|
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 |
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.
Btw, for the record, I think this is the correct decision. I'm sure I've made it no secret that I think Dems should be appealing to their moderate base instead of the woke fringe.
My point is that it's a tough pitch for young people, many of whom may be voting for the first time, that they should give blind support to a candidate who wasn't voted onto the ticket through primaries, who was hand selected by the party establishment, who refuses to do interviews with the press, and whose policies they find morally reprehensible in order to *checks notes* preserve our democracy.
|
On August 25 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 21:03 Gorsameth wrote: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. Btw, for the record, I think this is the correct decision. I'm sure I've made it no secret that I think Dems should be appealing to their moderate base instead of the woke fringe. My point is that it's a tough pitch for young people, many of whom may be voting for the first time, that they should give blind support to a candidate who wasn't voted onto the ticket through primaries, who was hand selected by the party establishment, who refuses to do interviews with the press, and whose policies they find morally reprehensible in order to *checks notes* preserve our democracy. Funny how its you and Oblade who are telling young Democrats how they should be feeling about the Democratic party.
|
On August 25 2024 04:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 03:24 BlackJack wrote: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.
A few pages back DPB was complaining that Trump was talking with Netanyahu about a ceasefire and hostage negotiations and questioning whether it violated the Logan Act. Now the concern is he will do nothing. He's doing too much and also too little.
|
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
The conniving bastard obviously must have waited until after he lost to call up his best friend Putin and tell him to invade Ukraine to make the Democrats look bad. Right? It couldn't just be that foreign policy of intentioned globalism and the US being the monopoly banker of the world doesn't work.
|
On August 25 2024 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 21:03 Gorsameth wrote: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. Btw, for the record, I think this is the correct decision. I'm sure I've made it no secret that I think Dems should be appealing to their moderate base instead of the woke fringe. My point is that it's a tough pitch for young people, many of whom may be voting for the first time, that they should give blind support to a candidate who wasn't voted onto the ticket through primaries, who was hand selected by the party establishment, who refuses to do interviews with the press, and whose policies they find morally reprehensible in order to *checks notes* preserve our democracy. Funny how its you and Oblade who are telling young Democrats how they should be feeling about the Democratic party.
My post contains nothing about telling young Democrats how to feel about the party. I'm not the one constantly badgering them to sit down and shut up and pick their only choice.
|
On August 25 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 25 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 21:03 Gorsameth wrote: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. Btw, for the record, I think this is the correct decision. I'm sure I've made it no secret that I think Dems should be appealing to their moderate base instead of the woke fringe. My point is that it's a tough pitch for young people, many of whom may be voting for the first time, that they should give blind support to a candidate who wasn't voted onto the ticket through primaries, who was hand selected by the party establishment, who refuses to do interviews with the press, and whose policies they find morally reprehensible in order to *checks notes* preserve our democracy. Funny how its you and Oblade who are telling young Democrats how they should be feeling about the Democratic party. My post contains nothing about telling young Democrats how to feel about the party. I'm not the one constantly badgering them to sit down and shut up and pick their only choice.
Your post is full of loaded language revealing how you feel about the Democratic party, don't pretend "how I feel is the correct decision for the Democrats" doesn't amount to you thinking how Democrats should feel about the party.
|
On August 25 2024 05:39 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 25 2024 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 25 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 21:03 Gorsameth wrote: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. Btw, for the record, I think this is the correct decision. I'm sure I've made it no secret that I think Dems should be appealing to their moderate base instead of the woke fringe. My point is that it's a tough pitch for young people, many of whom may be voting for the first time, that they should give blind support to a candidate who wasn't voted onto the ticket through primaries, who was hand selected by the party establishment, who refuses to do interviews with the press, and whose policies they find morally reprehensible in order to *checks notes* preserve our democracy. Funny how its you and Oblade who are telling young Democrats how they should be feeling about the Democratic party. My post contains nothing about telling young Democrats how to feel about the party. I'm not the one constantly badgering them to sit down and shut up and pick their only choice. Your post is full of loaded language revealing how you feel about the Democratic party, don't pretend "how I feel is the correct decision for the Democrats" doesn't amount to you thinking how Democrats should feel about the party.
What are you even talking about?
Me saying what I think Dems should do =/= me telling Democrats how to feel about their party.
That's so illogical I don’t even know how you got there. I also don’t even see the point of this argument outside of badgering me. I’m the one saying young Democrats can sit out if they want or vote 3rd party or participate in Democracy however they so please. Your side is telling them they should stfu and fall in line so we don’t get Trump. Yet the hill you want to die on is that I’m the one telling them how to feel? lol
|
On August 25 2024 05:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 05:39 NewSunshine wrote:On August 25 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 25 2024 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 25 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 21:03 Gorsameth wrote: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. Btw, for the record, I think this is the correct decision. I'm sure I've made it no secret that I think Dems should be appealing to their moderate base instead of the woke fringe. My point is that it's a tough pitch for young people, many of whom may be voting for the first time, that they should give blind support to a candidate who wasn't voted onto the ticket through primaries, who was hand selected by the party establishment, who refuses to do interviews with the press, and whose policies they find morally reprehensible in order to *checks notes* preserve our democracy. Funny how its you and Oblade who are telling young Democrats how they should be feeling about the Democratic party. My post contains nothing about telling young Democrats how to feel about the party. I'm not the one constantly badgering them to sit down and shut up and pick their only choice. Your post is full of loaded language revealing how you feel about the Democratic party, don't pretend "how I feel is the correct decision for the Democrats" doesn't amount to you thinking how Democrats should feel about the party. What are you even talking about? Me saying what I think Dems should do =/= me telling Democrats how to feel about their party. That's so illogical I don’t even know how you got there. I also don’t even see the point of this argument outside of badgering me. I’m the one saying young Democrats can sit out if they want or vote 3rd party or participate in Democracy however they so please. Your side is telling them they should stfu and fall in line so we don’t get Trump. Yet the hill you want to die on is that I’m the one telling them how to feel? lol
You're having a serious problem conflating me with everyone else you're arguing with. I made one comment about it, now I'm dying on a hill. Sorry about it.
I told you I disagreed with your conclusion that withholding your vote sends a clear message to anyone. I never said that people can't sit out, I just made clear that I don't think it has the impact people hope for, and I think voting for an imperfect but still good candidate is far preferable to not voting. I also agree with the assertion that if you don't vote, you can't complain about who wins an election. If you wanted to avoid a particular result you could have voted against it.
It's childish to sit and wait for everyone to cater to you before you deign to cast your vote. We all have to make a compromise in order to vote for one of two options. It doesn't make you special.
|
On August 25 2024 04:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 04:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 25 2024 03:24 BlackJack wrote: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. A few pages back DPB was complaining that Trump was talking with Netanyahu about a ceasefire and hostage negotiations and questioning whether it violated the Logan Act. Now the concern is he will do nothing. He's doing too much and also too little.
I wasn't complaining. I was sincerely asking for clarification on how the Logan Act works, and whether or not what Trump was doing violated it.
Also, it is possible for one person to wish a president made fewer changes, while a second person wishes that same president made more changes. Not everyone has the same perspective.
|
On August 25 2024 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 05:59 BlackJack wrote:On August 25 2024 05:39 NewSunshine wrote:On August 25 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 25 2024 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 25 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2024 21:03 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Btw, for the record, I think this is the correct decision. I'm sure I've made it no secret that I think Dems should be appealing to their moderate base instead of the woke fringe. My point is that it's a tough pitch for young people, many of whom may be voting for the first time, that they should give blind support to a candidate who wasn't voted onto the ticket through primaries, who was hand selected by the party establishment, who refuses to do interviews with the press, and whose policies they find morally reprehensible in order to *checks notes* preserve our democracy. Funny how its you and Oblade who are telling young Democrats how they should be feeling about the Democratic party. My post contains nothing about telling young Democrats how to feel about the party. I'm not the one constantly badgering them to sit down and shut up and pick their only choice. Your post is full of loaded language revealing how you feel about the Democratic party, don't pretend "how I feel is the correct decision for the Democrats" doesn't amount to you thinking how Democrats should feel about the party. What are you even talking about? Me saying what I think Dems should do =/= me telling Democrats how to feel about their party. That's so illogical I don’t even know how you got there. I also don’t even see the point of this argument outside of badgering me. I’m the one saying young Democrats can sit out if they want or vote 3rd party or participate in Democracy however they so please. Your side is telling them they should stfu and fall in line so we don’t get Trump. Yet the hill you want to die on is that I’m the one telling them how to feel? lol You're having a serious problem conflating me with everyone else you're arguing with. I made one comment about it, now I'm dying on a hill. Sorry about it. I told you I disagreed with your conclusion that withholding your vote sends a clear message to anyone. I never said that people can't sit out, I just made clear that I don't think it has the impact people hope for, and I think voting for an imperfect but still good candidate is far preferable to not voting. I also agree with the assertion that if you don't vote, you can't complain about who wins an election. If you wanted to avoid a particular result you could have voted against it. It's childish to sit and wait for everyone to cater to you before you deign to cast your vote. We all have to make a compromise in order to vote for one of two options. It doesn't make you special.
One weird thing to me (besides people stubbornly refusing to recognize BJ's pretty inarguable point) is that conditioning ones vote on something is basically exactly how Republicans got Roe v Wade overturned. It works.
One problem being that Democrats are too genocidal and cowardly, so they won't risk pushing an unpopular position (which opposing genocide is in the US...) because they believe it is right thing to do, like Republicans do with abortion.
My particular angle has been more focused on what such unabashed cruelty means for the future. Anyone making the argument that voters have to support the genocide of Palestinians with their vote or they're the bad people/can't complain, can and will be the victim of the same argument being used to rationalize their genocide eventually.
Everyone pushing that genocidal argument either thinks themselves immune or is too oblivious to recognize the vampire they are inviting into their home imo.
|
And we're getting back to why I hate this topic. Because I think you should vote if you have something to say, I therefore support genocide. I'm a lot more willing to use the word "genocide" than others in this thread to describe what's going on, surely more than BJ who felt the need to stipulate that his use of the word genocide was just to quote other people.
I'm not privy to why the Democrats seem to have such a hard time decrying the invasion and genocide that's happening, but they've gone farther than the Republicans, who basically want to help Israel along their path, because they think Zionist Israelis will be useful for the Rapture or something. Do I want them to go even farther? Yeah, I do. But just like BJ seems so insistent that they have the numbers on single issue voters regarding Gaza, I feel like they also have data on what the impact will be if they come out against Israel in a concrete fashion. I don't get it, and I think it's fucked up all around. But someone who wants to get elected across a coalition of people that can otherwise be united on a lot of topics, but who can become so fiercely divided over Israel, are between a rock and a hard place. And that reflects just as much on the general voting populace as it does the politicians.
Every state I've voted in has been a swing state. I don't have the luxury of other people getting shit done despite me. And yeah, when it comes to Gaza, there is a difference between the two parties, and if you don't take one more look at Trump's record and see what that difference is I'm not wasting anymore time. I hate getting caught up in the heat of this argument anyway. Feels like people's common sense goes right out the window.
|
On August 25 2024 13:01 NewSunshine wrote:
And we're getting back to why I hate this topic. Because I think you should vote if you have something to say, I therefore support genocide. I'm a lot more willing to use the word "genocide" than others in this thread to describe what's going on, surely more than BJ who felt the need to stipulate that his use of the word genocide was just to quote other people.
I'm not privy to why the Democrats seem to have such a hard time decrying the invasion and genocide that's happening, but they've gone farther than the Republicans, who basically want to help Israel along their path, because they think Zionist Israelis will be useful for the Rapture or something. Do I want them to go even farther? Yeah, I do. But just like BJ seems so insistent that they have the numbers on single issue voters regarding Gaza, I feel like they also have data on what the impact will be if they come out against Israel in a concrete fashion. I don't get it, and I think it's fucked up all around. But someone who wants to get elected across a coalition of people that can otherwise be united on a lot of topics, but who can become so fiercely divided over Israel, are between a rock and a hard place. And that reflects just as much on the general voting populace as it does the politicians.
Every state I've voted in has been a swing state. I don't have the luxury of other people getting shit done despite me. And yeah, when it comes to Gaza, there is a difference between the two parties, and if you don't take one more look at Trump's record and see what that difference is I'm not wasting anymore time. I hate getting caught up in the heat of this argument anyway. Feels like people's common sense goes right out the window.
How's it feel trying to be guilt tripped into something you don't support? It's amazing, isn't it? For instance, as you stated at the beginning, you vote a certain way because that party has values you rock with. But in some random calculus, they also support genocide, which is something you don't rock with. So you're stuck with supporting a lot of great ideas and genocide, versus supporting shitty ideas and genocide. And probably worse.
I commend you for engaging with that crowd. When someone says that a vast majority of voters support genocide, despite them saying the exact opposite because of the choices we have to choose from, doesn't have any intention of participating, it kind of grates on you, right? GH and BJ have no intention of arguing in good faith or hell, even understanding what you are trying to say. They see that you support Dems and they automatically think you support genocide. When any sane person can read your posts and see you don't mean that at all.
PS-happy late birthday KwarK
|
On August 25 2024 13:01 NewSunshine wrote:
And we're getting back to why I hate this topic. Because I think you should vote if you have something to say, If you're not misleadingly conflating voting for someone other than Harris or Trump with not voting, then that's fine, but that's not what you or the people making the argument I'm describing are doing. I therefore support genocide. When you utilize that vote in an ostensible democracy to support someone engaged in genocide, yes you literally do. It might not be your motivation, but it is inarguably a consequence of that action.
|
On August 25 2024 13:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 13:01 NewSunshine wrote:
And we're getting back to why I hate this topic. Because I think you should vote if you have something to say, I therefore support genocide. I'm a lot more willing to use the word "genocide" than others in this thread to describe what's going on, surely more than BJ who felt the need to stipulate that his use of the word genocide was just to quote other people.
I'm not privy to why the Democrats seem to have such a hard time decrying the invasion and genocide that's happening, but they've gone farther than the Republicans, who basically want to help Israel along their path, because they think Zionist Israelis will be useful for the Rapture or something. Do I want them to go even farther? Yeah, I do. But just like BJ seems so insistent that they have the numbers on single issue voters regarding Gaza, I feel like they also have data on what the impact will be if they come out against Israel in a concrete fashion. I don't get it, and I think it's fucked up all around. But someone who wants to get elected across a coalition of people that can otherwise be united on a lot of topics, but who can become so fiercely divided over Israel, are between a rock and a hard place. And that reflects just as much on the general voting populace as it does the politicians.
Every state I've voted in has been a swing state. I don't have the luxury of other people getting shit done despite me. And yeah, when it comes to Gaza, there is a difference between the two parties, and if you don't take one more look at Trump's record and see what that difference is I'm not wasting anymore time. I hate getting caught up in the heat of this argument anyway. Feels like people's common sense goes right out the window. GH and BJ have no intention of arguing in good faith or hell, even understanding what you are trying to say. They see that you support Dems and they automatically think you support genocide.
This is grossly incorrect. I did not equate supporting Dems with supporting genocide. In fact I went out of the way to make a point that my references to the Gaza conflict as a genocide is spoken from the perspective of the protestors and not my personal opinion on the conflict. Furthermore, I stated that the Democrats were making the correct decision to not shift their position on Israel as doing so would cost them more votes than they gain.
|
On the one hand I think GH's reasoning has never been effectively rebutted, on the other hand I think neither has he done the same with the reasoning of his detractors. My position is that no new argument has been introduced in quite a while, and that's why the discussion has effectively come to a halt.
A question that's not been explored very much would be this: could Harris bridge the gap between pro-Palestine single issue voters and pro-genocide voters? Note that I deliberately say "pro-genocide" because I'm not including all of her voters in that, but only the ones who feel that the continuation of military aid to the war effort is justified for another year or two or perhaps even beyond.
Personally I have no idea how to answer this question, but maybe other people can provide insight.
|
On August 25 2024 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:
On the one hand I think GH's reasoning has never been effectively rebutted, on the other hand I think neither has he done the same with the reasoning of his detractors. My position is that no new argument has been introduced in quite a while, and that's why the discussion has effectively come to a halt.
A question that's not been explored very much would be this: could Harris bridge the gap between pro-Palestine single issue voters and pro-genocide voters? Note that I deliberately say "pro-genocide" because I'm not including all of her voters in that, but only the ones who feel that the continuation of military aid to the war effort is justified for another year or two or perhaps even beyond.
Personally I have no idea how to answer this question, but maybe other people can provide insight. Can that gap be bridged? If Israel stops and withdraws from Gaza the disagreement between the pro-Palestine and pro-military support of Israel side is basically gone.
The problem is that Harris can't do that, no US President. That is up to Netanyahu or the people of Israel.
|
On August 25 2024 19:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:
On the one hand I think GH's reasoning has never been effectively rebutted, on the other hand I think neither has he done the same with the reasoning of his detractors. My position is that no new argument has been introduced in quite a while, and that's why the discussion has effectively come to a halt.
A question that's not been explored very much would be this: could Harris bridge the gap between pro-Palestine single issue voters and pro-genocide voters? Note that I deliberately say "pro-genocide" because I'm not including all of her voters in that, but only the ones who feel that the continuation of military aid to the war effort is justified for another year or two or perhaps even beyond.
Personally I have no idea how to answer this question, but maybe other people can provide insight. Can that gap be bridged? If Israel stops and withdraws from Gaza the disagreement between the pro-Palestine and pro-military support of Israel side is basically gone. The problem is that Harris can't do that, no US President. That is up to Netanyahu or the people of Israel.
The point is to apply pressure on Israel, not to force them into anything. Harris can pull all military support. She can even withdraw US presence. This step would be strictly opposed by pro-genocide voters because it'd create real pressure on Israel. Therefore it's something that would allow Harris to gain voters on one side while losing voters on the other side.
The argument that Harris is powerless doesn't seem valid to me.
|
On August 25 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 19:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 25 2024 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:
On the one hand I think GH's reasoning has never been effectively rebutted, on the other hand I think neither has he done the same with the reasoning of his detractors. My position is that no new argument has been introduced in quite a while, and that's why the discussion has effectively come to a halt.
A question that's not been explored very much would be this: could Harris bridge the gap between pro-Palestine single issue voters and pro-genocide voters? Note that I deliberately say "pro-genocide" because I'm not including all of her voters in that, but only the ones who feel that the continuation of military aid to the war effort is justified for another year or two or perhaps even beyond.
Personally I have no idea how to answer this question, but maybe other people can provide insight. Can that gap be bridged? If Israel stops and withdraws from Gaza the disagreement between the pro-Palestine and pro-military support of Israel side is basically gone. The problem is that Harris can't do that, no US President. That is up to Netanyahu or the people of Israel. The point is to apply pressure on Israel, not to force them into anything. Harris can pull all military support. She can even withdraw US presence. This step would be strictly opposed by pro-genocide voters because it'd create real pressure on Israel. Therefore it's something that would allow Harris to gain voters on one side while losing voters on the other side. The argument that Harris is powerless doesn't seem valid to me. You asked how to bridge the gap between the pro-Palestine and pro-israel sides in the party. I didn't mentioned pulling military support as an option because that isn't bridging the gap, that is firmly picking a side.
I don't think there is an answer can Harris, or any other President, can do that could please both sides while this conflict is on going.
|
On August 25 2024 20:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2024 19:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 25 2024 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:
On the one hand I think GH's reasoning has never been effectively rebutted, on the other hand I think neither has he done the same with the reasoning of his detractors. My position is that no new argument has been introduced in quite a while, and that's why the discussion has effectively come to a halt.
A question that's not been explored very much would be this: could Harris bridge the gap between pro-Palestine single issue voters and pro-genocide voters? Note that I deliberately say "pro-genocide" because I'm not including all of her voters in that, but only the ones who feel that the continuation of military aid to the war effort is justified for another year or two or perhaps even beyond.
Personally I have no idea how to answer this question, but maybe other people can provide insight. Can that gap be bridged? If Israel stops and withdraws from Gaza the disagreement between the pro-Palestine and pro-military support of Israel side is basically gone. The problem is that Harris can't do that, no US President. That is up to Netanyahu or the people of Israel. The point is to apply pressure on Israel, not to force them into anything. Harris can pull all military support. She can even withdraw US presence. This step would be strictly opposed by pro-genocide voters because it'd create real pressure on Israel. Therefore it's something that would allow Harris to gain voters on one side while losing voters on the other side. The argument that Harris is powerless doesn't seem valid to me. You asked how to bridge the gap between the pro-Palestine and pro-israel sides in the party. I didn't mentioned pulling military support as an option because that isn't bridging the gap, that is firmly picking a side. I don't think there is an answer can Harris, or any other President, can do that could please both sides while this conflict is on going.
Yeah, but you argued Harris has no power, and I'd argue she evidently has a lot of power. If she wants to appeal to more voters, she has to make a compromise. Currently she's on the side of the pro-genocide voters and completely dismissing the anti-war crowd. She can change that and appeal to anti-war voters, which would force her to find a way to not upset the pro-genocide voters too much. That can perhaps be done if she's strategic about it.
|
On August 25 2024 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:
On the one hand I think GH's reasoning has never been effectively rebutted, on the other hand I think neither has he done the same with the reasoning of his detractors. My position is that no new argument has been introduced in quite a while, and that's why the discussion has effectively come to a halt.
A question that's not been explored very much would be this: could Harris bridge the gap between pro-Palestine single issue voters and pro-genocide voters? Note that I deliberately say "pro-genocide" because I'm not including all of her voters in that, but only the ones who feel that the continuation of military aid to the war effort is justified for another year or two or perhaps even beyond.
Personally I have no idea how to answer this question, but maybe other people can provide insight.
The leverage voters (especially those that oppose direct action and organized mass civil disobedience) have over politicians is their vote. One of the main points I've been trying to drive home is that by rushing to declare their unflinching loyalty to voting Democrat against any Republican they can think of in perpetuity, even if that means voting for any variety of dead/inanimate objects or sacrificing family members, they immediately gave up the only leverage they had to get the candidate they support to behave less genocidally.
In the historical erasure of how change has actually happened in the US, Democrats have memory-holed the reality that for whatever limited progress seen in the US that can be attributed to electoralism, it was accompanied by much bigger demands that politicians whittled down to something "passable".
One major problem I've attempted to highlight in the context of this genocide (but applies to plenty of issues) is that Democrat supporters have abandoned the "demanding better than they realistically expect to get" part of electoralism that is the only thing that gave it any real functionality in the pursuit of progress.
If 5 years ago I asked if Democrats would vote for someone engaged in genocide they would have thought it a stupid question with an obvious answer. No! Now, they can't proclaim loud, fast, repeatedly enough that they emphatically would. That makes the world worse for everyone, themselves included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
