biden and not of Kamala), but it doesn't make the two identical. 

calm down lol. I am trying to meet you where you’re at. You are not successfully conveying yourself (otherwise I would be where you’re at), so I’m only left guessing here. Maybe try to reword your original statement?, and explicitly stating what your points are. My takeaway is that you are stating that Biden has passed policies which appear in favor of Gaza, whereas Trump has done the opposite. Is this correct? My response is thereby that I agree Trump hasn’t done good, but I counter by arguing that Biden hasn’t done good either actually. I then provide links to evidence showcasing how Biden hasn’t been as charitable as your cherry-picked examples might convey. Where am I missing the mark? Also, we were talking about Kamala, not Biden. I said in my OP that Kamala is not Biden, nor have I argued that her contribution to the Gaza situation under Biden should be accounted for (even though it should…regardless). I have only talked about what Kamala has done, who all she has been speaking with, what donor and establishment endorsements may signal in her policy, etc. I’m confused by the tangent you’re going off on. Why are we even talking about Biden? Can you explain that?