|
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 February 15 2025 00:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:26 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is. If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one. People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant. Primaries, huh? The American people, huh? That's really how you think it works in reality. Pretty sure the American people you are talking about would have chosen people other than Hilary and Trump to run in 2016 if they actually had a choice. Everyone I spoke to from the US thought they were both ridiculous candidates. Nice argument in theory though. I'm pretty sure the lesser evil argument is the argument pretty much every single person on this forum is using to try and convince me that everyone should have voted democrat. That's where this began. Hillary was a perfectly respectable perfectly qualified former Secretary of State with a good legislative record. Most of the issues people had with her were manufactured by right wing media. She would have been fine.
So I'm to take it that I can't take issue with what 'The American People' vote for in a primary, unlike a Presidential election, where the voting public is absolutely 100% to blame for any consequences of not voting Democrat.
I blame Democrat voters as much as anyone else for the lack of decent choices available in US politics, and for the evil perpetrated by those who are supposed to be on the side of good.
People who voted for scum like Hilary in the Primary are to blame for the lack of choices just as much as people who voted for Trump are to blame for things now.
|
On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has.
What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse.
Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely.
The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.)
|
On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.)
It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies."
|
On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.)
By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur.
Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them.
I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily.
And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years.
|
On February 15 2025 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:26 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is. If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one. People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant. Primaries, huh? The American people, huh? That's really how you think it works in reality. Pretty sure the American people you are talking about would have chosen people other than Hilary and Trump to run in 2016 if they actually had a choice. Everyone I spoke to from the US thought they were both ridiculous candidates. Nice argument in theory though. I'm pretty sure the lesser evil argument is the argument pretty much every single person on this forum is using to try and convince me that everyone should have voted democrat. That's where this began. The American people did have a choice. Through the primaries, they cast ballots. Those ballots favored those two. Was it manipulated? Sure, we can say that. But at the end of the day, they had a choice. They could have continued voting for Sanders throughout the primary and the election. They voted Clinton instead. The choice was there. Did they make the correct choice? Who's to say? But as was stated a few pages back, it was more misogyny and racism that kept Harris and Clinton out of office. Hey, I was being told a minute ago it was people refusing to vote Dem out of conscience that kept Harris out of office. Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. Like I said, objectively delusional, ahistorical, and insane. I agree wholeheartedly. Sorry for the low content post I don't have much else to say about it.
All good, just don't let them gaslight you into this absurdity about how the real genocidal people aren't the people that voted for genocidal politicians, but the people that didn't vote for them.
They really can't see how far gone they are even with the mirror right up to their face. Almost makes it hard to blame Democrat and Republican politicians for treating them like obsequious and oblivious idiots at this point.
|
On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years.
Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump?
|
How many times has Trump called Justin Trudeau , "Governor Trudeau"? He did it again yesterday. He did it on his own meandering between a myriad of topics. LOL. Has any other world leader objected to this? This joke has been going on for months now. It is hilarious.
The USA asked Canada many years ago to commit 2% of GDP to military spending. Trudeau never did it and then did the trick he has done his entire tenure and claimed they'll eventually meet the required goal at a date so far into the future its meaningless. Like a US state, Canada does almost all its economic activity outside its borders with the USA. Like a US state Canada has no navy and relies upon the US Navy to guard its waters. In reality, Justin Trudeau really is the governor of a US state.
Trump keeps yapping about Canada unprompted. Then, he started talking about the Chinese and Russian naval power while Canada has, in effect, no navy. I say: he wants an ownership stake in Canada's energy resources and reserves in exchange for zero tariffs and guaranteed military protection.
Watching Canadian news ... its like the entire country is a contestant in a season of The Apprentice. It is comedy gold.
On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while
Biden is barely coherent ... which is why he did not run for re election. Biden did not work to do anything. The team around Biden probably did some work. However, the Hamas//Israel ceasefire negotiations worked under the spectre of Donald Trump shaking things up. Same thing happened with the Iranian hostages and Reagan on Jan 20, 1981. The Iranians knew they were all going to die once Reagan took office so they started negotiating.
Reagan deserves most of the credit for the ending of the hostage crisis in 1981 and Trump deserves most of the credit for the ceasefire in the middle east. In both cases, the Democrats deserve some credit as well. Its the old "Good Cop//Bad Cop Routine" played on a global scale.
As Trump likes to say: "Peace Through Power".
In general, I think both major parties do some good things and some bad things. Many Americans view that one party is building the country while the other party is destroying the country. I find it amusing.
I think Trump is doing pretty good so far.
|
On February 15 2025 01:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
How many times has Trump called Justin Trudeau , "Governor Trudeau"? He did it again yesterday. He did it on his own meandering between a myriad of topics. LOL. Has any other world leader objected to this? This joke has been going on for months now. It is hilarious.
Only Trump and Trump supporters think this is interesting.
|
I can think of a few other people who have said "peace through power" over the years and they are not the good people in any story.
On February 15 2025 01:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
How many times has Trump called Justin Trudeau , "Governor Trudeau"? He did it again yesterday. He did it on his own meandering between a myriad of topics. LOL. Has any other world leader objected to this? This joke has been going on for months now. It is hilarious. Only Trump and Trump supporters think this is interesting.
Its the same level as thinking "lets go Brandon" is a funny joke and then getting mad at "dark Brandon" for coopting their thing. Trump shows legitimate signs of dimentia and is very old, him forgetting what postion Trudeau has is a very real possibility.
|
Throwing your hands up and letting the evils fighting for power to kill more or less people is just as bad. Everyone is gaslighting themselves here.
Bottom line is for the kind of society you're in you're going to have to deal with people suffering. Be it from acquiring base raw materials, or having a stake in unstable regions for geopolitical reasons. If you want to lessen that, you need to disrupt many many entrenched systems. You need to change how people live and look at consumption. GHs praxis might have a local effect and that's commendable for sure, but bringing down/reforming the nodes is literally what needs to be done if you want to change the network's architecture.
The disgusting, yet gruesomely effective retail logistics is a result of apathy and an overwhelming luxurious society. Fuck going to the store, I'll order it all online. People need to suffer because of that. People like Zambrah who, iirc work (or have worked) for Amazon and at times dread coming in.
An empathic government tries to soften the blow for the most vunerable layer. Like actual root cause. Actual ethical policies, not just virtue signaling. Stuff like: fix your shit Amalzon or get fined into oblivion, but alas.
At the same time it's incredibly difficult to assess all these threads where it goes wrong and studying them and finding real solutions without drastically overhauling the current infrastructure (because tabula rasa is - while sometimes necessary - kinda yikes) is extremely difficult.
Maybe we need to accept the tabula rasa.
|
On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies."
While I agree with a lot of what you said, I don't think Democrats are absolved of all responsibility when it comes to Gaza. I think there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to Gaza, though of course I think Republicans deserve more blame. The Democrats are way, way, way better when it comes to handling Ukraine and Russia.
|
On February 15 2025 01:19 Sermokala wrote:
I can think of a few other people who have said "peace through power" over the years and they are not the good people in any story.
please, do not take that joke literally. Kane from C&C said it. We're on an RTS forum board talking about world politics.
In effect this is what's going on here.
Above is the best part, here is the entire plot line.
|
On February 15 2025 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies." While I agree with a lot of what you said, I don't think Democrats are absolved of all responsibility when it comes to Gaza. I think there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to Gaza, though of course I think Republicans deserve more blame. The Democrats are way, way, way better when it comes to handling Ukraine and Russia.
I'm not saying they're absolved of that, but that the Ds were actually trying to get a solution and they even stopped sending weapons/money to Israel for a period. Harris came out and said she supported a 2-state solution and would work/negotiate on that platform. But that wasn't enough for people. They wanted the US to say "good luck Israel, we're not supporting you any longer with anything."
And would sit back and watch Israel fight a multipronged war against several nations that want them wiped out. Sure, they may have gotten support from other places. That would have given the non-voters a good pat on the back. But then they'd shift to "why aren't the Ds helping Israel?!?!" and the circle continues. It's a losing argument with them. They'll pontificate full throatedly while doing nothing effectively.
(Except empower fascism and complain the Ds aren't doing enough to stop that).
|
On February 15 2025 01:19 Sermokala wrote:
Trump shows legitimate signs of dimentia and is very old, him forgetting what postion Trudeau has is a very real possibility.
nah, I highly suspect , Trump is not forgetting. Trump is correct about Justin being a governor. Justin is closer to being the governor of a US state than he is the leader of a G7 country. I've already explained why.
As Justin acknowledged a couple of weeks ago: "Trump is a skilled negotiator".
I think Justin is correct and you are incorrect in assessing Trump.
On February 15 2025 01:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
How many times has Trump called Justin Trudeau , "Governor Trudeau"? He did it again yesterday. He did it on his own meandering between a myriad of topics. LOL. Has any other world leader objected to this? This joke has been going on for months now. It is hilarious. Only Trump and Trump supporters think this is interesting. Trump is establishing the frame of the negotiations with Canada. He wants the USA to have an ownership state in Canada's energy reserves and resources. It is possible he wants Alberta.
This is why it is interesting.
If Trump makes the lives of the average American better I support him. If not, I do not. To get an idea of how I measure this: Reagan and Clinton, generally speaking, made things better. They were good.
I think Trump will end up doing a good job, however, as I've stated in the past there were signs 12 months ago of a major recession hitting the USA. So we'll see what happens.
|
On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies."
This is the third time i've told I'm trying to take the moral high ground, when I joined this conversation to try and empathize with the people that Dem voters were claiming were responsible for everything Trump is doing.
It is you (collective), not I, who was taking the moral high ground, and you don't even notice yourselves doing it.
Its not like the Democrats haven't been told, repeatedly, by every single non Democrat in America, that this behaviour is a massive turn off and gives out the impression that
a) The Democrats and their voters believe they have the moral high ground absolutely
b) Are perfectly happy telling everyone else they are evil
c) Are incredibly arrogant about their self-defined position on the top of the moral superiority pyramid.
The problem is the refusal to even try and see anyone else's point of view. I've been told in this very thread that if I was a Palestinian who has watched their family slaughtered because of the policies of Democrats, that I should still vote Democrat. The lack of empathy is absolutely astonishing tbh.
On February 15 2025 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years. Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump?
In the short term, for the next few years, you have a good point here.
It all falls apart if you look any further ahead than that.
Why would the democrats ever need to listen to what their voters want again? They can just dictate what you are going to vote for and you'll vote for it to keep the Republicans out.
Long term, I believe it is very helpful for political parties to genuinely believe that people will stop voting for them if they don't listen to their voters. That is the entire purpose of not voting Democrat in this case. It isn't going to make the lives of people in Gaza better, that horse has bolted. The ship has sailed. The people of Gaza are fucked because the Democrats decided it could be so.
Maybe though, next time the Democrats are in the middle of a genocide and an election is coming up, they'll think twice about their policies.
|
|
|
On February 15 2025 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies." This is the third time i've told I'm trying to take the moral high ground, when I joined this conversation to try and empathize with the people that Dem voters were claiming were responsible for everything Trump is doing. It is you (collective), not I, who was taking the moral high ground, and you don't even notice yourselves doing it. Its not like the Democrats haven't been told, repeatedly, by every single non Democrat in America, that this behaviour is a massive turn off and gives out the impression that a) The Democrats and their voters believe they have the moral high ground absolutely b) Are perfectly happy telling everyone else they are evil c) Are incredibly arrogant about their self-defined position on the top of the moral superiority pyramid. The problem is the refusal to even try and see anyone else's point of view. I've been told in this very thread that if I was a Palestinian who has watched their family slaughtered because of the policies of Democrats, that I should still vote Democrat. The lack of empathy is absolutely astonishing tbh. Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years. Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump? In the short term, for the next few years, you have a good point here. It all falls apart if you look any further ahead than that. Why would the democrats ever need to listen to what their voters want again? They can just dictate what you are going to vote for and you'll vote for it to keep the Republicans out. Long term, I believe it is very helpful for political parties to genuinely believe that people will stop voting for them if they don't listen to their voters. That is the entire purpose of not voting Democrat in this case. It isn't going to make the lives of people in Gaza better, that horse has bolted. The ship has sailed. The people of Gaza are fucked because the Democrats decided it could be so. Maybe though, next time the Democrats are in the middle of a genocide and an election is coming up, they'll think twice about their policies.
We recognized what the Ds did in the campaign that probably led to their defeat and we also gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to what was being said. But time and time again, all we're getting are people bashing the D party for things that the Rs did or refused to cooperate on. So all you're doing, by continuing to bash Ds and not hold Rs responsible for the shitshow we're currently seeing, is allowing them to grab more of the power. We understand the problems and have offered solutions. But those solutions aren't palatable to people like you and GH (collective). What you effectively want are for the Ds to assume total power and just kick the Rs out and invite a civil war to try and accelerate whatever asinine ideas you dream up. That isn't how it works.
This entire thread is just a circular argument. I don't think I have a moral superiority over you or GH. But I know that pouting because your ideal candidate didn't get in and handing the country to fascism isn't the play. Either put up or shut up. If you're not going to participate, then what grounds do you have to stand on to tell those that are, what to do? At the end of the day, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet arguing. It's not helping.
|
On February 15 2025 01:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:19 Sermokala wrote:
Trump shows legitimate signs of dimentia and is very old, him forgetting what postion Trudeau has is a very real possibility. nah, I highly suspect , Trump is not forgetting. Trump is correct about Justin being a governor.
Except that's literally not true. The best counter that you had (past tense) was pretending that Trump was just mocking Trudeau by calling him a governor, instead of a prime minister, because it's a misrepresentation of Trudeau's title and is supposed to hurt Trudeau's feelings.
But now you're taking Trump's nonsensical taunt seriously by (incorrectly) evaluating the veracity of his statement. There was no reason to ever do that, and now it just seems like you'll believe anything Trump says as literal truth, even when it's a (rude, dumb) joke.
|
On February 15 2025 01:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies." This is the third time i've told I'm trying to take the moral high ground, when I joined this conversation to try and empathize with the people that Dem voters were claiming were responsible for everything Trump is doing. It is you (collective), not I, who was taking the moral high ground, and you don't even notice yourselves doing it. Its not like the Democrats haven't been told, repeatedly, by every single non Democrat in America, that this behaviour is a massive turn off and gives out the impression that a) The Democrats and their voters believe they have the moral high ground absolutely b) Are perfectly happy telling everyone else they are evil c) Are incredibly arrogant about their self-defined position on the top of the moral superiority pyramid. The problem is the refusal to even try and see anyone else's point of view. I've been told in this very thread that if I was a Palestinian who has watched their family slaughtered because of the policies of Democrats, that I should still vote Democrat. The lack of empathy is absolutely astonishing tbh. On February 15 2025 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years. Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump? In the short term, for the next few years, you have a good point here. It all falls apart if you look any further ahead than that. Why would the democrats ever need to listen to what their voters want again? They can just dictate what you are going to vote for and you'll vote for it to keep the Republicans out. Long term, I believe it is very helpful for political parties to genuinely believe that people will stop voting for them if they don't listen to their voters. That is the entire purpose of not voting Democrat in this case. It isn't going to make the lives of people in Gaza better, that horse has bolted. The ship has sailed. The people of Gaza are fucked because the Democrats decided it could be so. Maybe though, next time the Democrats are in the middle of a genocide and an election is coming up, they'll think twice about their policies. We recognized what the Ds did in the campaign that probably led to their defeat and we also gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to what was being said. But time and time again, all we're getting are people bashing the D party for things that the Rs did or refused to cooperate on. So all you're doing, by continuing to bash Ds and not hold Rs responsible for the shitshow we're currently seeing, is allowing them to grab more of the power. We understand the problems and have offered solutions. But those solutions aren't palatable to people like you and GH (collective). What you effectively want are for the Ds to assume total power and just kick the Rs out and invite a civil war to try and accelerate whatever asinine ideas you dream up. That isn't how it works. This entire thread is just a circular argument. I don't think I have a moral superiority over you or GH. But I know that pouting because your ideal candidate didn't get in and handing the country to fascism isn't the play. Either put up or shut up. If you're not going to participate, then what grounds do you have to stand on to tell those that are, what to do? At the end of the day, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet arguing. It's not helping.
Again, this simply is not what happened and is not reflective of my participation in the discussion at all.
You're acting like I just turned up and started blaming Democrats for everything.
I'm here because I just don't buy the argument that was being made that anyone who didn't vote Democrat is responsible for everything that Trump decides to do.
You are flipping that on its head and claiming that in defending those people, I'm somehow attacking the Democrats.
edited for niceness
|
On February 15 2025 02:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies." This is the third time i've told I'm trying to take the moral high ground, when I joined this conversation to try and empathize with the people that Dem voters were claiming were responsible for everything Trump is doing. It is you (collective), not I, who was taking the moral high ground, and you don't even notice yourselves doing it. Its not like the Democrats haven't been told, repeatedly, by every single non Democrat in America, that this behaviour is a massive turn off and gives out the impression that a) The Democrats and their voters believe they have the moral high ground absolutely b) Are perfectly happy telling everyone else they are evil c) Are incredibly arrogant about their self-defined position on the top of the moral superiority pyramid. The problem is the refusal to even try and see anyone else's point of view. I've been told in this very thread that if I was a Palestinian who has watched their family slaughtered because of the policies of Democrats, that I should still vote Democrat. The lack of empathy is absolutely astonishing tbh. On February 15 2025 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years. Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump? In the short term, for the next few years, you have a good point here. It all falls apart if you look any further ahead than that. Why would the democrats ever need to listen to what their voters want again? They can just dictate what you are going to vote for and you'll vote for it to keep the Republicans out. Long term, I believe it is very helpful for political parties to genuinely believe that people will stop voting for them if they don't listen to their voters. That is the entire purpose of not voting Democrat in this case. It isn't going to make the lives of people in Gaza better, that horse has bolted. The ship has sailed. The people of Gaza are fucked because the Democrats decided it could be so. Maybe though, next time the Democrats are in the middle of a genocide and an election is coming up, they'll think twice about their policies. We recognized what the Ds did in the campaign that probably led to their defeat and we also gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to what was being said. But time and time again, all we're getting are people bashing the D party for things that the Rs did or refused to cooperate on. So all you're doing, by continuing to bash Ds and not hold Rs responsible for the shitshow we're currently seeing, is allowing them to grab more of the power. We understand the problems and have offered solutions. But those solutions aren't palatable to people like you and GH (collective). What you effectively want are for the Ds to assume total power and just kick the Rs out and invite a civil war to try and accelerate whatever asinine ideas you dream up. That isn't how it works. This entire thread is just a circular argument. I don't think I have a moral superiority over you or GH. But I know that pouting because your ideal candidate didn't get in and handing the country to fascism isn't the play. Either put up or shut up. If you're not going to participate, then what grounds do you have to stand on to tell those that are, what to do? At the end of the day, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet arguing. It's not helping. Again, this simply is not what happened and is not reflective of my participation in the discussion at all. You're acting like I just turned up and started blaming Democrats for everything. I'm here because I just don't buy the argument that was being made that anyone who didn't vote Democrat is responsible for everything that Trump decides to do. You are flipping that on its head and claiming that in defending those people, I'm somehow attacking the Democrats. edited for niceness
And I'm saying that it is precisely the issue of them not supporting the platform that allowed this takeover. I'm not saying you personally, it's a collective. GH sits here and shits on the Ds for failing, but at the same time, it was enough people who were Ds that voted trump/third party/did not vote that caused this. And they are assigned some of the blame. To pin it all on the Ds is shifting blame so that they don't have to feel bad.
You're welcome to defend them and I'm sure they and others appreciate it. But at the end of the day, they are also to blame and should be held accountable for that as well as the D party. The D voters voted to keep trump out and it didn't work. The messaging was bad and the play was bad. But to now sit back and attack D voters because they voted? What's the angle or prize you're fishing for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
