• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’ve already voted for her, but I don’t believe her.

    This is a vague plea for peace without any indication of what things she believes (and more importantly, publicly acknowledges) would be “in her power”. Is the limit of her power sternly worded letters, arms embargoes, or intervention? Because I’m pretty sue she’s not opening the door for US peacekeeping troops in Gaza, though that would be in her power (at least for a short term).

    But like, with Harris we get to see if she’s willing to do anything meaningful, and maybe as public sentiment continues to turn against Israel she’ll be embarrassed enough to do something. It’s not a hopeful position to shoot for, but it is technically better than the alternative, and there other issues at play where the difference is not so limited.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience. In places like Michigan they’re doing this, but outside seing districts they’ve been banging the war drums for Israel.

      So the lack of faith in the messaging isn’t without warrant.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience.

        Yes, it’s this shady practice called, “campaigning”.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No disagreement that the campaign is, in fact, doing the campaigning thing.

          A good campaign presents their intended policies consistently and favorably. It sells the electorate on casting their vote.

          A poor campaign favorably presents inconsistent policies in a vague manner. It erodes faith in what the electorate is voting for.