EPTGuess who was the mayor of SF, at the time? Gavin Newsom.
Guess who was the district attorney of SF, at the time? Kamala Harris.
Sounds like Trump just accidentally endorsed his opponent.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4356
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44046 Posts
Guess who was the mayor of SF, at the time? Gavin Newsom. Guess who was the district attorney of SF, at the time? Kamala Harris. Sounds like Trump just accidentally endorsed his opponent. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3710 Posts
On August 25 2024 21:38 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. I think the two underlined parts are very powerful arguments. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44046 Posts
On August 25 2024 22:01 Magic Powers wrote: I think the two underlined parts are very powerful arguments. Not to anyone who recognizes the "lesser of two evils" perspective, or who isn't a single-issue voter, or who recognizes that both presidential candidates having a bad take on one issue doesn't mean they have identically bad takes on all the other issues. But, again, this entire discussion is a repeat, and there doesn't seem to be anything new added. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21516 Posts
"Because the other side are literal fascists" The moment the Republican party finds their sanity again, or gets replaced by a non-insane 3e party the unflinching democrat votes can be bargained for again. The idea isn't that you must always vote Democrat no matter what, its that the only other option are literal fascists who have attempted a literal insurrection and coup and are openly talking about trying it again. If there was a viable other choice you could make parties fight for your vote. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3710 Posts
Hamas is Republicans and Democrats are Israel. Anything Democrats do can be justified with "the other side is worse". Lesser evilism results in a race to the bottom as Democrats never need to clean house because they can always point to Republicans as the road to hell. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22990 Posts
On August 25 2024 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Not to anyone who recognizes the "lesser of two evils" perspective, or who isn't a single-issue voter, or who recognizes that both presidential candidates having a bad take on one issue doesn't mean they have identically bad takes on all the other issues. But, again, this entire discussion is a repeat, and there doesn't seem to be anything new added. One problem with the 'lesser evilism' cliché is that the US system is actually foundationally dependent on eventually drawing the line liberals refuse to (and/or can't) draw and saying "actually, both of those are too evil". Lesser evilism is a position they've always held and only became too much for me during the Obama administration when I found out 9 out of 10 people he was killing weren't the targets. Since then my eyes have been opened to plenty of things that should have put me off Democrats before then, and plenty more things they've done since that should do the same. That said I don't expect everyone's lines to be the same as mine. I did expect genocide to be more people's line, I get that it isn't. But liberals do have to draw a line. I don't know where exactly to look after genocide, but maybe repealing the 19th amendment? Maybe not, maybe they'd still lesser evil their way through that? Repealing the 13th amendment? Maybe barcoding immigrants? I don't know, does one 'lesser evil' their way through the repealing of the entire Bill of Rights? Intranational genocide? Domestic extermination camps? Surely at least one of those is a line for some of you. Genocide is a line, Democrats are choosing to cross that line in the name of lesser evilism. I just want to know if they have a line they wouldn't cross, and so far the response has been a resounding "No!". That's extremely problematic for anyone that values human rights. | ||
KwarK
United States42254 Posts
On August 25 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote: 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. Israel believes it is responding to a hostile neighbouring state bent on their eradication (because that is the stated government policy of said neighbour). If the US refused to provide precision guided missiles and bombs to Israel Israel wouldn’t suddenly decide that it is no longer in an existential struggle. It wouldn’t suddenly decide that October 7 wasn’t such a big deal. It would simply use a greater proportion of dumb bombs. American support isn’t prolonging the war, Hamas’s refusal to surrender is prolonging the war. They’re not at war because Israel had a surplus of American bombs and felt it was some kind of use it or lose it situation. Therefore reducing the conflict to “no American bombs = no bombing” is completely absurd. If all both sides had was rocks they’d be throwing rocks at each other. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42254 Posts
On August 25 2024 21:38 GreenHorizons wrote: 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. We don’t think it’s a genocide. It’s absurd to declare that something the other side thinks is a complicated problem with no easy solutions is a genocide and then when they can’t instantly solve it accuse them of supporting genocide. It is a completely bad faith argument that lacks any substance. You would be making a stronger argument if you simply made a soyjack meme and labeled it Democrats. If you’re not going to take the time to establish any of your starting assumptions as factual then it makes zero sense to build on them. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24631 Posts
There's still something to be said for "we are getting dangerously close to attempted genocide and we need to take action now" but that's different than "you support genocide". | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3710 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24631 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3710 Posts
On August 26 2024 01:55 micronesia wrote: That will probably have the opposite effect, at least based on what I've seen of human nature and studies of how you change people's opinions on political matters. The studies demonstrate that people adopt the views of the media they consume, even if they previously held opposite views. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24631 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
I think this is a salient moment for the Democrats. This is the first election since Israel invaded Palestine, so it's the first time it's even come up as an issue to vote on. They need to figure out where they really stand now that it's come to this, and I don't expect that to happen right away. The US has basically blindly supported Israel since the state was founded, now we have to question that in the face of extreme circumstances. I don't think it's a sure thing that the Democratic party will settle into a position of supporting what's happening right now. Things have gotten thrown into the air quite violently, like when Trump happened to the Republican party. It's very touch and go in a lot of ways. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3710 Posts
On August 26 2024 02:00 micronesia wrote: I thought the topic was peer-to-peer discussion rather than what the media is reporting. You said "we're" so perhaps you are a member of the media and I didn't realize it. This forum is also media, it's all the same at the end of the day. More exposure to an idea makes people more likely to adopt the idea themselves. It requires repetition because that's how the human brain learns things. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24631 Posts
On August 26 2024 02:04 Magic Powers wrote: This forum is also media, it's all the same at the end of the day. More exposure to an idea makes people more likely to adopt the idea themselves. It requires repetition because that's how the human brain learns things. You can define media (i.e., a general definition) that way for the purposes of this conversation if you want, but I think there will still be differences in between how traditional media and tl.net discussions result in people believing things. When the consumption is interactive (e.g., this thread), pushing too hard causes people to reverse further away on whatever spectrum. I won't go pull up the research I've seen on that right now, but it definitely works differently than fox-news style brainwashing. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3710 Posts
On August 26 2024 02:09 micronesia wrote: You can define media (i.e., a general definition) that way for the purposes of this conversation if you want, but I think there will still be differences in between how traditional media and tl.net discussions result in people believing things. When the consumption is interactive (e.g., this thread), pushing too hard causes people to reverse further away on whatever spectrum. I won't go pull up the research I've seen on that right now, but it definitely works differently than fox-news style brainwashing. I'd argue if someone is more likely to reject an idea after being exposed to it more, then they weren't going to change their mind anyway. They have a fixed view. The people we're trying to reach are those who are open-minded. Some of them are likely to change their view of the conflict when they keep being exposed to the accusation of genocide. And it doesn't take much, a few percent can make all the difference. If I can convince one person, I consider my job done. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2522 Posts
On August 26 2024 02:04 Magic Powers wrote: This forum is also media, it's all the same at the end of the day. More exposure to an idea makes people more likely to adopt the idea themselves. It requires repetition because that's how the human brain learns things. This theory doesn't work unless you control the media OR the idea is irrefutable. If you control the media you can send a singular message, and avoid Kwark coming in with reasonable counter-arguments. If reasonable counter-arguments are present, it becomes much more difficult to effectively brainwash people into believing your singular message. Since this is a public forum and you don't control 'this media', you're reliant on the strength of your argument to convince someone moreso than repetition. For reference, see Zeo in the russo-ukraine thread doing a wonderful job of repeating himself and not exactly gaining any ground. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42254 Posts
On August 26 2024 02:02 NewSunshine wrote: For me, thousands of innocent people are dying. I don't know what else you can really call it but genocide. A war. That’s literally the main thing that happens in war. We already have a word for that thing where two governments are fighting and innocent people die in the crossfire. War is a really bad thing. People who are reaching around for the genocide word to express a really bad situation seem to have forgotten how bad war is. Hundreds of thousands died in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands have died in Ukraine, particularly in cities like Mariupol which had the civilian shelters leveled with people inside. War is terrible. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10338 Posts
| ||
| ||
