• knexcar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Isn’t Shapiro one of those conservative influencers, similar to Tucker or Alex Jones? Why would Kamala choose Ben Shapiro?

    • djsoren19@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I honestly think the unfortunate name association is enough of a reason not to go for him, but it would be really hilarious if Kamala actually chose Ben Shapiro and everyone just had to try and rationalize it.

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Probably because of the electoral college. There’s reason to believe she is going to choose a governor as her VP pick, which would exclude Mark Kelly.

      • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        That and if she picked Kelly, that would remove a Democrat from the Senate, and the Senate can’t afford to lose any Democrats.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Except if you read the editorial he wrote, he’s mainly critiquing Arafat and the PLO. He literally says he supports peace but doesn’t think it’s realistic (edit: and closes the article by saying that he hopes he’s proved wrong). He also mentions how Israel won’t relinquish sufficient land to Palestine for peace to be made.

      There are many legitimate criticisms of Shapiro (your first link, for example, as well as his flip-flopping on school vouchers), but claiming he’s significantly more pro-Israel than any of the other candidates is misleading. I’m not aware of any other candidates who called Netanyahu the “biggest barrier” to Middle East peace.

      • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        But is the average voter going to actually read his editorial and form their own opinion? Or will they get swayed by loose quotes and bad optics?

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    On Wednesday, he continued his sentiment noting that protesting is a right that should be protected, but that a Jewish-owned business should not be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

    That’s from their linked article about how he tried to stifle free speech by condemning protestors. Yet the article says he said they should protest elsewhere and not attack Jewish businesses.

    These articles critiquing him on Israel always seem to omit that Shapiro has called Netanyahu the “biggest barrier” to peace in the Middle East. They also omit that his college editorial focuses on his personal views on Arafat. Even though he opines that both sides should set aside their differences for peace, the point of that article is that he doesn’t think it’ll happen.

    • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I gotta say, I didn’t know much about Shapiro before this so started, and frankly I still don’t.

      But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly, 0 to 100 like I’ve seen with Shapiro.

      • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly

        I think that’s a pretty natural consequence of:

        1. Reports that he is the front-runner to be Harris’s vice-presidential pick (which pretty naturally takes someone from “who?” to the topic of national discussion); and

        2. The Philadelphia Inquirer digging up an old op-ed where he says that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves.

        I’m going to skip over everything else that has been reported about that op-ed and focus on that one line. Because that is bonkers.

        I do believe people’s political opinions can change, and that’s why I’ll forgive most of the op-ed (my opinions have certainly changed since I was 20, and I’m not much younger than Shapiro). But that one line speaks to a bigoted, colonialist mindset that would have been more at home in the 1860s than the 1990s.

        I honestly think it’s disqualifying. For someone to think like that at age 20 points to such a lack of empathy, it’s probably the sign of a sociopathic personality.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    The more folks on Lemmy complain about this guy, the more I am convinced he might be the right choice. It worked for Harris, after all.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ok. do whatever stupid shit you want. Keep thinking that enthusiasm doesn’t matter and that second worst is always a winner.

          You’ll blame anyone but yourself when you’re wrong, like you did in 2016.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Enthusiasm is fine. Fanaticism is a problem. Know the difference.

            Second worst has always been the winner throughout American history. Much the rest of the world too. Apart from that one time a Republican invented his own party to run on and won on his name recognition. Because the Republican party abandoned him. But hey if you got the stats to prove otherwise. We’d all like to see them.

            Name calling and casting baseless aspersions won’t make your points anymore reasonable or sound. Honestly it just makes people see you as a cringy obsessed weirdo. Which isn’t helping any of the people you and I both want to see helped.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Second worst has always been the winner throughout American history.

              You may think that Trump was second worst to Clinton, but I don’t.

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Definitely unsurprising. Irrationality definitely doesn’t appear to be against your modus operandi when it comes to these topics.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  If second worst always wins and Trump beat Clinton, you’re saying that Trump was second worst to Clinton.

                  As always with centrists, abuse is what you use in lieu of defensible positions.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The more I hear centrists talk about how he’s a smart pick, the more convinced I am he’ll be a disaster. It was true for Biden, after all.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Shapiro is an argument to sacrifice MI and WI for PA, and it doesn’t even come close to guaranteeing PA.

    You have no path to the white house with our MI and WI.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m sorry, but progressives are a wing, not a core. If you want us to become the core, we need to convince people of the importance of simple progressive policies, and how they can benefit people out in their day-to-day life. Not just assume we already are something we’re not.

    This is especially important these days, when so many independents are fleeing Trump, and applying pressure to the dem party to move closer to the center to court them. We need to convince some of them to become more of us, increasing our numbers.

    Then we actually will be core. We can’t just lie about the dem voters not leaning more neo-lib than progressive, though, that accomplishes nothing.

    What is the top issue among dem voters this cycle? It isn’t Gaza or the climate, it’s the economy. Again. 63% of dem voters said it’s the top priority as of Feb. That’s a majority, a core, and not a particularly progressive position.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/

    They’re just people, though, they can be convinced of the primary importance of sustainability.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      What is the top issue among dem voters this cycle? It isn’t Gaza or the climate, it’s the economy. Again. 63% of dem voters said it’s the top priority as of Feb. That’s a majority, a core, and not a particularly progressive position.

      Since when is the economy not a progressive issue? IMO the primary failing of the Democratic Party has been its utter refusal (probably due to the influence of corporate donors) to apply any progressive solutions to economic issues.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Perhaps, at the same level as all our other issues, in specifically an income inequality framing. Though usually we’d specifically say “income inequality”, where when a typical American says “economy” they mean unemployment rate, stock market and these days, inflation.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Makes zero difference for me. I’ll vote for Harris no matter who the Vice is.