(Bloomberg) -- Major Democratic donors on Wall Street are increasingly pushing Kamala Harris’ team to replace top regulators Lina Khan and Gary Gensler if the vice president wins in November.Most Read from BloombergWorld's Second Tallest Tower Spurs Debate About Who Needs ItThe Plan for the World’s Most Ambitious Skyscraper RenovationUC Berkeley Gives Transfer Students a Purpose-Built Home on CampusHow Americans Voted Their Way Into a Housing CrisisRome May Start Charging Entry to the Trevi Foun
Again, you refuse to look at examples from outside the USA. Voting in Canada is extremely simple, you get a guaranteed 4h off work while voting is open, they have people willing to transport you, you can show up without ID and swear that you are who you say you are and as long as they have your name and address on the list at the office you showed up to, you can vote. Voter turnout for those under 35? About 45%. We have a variety of parties as well, not just two. In my province we also have a party that is there pretty much specifically to defend the interests of younger people and those with little financial means. People under 35 just don’t vote!
They’re supporting the decisions of the State of Israel, they’re Israel supporters, just like people who support the decisions of the Democrats are Democrat supporters. Yes it’s a genocide, it’s committed by a State and that State needs to be mentioned.
Removed by mod
I’m showing you that young people don’t vote in general, there’s nothing special about the USA, it’s not about the party not catering to them, they just don’t vote.
Reading comprehension isn’t your forte, I get that, but open your eyes and start looking at what’s going on outside your country, it might help you understand what’s going on in yours.
You want Kamala to come out and say she’ll stop selling bombs to Israel? Fine, she’ll get a defeat and the Republicans will sell even more bombs to Israel. Instead she can say the USA will support Israel while also saying that Palestinians don’t deserve their current faith, get elected and then do something about Israel.
Again, in the end you have two options in the USA and one would gladly see Gaza be wiped out completely so what gains are there to make for the Democrats to adopt a more radical stance against Israel when they know they’re currently the most reasonable option of the two?
Political strategy doesn’t care about your feelings, it’s about getting elected.
I think you overestimate single-issue pro-genocide voters.
I have two options what would gladly see Gaza wiped out completely. I’m upset about that. I know why you aren’t.
You interpret my analysis of their political strategy as me supporting the genocide happening right now, that’s very insulting.
You truly need to take a step back, you’re clearly too emotional to have this conversation.
Imagine being emotional about genocide.
You want me to believe that you dispassionately weighed the evidence and monstrous cold logic dictated that continuing to sell weapons so that genocide can flourish was the correct decision. I don’t buy it. I think you started from a conclusion you liked and worked your way backwards.
You want to have a conversation about if it’s right or wrong to send bombs to Israel when this conversation is about the political strategy behind the decision to continue to mention support for Israel during the campaign, they’re two separate discussions and you’re clearly unable to distinguish between the two.
And you don’t.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/13764678
The conversation was about her stance and the impact on her chance to get elected from the get go, not on if what’s happening in Palestine is right or wrong (it is wrong, it’s not the subject of the conversation even if you try to make it be about that).