|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland24402 Posts
On August 24 2024 08:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote:
Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number?
and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
They don't think. They react. All of these people are more or less reactionary to shit that's going on. No one cared before but because of social media and "influencers" now everyone cares and has an issue that is the central tenet in getting their vote. You can't pander to someone who is more or less not going to vote/vote for you anyway. So I think the DNC made the right choice. Harris spoke her piece on it and moved on. They can either get with that or with Trump. But at the end of the day, I tell people who don't vote: "STFU. You didn't voice your opinion by voting, so you get no say in how things turn out." Not voting is the same as not helping a murder/robbery being committed in front of you. You chose to stand by and watch instead of taking action. So therefore anything you say is moot and would be a better usage of time and brain cells to not converse.
They voice their opinion by well, not voting as the case may be.
I think it’s a perfectly fair stance to take as a general approach.
If we were to extend your analogy out, one option is not partaking, the other two are helping out the person carrying out that murder, only one of those murderers is a bit more egregious than the other.
As to whether it’s a prudent course in this instance, well people’s mileage shall vary on how they view that particular question.
|
I honestly have no idea why this is so bewildering to people. This type of scenario plays out in the real world all the time.
Take for instance workers threatening to strike if their demands are not met. If the strike proceeds it’s a lose-lose for both sides. The laborers miss out on salary and the company misses out on profits. Just like Trump getting elected is a lose-lose for both sides here.
And yet strikes happen. Workers withhold their labor just like these voters are threatening to withhold their votes. The workers don’t want their company to fail just like the voters don’t want to lose to Trump. Sitting there until your blue in the face saying voters should vote anyway so Trump doesn’t win makes as much sense as demanding workers don’t strike so they don’t miss out on wages.
|
Withholding a vote doesn't send a message though. It's, by definition, not sending a message. It's just not comparable to going on strike. When you strike, people know why you're not working. When you choose not to vote, the people on the ballot never hear why. All you do is leave your vote on the table. All you do is become a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of an incredibly vague turnout statistic. You're not teaching anyone a lesson.
|
On August 24 2024 09:38 NewSunshine wrote:
Withholding a vote doesn't send a message though. It's, by definition, not sending a message. It's just not comparable to going on strike. When you strike, people know why you're not working. When you choose not to vote, the people on the ballot never hear why. All you do is leave your vote on the table. All you do is become a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of an incredibly vague turnout statistic. You're not teaching anyone a lesson.
It sure sent a message in 2016. Super delegates got a shakeup real quick and the policies that Bernie were pushing were much more mainstream come 2020.
|
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously?
|
United States13815 Posts
People know why they're doing what they're doing. It just has to be explained to them that what they're doing is not what they think they are doing. Telling everyone you want to be irrelevant and that you shouldn't be listened to isn't going to convince anyone of doing anything. If any message the GH types are sending its that the party shouldn't be trying to get their votes because they are too far gone down the rabbit hole to be reasoned with. If it wasn't gaza it would just be the next thing. They know how cringly libertarians are for acting like they have a legitimate third party but they don't understand that they're just doing the same thing but with less effort.
This isn't a new phenomenon there are always the jill stiens out there every election trying their best to help republicans win so they can feel justified in not attempting to do anything constructive. These people enjoy it when "their side" isn't in power so nothing can challenge their nilism.
|
On August 24 2024 09:44 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously?
How are they supposed to quantify that impact? What are they supposed to take away from it? This is the basic issue with any sampling from the population, you can't knee jerk respond to it because you might over-respond. Can you tell me how many single issue voters are planning to withhold their vote because of Gaza? Can you source a number?
|
On August 24 2024 09:44 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously?
Considering the DNC is doing their hardest to not any overtly pro-Palestinian speaker or demonstration going on, they're very aware.
|
United States13815 Posts
On August 24 2024 02:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Clinton had a few good jabs at Trump too, like how Trump actually thought Hannibal Lecter was a good guy and… literally a *real* person. Yikes. This is fine people hoax level Tiktok gossip. But it wouldn't be the DNC without a lie or two from good old Hillary. Show nested quote +On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Kamala Harris, to Brett Kavanaugh: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the *male* body?” BK: “I can’t think of any.” Kamala not understanding that men can get pregnant and Kavanaugh not knowing about the Selective Service Act isn't a great look on either of them. Show nested quote +On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
“Never underestimate a public school teacher.” Fuck yeah. He led Minnesota to dropping below the national average in education, below national average in elementary school reading assessments. He closed schools and paintballed moms on their porches. Show nested quote +On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
“While other states were banning books from their schools, we were banishing hunger from ours.” Double fuck yeah. When Walz talked about his family and fertility treatments, the camera cut to his kids… his daughter is trying not to cry, and his son is standing and clapping and crying and you can see him saying “That’s my dad”. Literally the proudest kid in the entire world. That was raw, incredibly emotional. There’s such a stark contrast between Walz and Vance, almost as big as the contrast between Harris and Trump.
Think we've amply proven Vance a fan of fertility already. Drumpf, the proof is in the pudding.
We've seen Trump go on bizarre tangents about how he likes Hannibal lecter. Its never been explained why but its very weird behavior that's very much trumps brand.
She wasn't talking about men getting pregnant or the draft I don't know why you would jump to those things from that context. We've seen that conservatives are more than happy to get gender-affirming care for men or allow vasectomies for men its just an issue when it comes to a womens body.
The paintball thing was just a odd hoax that no conservative seemed to think about for more than a few seconds. No serious person puts stock in standardized tests for judging education standards. No child left behind broke schools in a race to the bottom and trying to justify it is just sad. He closed schools during the plauge because kids are the most contagious vectors for disease.
I don't know if this is a crass attempt to bash the walz's on their fertility issue but the Republicans have refused to protect the IVF family of fertility treatments, through which their children were conceived. Instead of encouraging people to have children by expanding their options to have them, which would be consistent with being pro life, vance seems more than happy to attack women who can't have kids and deny their ability to have them. We know Vance can't have a happy family moment like that, because he wrote a book about how much he hates his family and everyone he grew up with.
|
On August 24 2024 09:43 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 09:38 NewSunshine wrote:
Withholding a vote doesn't send a message though. It's, by definition, not sending a message. It's just not comparable to going on strike. When you strike, people know why you're not working. When you choose not to vote, the people on the ballot never hear why. All you do is leave your vote on the table. All you do is become a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of an incredibly vague turnout statistic. You're not teaching anyone a lesson. It sure sent a message in 2016. Super delegates got a shakeup real quick and the policies that Bernie were pushing were much more mainstream come 2020.
And, pray tell, what was the result of that? trump. We got Roe v Wade removed and now look. Not voting because they didn't like her for whatever reason resulted in the current climate we are in. Hence why I say they can't complain at the outcome.
You have to participate to have the right to bitch. If you don't participate, then you can't bitch, because where is your metaphorical skin in the game?
|
On August 24 2024 09:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 09:44 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously? How are they supposed to quantify that impact? What are they supposed to take away from it? This is the basic issue with any sampling from the population, you can't knee jerk respond to it because you might over-respond. Can you tell me how many single issue voters are planning to withhold their vote because of Gaza? Can you source a number?
They can quantify it by looking at the size and quantity of protests around the country, for one. You can look at the Michigan primary where “uncommitted” got 13% of the vote, for two. It’s not really my responsibility to make sure Democrats respond accordingly. It’s just really odd to insist that the single issue Gaza voters should just vote Dem because Trump winning is worse and simultaneously argue that they are too few or irrelevant to matter.
|
On August 24 2024 10:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 09:43 Gahlo wrote:On August 24 2024 09:38 NewSunshine wrote:
Withholding a vote doesn't send a message though. It's, by definition, not sending a message. It's just not comparable to going on strike. When you strike, people know why you're not working. When you choose not to vote, the people on the ballot never hear why. All you do is leave your vote on the table. All you do is become a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of an incredibly vague turnout statistic. You're not teaching anyone a lesson. It sure sent a message in 2016. Super delegates got a shakeup real quick and the policies that Bernie were pushing were much more mainstream come 2020. And, pray tell, what was the result of that? trump. We got Roe v Wade removed and now look. Not voting because they didn't like her for whatever reason resulted in the current climate we are in. Hence why I say they can't complain at the outcome. You have to participate to have the right to bitch. If you don't participate, then you can't bitch, because where is your metaphorical skin in the game?
This isn't the same thing at all.
Trump isn't offering anything different for Gaza supporters right now. In fact he's offering the complete opposite of what Gaza voters want. Withholding their vote so he wins goes completely against all of their stated goals.
Bernie supporters were not single issue voters and they didn't come from any single block or demographic either. Bernie had appeal with moderate conservatives that Hillary never had and Bernie was also a LOT more popular with younger people across the board than she was too.
Hillary lost not only because she caused the Democrat turnout to be lower, but also because those moderate voters that supported Bernie decided they'd rather take a risk with Donald Trump instead. It's not like Hillary was offering anything that looked like a comparable economic message.
Trump was still a relative unknown to a lot of people. I genuinely know people that I would not classify as MAGA people whatsoever that voted for him in 2016 because they'd rather vote for the unknown than vote for Hillary.
That doesn't apply anymore. We know who Donald Trump is now, there isn't a single American at this point that doesn't know what another term of him will look like. So there's no wishful ignorant thinking anymore.
|
On August 24 2024 10:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 09:56 NewSunshine wrote:On August 24 2024 09:44 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously? How are they supposed to quantify that impact? What are they supposed to take away from it? This is the basic issue with any sampling from the population, you can't knee jerk respond to it because you might over-respond. Can you tell me how many single issue voters are planning to withhold their vote because of Gaza? Can you source a number? They can quantify it by looking at the size and quantity of protests around the country, for one. You can look at the Michigan primary where “uncommitted” got 13% of the vote, for two. It’s not really my responsibility to make sure Democrats respond accordingly. It’s just really odd to insist that the single issue Gaza voters should just vote Dem because Trump winning is worse and simultaneously argue that they are too few or irrelevant to matter.
It would be odd, it's probably why I didn't make that assertion.
The comment that spawned this tangent on a tangent was the idea that if you want to have a say in how things go, you vote. You asserted that withholding your vote sends a clear message, did not explain to my satisfaction why it sends a clear message, beyond correlation == causation. For as long as voting isn't mandatory, and as long as election day isn't a federal holiday, you're going to have shitloads of people who don't vote for all kinds of reasons. You try and read into that on your own time, not mine.
I won't say that withholding your vote has no effect. I just disagree that the effect does much beyond removing your own power from the situation. If you want a say, you vote.
|
On August 24 2024 12:49 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 10:23 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 09:56 NewSunshine wrote:On August 24 2024 09:44 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously? How are they supposed to quantify that impact? What are they supposed to take away from it? This is the basic issue with any sampling from the population, you can't knee jerk respond to it because you might over-respond. Can you tell me how many single issue voters are planning to withhold their vote because of Gaza? Can you source a number? They can quantify it by looking at the size and quantity of protests around the country, for one. You can look at the Michigan primary where “uncommitted” got 13% of the vote, for two. It’s not really my responsibility to make sure Democrats respond accordingly. It’s just really odd to insist that the single issue Gaza voters should just vote Dem because Trump winning is worse and simultaneously argue that they are too few or irrelevant to matter. It would be odd, it's probably why I didn't make that assertion. The comment that spawned this tangent on a tangent was the idea that if you want to have a say in how things go, you vote. You asserted that withholding your vote sends a clear message, did not explain to my satisfaction why it sends a clear message, beyond correlation == causation. For as long as voting isn't mandatory, and as long as election day isn't a federal holiday, you're going to have shitloads of people who don't vote for all kinds of reasons. You try and read into that on your own time, not mine. I won't say that withholding your vote has no effect. I just disagree that the effect does much beyond removing your own power from the situation. If you want a say, you vote.
The parties spend many millions on research, focus groups, polling. The idea they don’t know their head from their ass on what issues might affect turnout is preposterous.
|
United States42252 Posts
On August 24 2024 09:44 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously?
I don’t think they exist. If the DNC changed course on Gaza they’d pivot to prison slavery or something. They’re not really single issue voters at all, if they were they’d pick the least bad option as people keep pointing out. They’re a combination of people who literally do not understand how voting works and people who place more value on telling people that actually they voted for no one than on their votes.
|
Are people conflating voting for one of the dozen or so other candidates (or writing someone in) that aren't Harris or Trump with "withholding their vote"?
I think the idea that voting is where people "get their say" or whatever is horribly misguided/misinformed about how things have actually changed in this country, but I don't advocate not voting and don't equate voting for someone not supporting genocide with not voting at all.
Everyone that opposes genocide voting for a candidate that is not supporting genocide would certainly send a message.
It's not nihilism to believe we can demand and expect better than Democrats forcing their supporters to rationalize their complacency in genocide.
There's also no goalpost moving going on either. Genocide should be a red line for most people of conscience. Enslaving/torturing prisoners, exploiting immigrants, trashing homeless people's last possessions, building cop cities, etc, are all disqualifying characteristics of Democrats/red lines for me personally, but it's a lot easier for most people to ignore their culpability in those horrors. As a result (among other reasons), Solidarity with Palestinians resonates with a lot of people, and Democrats disregard that at their own peril.
It makes me wonder, how are you supposed to find common cause with people that can't even refuse to support genocide. There's nothing they wouldn't support, including making my comrades and I a future version of Palestinians they rationalize the genocide of for political expediency while insisting it's our own fault they cynically disregard our humanity (and their own while they're at it).
|
On August 24 2024 13:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 09:44 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think the single issue Gaza voters are not being vocal enough about why they are withholding their votes? You think people on the ballot won’t know why they withheld their votes? Seriously? I don’t think they exist. If the DNC changed course on Gaza they’d pivot to prison slavery or something. They’re not really single issue voters at all, if they were they’d pick the least bad option as people keep pointing out. They’re a combination of people who literally do not understand how voting works and people who place more value on telling people that actually they voted for no one than on their votes.
A) vote for Harris who will continue to fund the genocide
B) vote for Trump who will continue to fund the genocide even more
C) vote for neither and hope the Democrats will shift their position to court your voting bloc
C is obviously the optimal game theory choice if ending genocide is your single issue
+ Show Spoiler +im not calling the Gaza conflict genocide, this is written from the perspective of those voters
|
On August 24 2024 08:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote:
Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number?
and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
They don't think. They react. All of these people are more or less reactionary to shit that's going on. No one cared before but because of social media and "influencers" now everyone cares and has an issue that is the central tenet in getting their vote. You can't pander to someone who is more or less not going to vote/vote for you anyway. So I think the DNC made the right choice. Harris spoke her piece on it and moved on. They can either get with that or with Trump. But at the end of the day, I tell people who don't vote: "STFU. You didn't voice your opinion by voting, so you get no say in how things turn out." Not voting is the same as not helping a murder/robbery being committed in front of you. You chose to stand by and watch instead of taking action. So therefore anything you say is moot and would be a better usage of time and brain cells to not converse.
I still agree with this. It's not even that Harris didn't call for a ceasefire, she did! We just decided that now that's not good enough, because they didn't have an actual Palestinian speaker at the DNC. There's a lot of things that would be nice if the DNC somehow found room for it, that doesn't mean it all gets in. So when it comes to Harris saying, in a very diplomatic fashion, that we should have a ceasefire, people who actually wanted to hear it will hear it. People who always insist that whatever the Democrats are doing isn't good enough will just find another reason to take issue with it. Like we're seeing here.
|
On August 24 2024 10:06 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 02:41 oBlade wrote:On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Clinton had a few good jabs at Trump too, like how Trump actually thought Hannibal Lecter was a good guy and… literally a *real* person. Yikes. This is fine people hoax level Tiktok gossip. But it wouldn't be the DNC without a lie or two from good old Hillary. On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Kamala Harris, to Brett Kavanaugh: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the *male* body?” BK: “I can’t think of any.” Kamala not understanding that men can get pregnant and Kavanaugh not knowing about the Selective Service Act isn't a great look on either of them. On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
“Never underestimate a public school teacher.” Fuck yeah. He led Minnesota to dropping below the national average in education, below national average in elementary school reading assessments. He closed schools and paintballed moms on their porches. On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
“While other states were banning books from their schools, we were banishing hunger from ours.” Double fuck yeah. When Walz talked about his family and fertility treatments, the camera cut to his kids… his daughter is trying not to cry, and his son is standing and clapping and crying and you can see him saying “That’s my dad”. Literally the proudest kid in the entire world. That was raw, incredibly emotional. There’s such a stark contrast between Walz and Vance, almost as big as the contrast between Harris and Trump.
Think we've amply proven Vance a fan of fertility already. Drumpf, the proof is in the pudding. We've seen Trump go on bizarre tangents about how he likes Hannibal lecter. Its never been explained why but its very weird behavior that's very much trumps brand.
That was explained, by me, here, and it's not that he likes Hannibal Lecter, he said other countries take their Hannibal Lecters and send them to America. It's enough to say he's 100% wrong if you think so, we don't have to stoop to pretending not to understand such an incredibly simple point. Also, many people do like Hannibal Lecter. Especially after Mads Mikkelsen turned him into a charismatic sex symbol. Drumpf, however, from his generation, was probably referring to the Silence of the Lambs era although every iteration of the character has the same underlying psychopathy that makes the point work rhetorically.
Tiring in a not very mature way that any time he says something different to the thoughts people want him to have, is an unhinged "tangent," and any time he directly responds to a question he's asked, or to what his opponent says or does, is an unhinged "meltdown."
On August 24 2024 10:06 Sermokala wrote:
She wasn't talking about men getting pregnant or the draft I don't know why you would jump to those things from that context. We've seen that conservatives are more than happy to get gender-affirming care for men or allow vasectomies for men its just an issue when it comes to a womens body.
You don't see the connection? Let me try and make it even more obvious.
The question put to Kavanaugh was whether he knew any laws affecting the male body. His negative answer, suggesting that there are no such laws, combined with Kamala's default position of assuming there are no such laws when she asked the question, might lead us to conclude therefore that there are no such laws if these two towering intellects of honesty couldn't think of one in 20 seconds.
Here are the two flaws. The question presupposes that abortion laws do not affect men's bodies as Kamala either wrongly believes men cannot get pregnant, or forgot about that to try to get a quick political jab in. Extremely problematic.
Also, mandatory registration by men of a certain age for the draft very explicitly is a hundred year old law about kidnapping a man and his body (one who has broken no law and therefore not lost any of the rights that make going to prison not kidnapping), force him to use it in certain ways or risk punishment, and also possibly have it blown up when an incompetent administration tries to abandon a country with a history of war from a civilian airfield, despite stable and secure military operations there at the time, and a terrorist blows up you and 12 of your colleagues, that qualifies as a law that affects a man's body.
Laws about IVF also affect a man's ability to reproduce. Restrictions on abortion prevent the abortion of male babies.
On August 24 2024 10:06 Sermokala wrote:
The paintball thing was just a odd hoax that no conservative seemed to think about for more than a few seconds.
He enforced lockdowns and curfews, closed schools, called up the national guard, and there is video of them paintballing people.
On August 24 2024 10:06 Sermokala wrote:
No serious person puts stock in standardized tests for judging education standards. No child left behind broke schools in a race to the bottom and trying to justify it is just sad. He closed schools during the plauge because kids are the most contagious vectors for disease.
No Child Left Behind has been gone since 2015.
Also, No Child Left Behind was a federal law, so it affected every state in the union, so even if it was in the timeframe we were talking about, which it isn't, using it to explain why one state fell to shit compared to its peers doesn't seem to make sense, you'd have to explain why it had such a disproportionate detriment on Minnesota and didn't ruin other states' education.
Standardized tests are objective measures (the SAT predicts college success), especially when you compare them to themselves, for example, before Walz entered office, and after, which is pure apples to apples.
On August 24 2024 10:06 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know if this is a crass attempt to bash the walz's on their fertility issue but the Republicans have refused to protect the IVF family of fertility treatments, through which their children were conceived. Instead of encouraging people to have children by expanding their options to have them, which would be consistent with being pro life, vance seems more than happy to attack women who can't have kids and deny their ability to have them. We know Vance can't have a happy family moment like that, because he wrote a book about how much he hates his family and everyone he grew up with.
Nobody is bashing the conception and rearing of children.
1) Walz used intrauterine insemination, not IVF.
2) Have you read Vance's book?
3) Vance is a married father.
|
On August 24 2024 14:37 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 08:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote:
Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number?
and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
They don't think. They react. All of these people are more or less reactionary to shit that's going on. No one cared before but because of social media and "influencers" now everyone cares and has an issue that is the central tenet in getting their vote. You can't pander to someone who is more or less not going to vote/vote for you anyway. So I think the DNC made the right choice. Harris spoke her piece on it and moved on. They can either get with that or with Trump. But at the end of the day, I tell people who don't vote: "STFU. You didn't voice your opinion by voting, so you get no say in how things turn out." Not voting is the same as not helping a murder/robbery being committed in front of you. You chose to stand by and watch instead of taking action. So therefore anything you say is moot and would be a better usage of time and brain cells to not converse. I still agree with this. It's not even that Harris didn't call for a ceasefire, she did! We just decided that now that's not good enough, because they didn't have an actual Palestinian speaker at the DNC. There's a lot of things that would be nice if the DNC somehow found room for it, that doesn't mean it all gets in. So when it comes to Harris saying, in a very diplomatic fashion, that we should have a ceasefire, people who actually wanted to hear it will hear it. People who always insist that whatever the Democrats are doing isn't good enough will just find another reason to take issue with it. Like we're seeing here.
I want a ceasefire, but proclaiming so loudly is as useful as Harris saying so. The difference between Harris and me is that she is in a position right now to influence policy. If she was sincere about this being a priority, she could be pushing Biden and Congress to take a tougher stance against Israel and withhold the billions of "aid" until Netanyahu removes Israeli troops from Gaza. Would that achieve a ceasefire? Hard to say. But it'd be a concrete step she could take. Or she could outline how she (together with Biden and Congress) is *currently* working on the best chance for a ceasefire. Sending Blinken, yet again, to negotiate with two unreliable partners while you are actively propping one of those up seems very very unlikely to be the best the US can do: a government that was sincere about wanting the atrocities to end would put their money where their mouth is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
