|
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 |
United States43672 Posts
On August 24 2024 14:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 13:20 KwarK 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? 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
Except if the Democrats will lose more votes than they gain from C. If C isn’t going to happen then hoping otherwise is a foolish effort. And if they know that you’re not going to vote for them anyway then courting your vote is pointless.
|
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.
It's basically the same thing Biden and her have been saying for months. It's not that people didn't hear it or they just decided that now that's not good enough, because they didn't have an actual Palestinian speaker at the DNC (seriously, you're better than that trash), it's that it's empty rhetoric when the US can unilaterally put an end to the genocide, let alone easily stop preventing the rest of the world from imposing sanctions against Israel for decades worth of crimes against humanity. It takes the listener for a fool.
You guys also have it backwards. It's not that people "just find another reason" it's that Democrats have been stacking up reasons for decades and millions of people thought supporting genocide would finally be the one that loyalists wouldn't fall in line behind, but it turns out they are and that's causing a lot of turmoil internally among themselves and with the people that point it out.
To Kwark's most recent point I'd add that it is that reason it is so devastating that Democrats couldn't draw a line at supporting genocide. As far as electoralism influences policy (it's not much when it comes to rank and file voters) it's not people like me that would sway Democrats, but the majority of Biden voters that believe it is genocide saying "I can look past all the other stuff the socialists won't tolerate, but genocide is too far, you have to stop supporting genocide to get my vote" that would force them to at least do more than repeat the same empty rhetoric endlessly.
I don't think most Democrats would actually condition their vote on it not supporting genocide, nor do I think most politicians would buy it, but I do think enough would that it'd be less bad than Democrats going full sycophant in their attempts to rationalize genocide.
|
On August 24 2024 16:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 14:04 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 13:20 KwarK 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? 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 Except if the Democrats will lose more votes than they gain from C. If C isn’t going to happen then hoping otherwise is a foolish effort. And if they know that you’re not going to vote for them anyway then courting your vote is pointless.
Maybe the Democrats should then come out and say so, to coerce the people in group C to vote for their lesser evilism. Right now the Democrats are saying they want a peacefire but doing nothing to achieve it. So just come out and say "we don't give a shit, and giving a shit would lose us the elections to Trump, because more of our voters require active support for Israel as a sine qua non for their vote than there are people who want to protect Gaza as their single issue. So, tough titties."
Right now they're trying to convince (C) that they actually care about Gaza, but actions speak louder than words.
|
Acrofales beat me to the punch. I was gonna say just give the “lesser evilism” pitch to the voters that would leave if Dems switch their Israel stance
|
On August 24 2024 08:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 08:33 NewSunshine wrote:On August 24 2024 08:30 BlackJack wrote: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 guess they could just write in “Mickey Mouse” or something since you think this gesture is crucially important to being able to complain If they otherwise weren't going to vote, writing in Mickey Mouse is just a "well, actually" hypothetical. This is nitpicking, you know what he means. They would vote if they had a candidate that doesn’t “support genocide” or whatever. Hopefully Micky Mouse doesn’t. No, they would simply pivot to the next thing to be outraged about and become single issue voters of that.
On August 24 2024 08:54 BlackJack wrote:
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. Workers strike because the long term alternative is worse then the short term pain. The short term pain of 'striking' on this election results in Trump and Republicans winning and the real potential of things getting much much worse for Gaza and Palestinians then keeping the status quo, let alone the potential slight improvements under Kamala vs Biden.
On August 24 2024 14:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 13:20 KwarK 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? 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 C, either Democrats win and they effectively called your bluff, they don't need you. Or Republicans win and they stop pressuring Israel to slow down and the situation solves itself, to the detriment of Palestinians.
The only way C actually leads to ending the ongoing ethinic cleansing of Gaza is by letting Israel finish the job.
|
I’m not sure what you disagree with about my strike analogy. The short term pain is Trump winning and things possibly being worse in Gaza? Yeah that’s why it’s a short term pain. The Dems will have another shot at it in 4 years to offer a candidate that doesn’t blindly support Israel.
|
With Trump in charge its possible Gaza doesnt exist in 4 years
|
On August 24 2024 14:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 13:20 KwarK 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? 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
This reasoning is mathematically correct. If C causes Harris to lose the race, then avoiding B by stopping the funding of genocide is game theory optimal for Harris as it would bring back the single issue voters and she'd win. Thus voting for neither candidate would accomplish the goal of the single issue voters assuming that Harris also understands the calculation.
|
On August 24 2024 19:05 BlackJack wrote:
I’m not sure what you disagree with about my strike analogy. The short term pain is Trump winning and things possibly being worse in Gaza? Yeah that’s why it’s a short term pain. The Dems will have another shot at it in 4 years to offer a candidate that doesn’t blindly support Israel. Give Netanyahu free reign and in 4 years there is no Gaza strip left to complain about.
How does that satisfy Gaza single issue voters in any way, shape or form?
What long term problem do you think you are solving by accepting the short term pain of Trump winning?
Whats your long term goal? stopping all support of Israel? That's not happening in a million years. So now your one of those unions striking for unrealistic demands that can never be met?
You want everyone to get a pony while your at it?
If you want the US to stop supplying weapons to Israel while they are engaging in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza then your much more likely to accomplish that under Kamala then under Trump.
|
I still don't understand how the "Pro Gaza" stuff is working against the democrats..just because they are in the WH at the moment?
If [R Candidate] could be bothered, he'd flatten gaza without evacuation and then go back golfing. The fact that democrats get shit for gaza is that they are at the helm right now.. but the US can't be steered away from supporting Israel in months or weeks.
Gaza/Westbank death cultism is an ye olde attack vector of russian propaganda to create unrest in the west, and it's just tried and true anti-imperialism.
|
On August 24 2024 20:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 14:04 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 13:20 KwarK 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? 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 This reasoning is mathematically correct. If C causes Harris to lose the race, then avoiding B by stopping the funding of genocide is game theory optimal for Harris as it would bring back the single issue voters and she'd win. Thus voting for neither candidate would accomplish the goal of the single issue voters assuming that Harris also understands the calculation. Except this ignores the cost of dropping support for Israel and losing many Jewish, evangelic and other pro-Israel voters who may well outnumber those in favour of withholding support.
|
On August 24 2024 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 20:26 Magic Powers wrote:On August 24 2024 14:04 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 13:20 KwarK 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? 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 This reasoning is mathematically correct. If C causes Harris to lose the race, then avoiding B by stopping the funding of genocide is game theory optimal for Harris as it would bring back the single issue voters and she'd win. Thus voting for neither candidate would accomplish the goal of the single issue voters assuming that Harris also understands the calculation. Except this ignores the cost of dropping support for Israel and losing many Jewish, evangelic and other pro-Israel voters who may well outnumber those in favour of withholding support.
That case makes no difference for the single issue voters. If they don't get what they want, every outcome is equal.
|
On August 24 2024 21:02 KT_Elwood wrote:
I still don't understand how the "Pro Gaza" stuff is working against the democrats..just because they are in the WH at the moment?
If [R Candidate] could be bothered, he'd flatten gaza without evacuation and then go back golfing. The fact that democrats get shit for gaza is that they are at the helm right now.. but the US can't be steered away from supporting Israel in months or weeks.
Gaza/Westbank death cultism is an ye olde attack vector of russian propaganda to create unrest in the west, and it's just tried and true anti-imperialism. The US can't do much, but they could stop weapon shipments while Israel is blowing up Gaza.
Can Israel get their bombs somewhere else? Probably. Will it solve the issue? almost certainly not.
But it would be something, and I am certainly in favour of it. But I also recognise that the group of people in the US who support Israel no matter what is much bigger.
|
United States43672 Posts
On August 24 2024 19:05 BlackJack wrote:
I’m not sure what you disagree with about my strike analogy. The short term pain is Trump winning and things possibly being worse in Gaza? Yeah that’s why it’s a short term pain. The Dems will have another shot at it in 4 years to offer a candidate that doesn’t blindly support Israel.
With a strike both sides are harmed by the lack of productivity due to their mutual interdependence. The sooner they can find an agreement the more everyone profits. Striking is a negative sum game.
This is like an unemployed person going on strike. It’s indistinguishable from what they were doing before. Sure, we as a society might prefer that they get a job but in GH’s case he’s the voter equivalent of long term unemployed. Nobody is holding their breath waiting for his participation. Holding it for ransom until his terms are met isn’t going to get anywhere.
If I refuse to work until I find a job with flexible hours, work from home, and pays a million per year then I could claim to be striking but nobody would care. The threat of disengagement only exists within a context of prior mutually beneficial engagement.
|
United States43672 Posts
On August 24 2024 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 21:02 KT_Elwood wrote:
I still don't understand how the "Pro Gaza" stuff is working against the democrats..just because they are in the WH at the moment?
If [R Candidate] could be bothered, he'd flatten gaza without evacuation and then go back golfing. The fact that democrats get shit for gaza is that they are at the helm right now.. but the US can't be steered away from supporting Israel in months or weeks.
Gaza/Westbank death cultism is an ye olde attack vector of russian propaganda to create unrest in the west, and it's just tried and true anti-imperialism. The US can't do much, but they could stop weapon shipments while Israel is blowing up Gaza. Can Israel get their bombs somewhere else? Probably. Will it solve the issue? almost certainly not. But it would be something, and I am certainly in favour of it. But I also recognise that the group of people in the US who support Israel no matter what is much bigger.
Is the goal to give Israel less accurate munitions? If the US us sending Israel precision munitions and the goal is to force them to use another supplier then is the problem we’re fixing here that their strikes are too precise?
|
On August 24 2024 21:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 24 2024 21:02 KT_Elwood wrote:
I still don't understand how the "Pro Gaza" stuff is working against the democrats..just because they are in the WH at the moment?
If [R Candidate] could be bothered, he'd flatten gaza without evacuation and then go back golfing. The fact that democrats get shit for gaza is that they are at the helm right now.. but the US can't be steered away from supporting Israel in months or weeks.
Gaza/Westbank death cultism is an ye olde attack vector of russian propaganda to create unrest in the west, and it's just tried and true anti-imperialism. The US can't do much, but they could stop weapon shipments while Israel is blowing up Gaza. Can Israel get their bombs somewhere else? Probably. Will it solve the issue? almost certainly not. But it would be something, and I am certainly in favour of it. But I also recognise that the group of people in the US who support Israel no matter what is much bigger. Is the goal to give Israel less accurate munitions? If the US us sending Israel precision munitions and the goal is to force them to use another supplier then is the problem we’re fixing here that their strikes are too precise?
I was under the impression a few billion dollars worth of "ammunition" was sent for free. So if the US stops sending this, Israel would have to spend billions of their own money. Do they have that? Initially probably they do, but my guess is that it'd be a major blow to Netanyahu and his government and increase pressure on him to stop the war.
|
On August 24 2024 22:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 21:45 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2024 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 24 2024 21:02 KT_Elwood wrote:
I still don't understand how the "Pro Gaza" stuff is working against the democrats..just because they are in the WH at the moment?
If [R Candidate] could be bothered, he'd flatten gaza without evacuation and then go back golfing. The fact that democrats get shit for gaza is that they are at the helm right now.. but the US can't be steered away from supporting Israel in months or weeks.
Gaza/Westbank death cultism is an ye olde attack vector of russian propaganda to create unrest in the west, and it's just tried and true anti-imperialism. The US can't do much, but they could stop weapon shipments while Israel is blowing up Gaza. Can Israel get their bombs somewhere else? Probably. Will it solve the issue? almost certainly not. But it would be something, and I am certainly in favour of it. But I also recognise that the group of people in the US who support Israel no matter what is much bigger. Is the goal to give Israel less accurate munitions? If the US us sending Israel precision munitions and the goal is to force them to use another supplier then is the problem we’re fixing here that their strikes are too precise? I was under the impression a few billion dollars worth of "ammunition" was sent for free. So if the US stops sending this, Israel would have to spend billions of their own money. Do they have that? Initially probably they do, but my guess is that it'd be a major blow to Netanyahu and his government and increase pressure on him to stop the war.
Israel's economy has been struggling since before Oct 7 and only gotten worse since then.
Not sure who people imagine Israel buying weapons from, but along with cutting off weapons, the US could simply get out of the way of sanctions for decades of crimes against Palestinians. Maybe even recognize international law and apply their own.
Supporting genocide isn't the only option, but if you're supporting genocide, it sure is helpful to believe it is.
EDIT: If you want the US to stop supplying weapons to Israel while they are engaging in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza then your much more likely to accomplish that under Kamala then under Trump.
Maybe, but would Democrats also be vociferously defending Trump's support for genocide as reasonable and necessary politics? Or would political expediency no longer be sufficient to give genocide a pass?
|
On August 24 2024 19:57 Sadist wrote:
With Trump in charge its possible Gaza doesnt exist in 4 years
Sure and in 2016 he was supposed to be a war monger that starts ww3 and nuclear war if he gets elected so forgive me if I think these types of predictions are bollocks
|
On August 24 2024 21:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 19:05 BlackJack wrote:
I’m not sure what you disagree with about my strike analogy. The short term pain is Trump winning and things possibly being worse in Gaza? Yeah that’s why it’s a short term pain. The Dems will have another shot at it in 4 years to offer a candidate that doesn’t blindly support Israel. With a strike both sides are harmed by the lack of productivity due to their mutual interdependence. The sooner they can find an agreement the more everyone profits. Striking is a negative sum game. This is like an unemployed person going on strike. It’s indistinguishable from what they were doing before. Sure, we as a society might prefer that they get a job but in GH’s case he’s the voter equivalent of long term unemployed. Nobody is holding their breath waiting for his participation. Holding it for ransom until his terms are met isn’t going to get anywhere. If I refuse to work until I find a job with flexible hours, work from home, and pays a million per year then I could claim to be striking but nobody would care. The threat of disengagement only exists within a context of prior mutually beneficial engagement.
Sure and in the case of GH I would agree with you. But when you have a primary like the Michigan one and Biden would typically get 99% of the vote and instead suddenly 13% are voting uncommitted there is no reason to believe those 13% were never going to vote for Biden so there’s no reason to negotiate with them.
|
On August 25 2024 03:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 19:57 Sadist wrote:
With Trump in charge its possible Gaza doesnt exist in 4 years
Sure and in 2016 he was supposed to be a war monger that starts ww3 and nuclear war if he gets elected so forgive me if I think these types of predictions are bollocks Trump moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. We know where he stands.
And in this case he doesn't have to do anything. Doing nothing is what lets Netanyahu do whatever he wants to Gaza.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
