I was Waiting for Harris to throw the VERY EASY win away!
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
94 points (87.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7212 readers
811 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as always
It's not like she wasn't gonna get asked...
How is it easy?
Be ethically correct and abandon Israel. Take a highly unadvised risk and lose the election. Uber douche dives headlong into atrocities.
But at least she could sleep at night.
How? You just jerk us off like every other Democrat in the pass and lie to us about shit you are going to do.
Just say you are considering all options.
Give a Gazan Democratic elected official 5 minutes to speak at the DNC.
Hint at things like how Reagan and other presidents have withheld aid or arms for violating US and international law, but just lip services. Make no real commitment.
Just wag the fucking dog and stop leaving money I. the table.
That's how fucking easy. You just fucking lie and it's easy.
The fact is, Reagan and Bush sr were both stricter on Israel than Kamala or Harris. So lean into that. We've withheld arms and aid from them before for this exact kind of shit.
I'll be honest and say I don't understand her reasoning and it baffles me
But regardless, so she didn't do that. Balls back in our court. Help me understand. What's the next play? I see people saying they won't vote for her. I and most people here can totally respect that, but it clearly seems naive and shortsighted to a lot of others at best (no disrespect to the movement), and a legit threat to all the things we're supposedly aligned on, at worst
The movement seems to be messaging, "do the right thing on this issue or else we won't vote for you." But, she's basically "calling the bluff". She thinks it's all smoke or insignificant. Well, will people actually stay home? If not, what are they doing but looking weak and hypocritical? If yes, then what are they planning on doing next if she loses?
I think we have to at least agree that these issues/actions divide us. And that means it weakens us. That means many of us are willingly weakening the movements they claim to support, or allowing our movements to be weakened. There are many ongoing movements and instead of building bridges we're actively silo'ing ourselves and engaging in antagonist behavior towards each other. Let me know if that's an unfair characterization - of course, I have the recent division with black folks in mind.
To me, this is the part I struggle with the most, the seemingly sanctimonious disregard for meaningful, tangible change over support for say, real progressive legislation that gives power back to the people instead of corporations and the rich (but I see how this is my number one issue and it clearly isnt for others).
All that said, you certainly won't ever catch me shouting down genocide protesters or making fun of them. I think it's noble as fuck. And that shit was one of the tackiest thing I've ever seen liberal voters do
Sorry, that got long 😁 this is all so frustrating
The movement seems to be messaging, “do the right thing on this issue or else we won’t vote for you.” But, she’s basically “calling the bluff”.
First step first in bluffing: Don't. Whats great about that strategy, is that when/ if they call your "bluff", you now have the opportunity to go all in.
So what does all in look like? I've been wondering and thinking about this.
Here is what I propose:
Some kind of simple website maybe similar to an act-blue thing. Effectively it is a map with some numbers and the text "Arms embargo now!"
The premise: you go to this website and sign up (maybe via act-blue so they know we're not faking it.) By signing up, you are effectively you are making a commitement to withhold your vote in November if the Harris/ Biden administration/ Harris campaign does not commit to an arms embargo. The count of voters who have committed to with-holding their vote is displayed on each state. These numbers are compared to the "tipping numbers" from 2020. Keep in mind that its was counts of votes in the ranges of 10's of thousands that determined the 2020 election. Every day, a digest of this is sent as a press release to a bunch of left/ progressive/ mainstream media outlets.
Effectively, you put it out there that our votes are on the line, and she can do a thing, and it releases the donations to the Harris campaign.
Sorry, that didn't answer my main question at all.
I understand what the movements goals are. I'm not interested in discussing the strategy.
My thinking goes like this, say the movement is a major success. And she tries to call your bluff (again lack of a better phrase here) and the movement true to its word and values succeed in being the deciding vote, let's say. What are the possible results? There's likely more than two but the obvious groups are either she loses or she wins. My question is then what?
She either won without the movement kinda giving them a political w and proving their power all while demoralizing folks that get invested. Or, she loses and the movement is blamed and scapegoated as the sole reason she lost and whole lot else.
I'm wondering about what folks in this movement think will happen after the election. Are we ready for the worst-caae scenario?
I mean the basic idea here is to make it obvious what the candidate is leaving on the table. Its setting up a basic quid-pro-quo. If she wins without the movement well its not like she was listening anyways, so nothing gained nothing lost. If she loses, its gonna be pretty fucking obvious that she could have won by listening.
The issue is that by allowing the candidate to continue down a deeply unpopular path, you are setting up the worst case scenario. We have an exact historical analog with Joe Biden no less than 2 months ago. There is this brain parasite that got into leftist communities around strategic voting which is just factually and functionally wrong a couple years ago, and its done real fucking damage. Supporting the lessor of two evils actually makes the lessor evil less likely to succeed.
By allowing the candidate with a policy position that 80% of the US voters disapprove of, we're doing her a disservice and decreasing her chances of success.
Fair enough. We're talking past each other at this point and I don't really feel like repeating myself.
I disagree with the movement's strategy, and lack thereof, and I disagree with your entire first paragraph. There is absolutely a lot to lose and it's beyond frustrating and disrespectful for someone like you to say there isn't. I'd implore you to think about even just one negative outcome that could occur because of your movement's lack of consideration for their fellow citizens.
That said, I'd bet decent money you're not a Muslim-American, that could be banned from visiting their family in a foreign country, or a Mexican-American that might be at risk of being deported/their family being deported, etc. My guess is you'll be just fine no matter what happens and you don't really care about the people that could suffer most due to your reactionary political goals.
We’re talking past each other at this point and I don’t really feel like repeating myself.
It seems that way because you are insisting that a strategy which has been objectively demonstrated to work, in the very recent past, is going to backfire. Your stance is completely ahistorical and without merit. Its based on speculation and ignores the facts on the ground the very real demonstration that by withholding your vote, you can move politicians to a better, more popular political position.
So to be clear, your disagreement isn't with me, its with objective reality; material factual things that have happened.
You've convinced yourself you are doing harm reduction by telling a people being genocided that its fine because look this party that also supports your genocide has a brown woman leading it. The fact that the Democrats are no better on Gaza hurts them in November and we can fix that. In-fact, holding back votes specifically to move the party on some issue is the only thing that has kept Democrats competitive in this race.
The exact same argument you are making right now was being made 3 months ago regarding Joe Biden. That we needed to support Joe or else. That we needed to back Biden because Trump.
And it was wrong. It wasn't wisdom it was idiocy. The exact argument you are making now was the same exact argument that led to Democrats UTTERLY FUCKING FAILING in November.
You just want to believe yourself to be on the side of what you perceive to be "right" but you have no evidence to suggest that what you are doing is actual harm reduction.
And guess what? The uncommited movement is being led by Muslim-Americans, so this point:
I’d bet decent money you’re not a Muslim-American, that could be banned from visiting their family in a foreign country, or a Mexican-American that might be at risk of being deported/their family being deported, etc.
Is just complete bullshit. If you are voting blindly for Democrats, you ARE the fucking problem because you are enabling them to have these shitty stances which cause real material harm, AND you are decreasing their chances of success in November.
Dude, I didn't say most of what you're assuming I said. It's weird what you're doing. We're not convincing each other of anything. The idea is to try and understand each other. I'm not going to engage with the original convo anymore because it's not fruitful. Now, I'm more interested in the poor/lack of communication going on.
I mean, you wrote a whole lot in response to my saying "you're not understanding me" with a defensive rant about how you are actually understanding me, I just can't tell or am lying to you. I'll say it once more. You're not understanding me or what I'm trying to convey. I'll accept my part in failing to communicate but it takes two.. to u know not assume an entire thesis about what the other is sayinf
I personally would never criticize people doing what you're doing (not voting/voting third party). I disagree with it, but do your thing. I tend to criticize the Dems so it's wild you think I was saying Biden shouldn't drop out. You're saying legit silly things and it only makes sense to you and maybe people that already agree with you. I mean, you didn't even answer the one question I asked, about what happens after the election, and you now you've jumped to thinking I'm against everything you stand for or something. That's wild bro!
This is what frustrates me most. I disagreed with one thing you said, and you went nuclear like I'm basically your number one enemy. It's like you'd prefer to be all alone and/or have less allies.
I honestly care a bit less about politics since realizing most of us can't even have a very basic, low-stakes conversation about what each person thinks. I mean, if we don't truly understand what the other is saying what's the point?
jerk us off like every other Democrat in the pass
Reagan and Bush sr were both stricter on Israel than Kamala or Harris
I hate this argument. The Democrats always let us down so let's re-look at the other choice...you know the one that actively went(and are currently going)for our throats.
Kamala could have left some daylight between her and Biden's policy. Some room for a pivot after the election. I don't know why her advisors steered her from that or what levers AIPAC and big donors have but they must be election altering.
Who even are the two dozen centrists that she thinks she can court?
The donor class, A.K.A. the capitalist class that funds political campaigns.
Welp. It was nice to feel some hope for a couple of weeks. I'll cherish the memories. I don't think I'll be feeling that emotion again for a very long time.
could be all a facade to get some votes from the centrists, we can't know yet
"Israel had a right, has a right to defend itself."
Obviously I know the answer, but why is such an easily disproven lie uncritically repeated? Does literally no one in the mainstream media have the guts to call it out?
No. You do not have a right to defend yourself from your own illegal occupation for fucks sake.
This is a bog-standard propaganda tactic. It’s the same reason that US corporate media always qualify Ansar Allah (A.K.A. “the Houthis”) with “Iran-backed.”
Defending yourself should be things like building up border fences and increasing border security. Not invading another country and shooting people.
The entire country of Israel is just land they stole from Palestine, and the campaign of genocide, eviction, and an attempt to erase the Palestinian people from the face of the earth.
What if they flood your border security with thousands of soldiers?
Idk, given that Israel is a settler colony ethnostate with one set of rules for Israelis and another rule for the people who are occupied. The people they are killing have lived there for generations… it seems like we are handing military gear over to the baddies. But that makes sense given that we are also a settler colony.
If only the situation were even that "good" for Palestine. It's been an occupied territory by Isreal for years - long before last Oct. There already are "border fences" - Gaza has been under blockade by Isreal for at least 2 decades, restricting any movement of Palestinians. I recommend having a look at a map to see just how dire the situation is for Palestine when they have Isreal right in the middle and all around simultaneously.
Palestine isn't even recognized as a country by several, including - conveniently - Isreal and the US.
So, neither of those proposed alternatives would really be a good argument to Israel I'm afraid.
Feeling represented yet?
I'm sure Ukraine needs what the zionists are throwing at civilizans. Maybe the democrats don't care about Ukraine.
genocide is brat
So genuine question what does this mean for the protestors come election day. Is there only choice to vote Democrat or Republican? Can they vote for an independent? How would it work?
Vote independent of course, I'd propose you should vote for Claudia de la Cruz from PSL if you live in the states where they're on the ballot, and probably either Green or write in/don't vote if they aren't.
Canadian here so voting may be a little problematic :).
This is for an independent president, yes? Can you vote for an independent member of congress?
Oh lol I also am outside of the US so I don't vote (except I'm voting for Trump by not voting for Kamala, as I've been told very often)
There are quite a lot of independent representatives and a handful of independent senators, though for what it's worth there are still some congresspeople and senators in the Democratic Party that aren't as disgusting as Harris herself. Many were successfully primaried by AIPAC sponsored candidates this election so they'll have to run as independents, however.
They can vote for anyone on the ballot in their state, or in states that support it, write in a name of their choosing.
It would essentially be a protest vote, telling the big 2: “you might have got this vote if you’d had a better stance on Israel.”
Protest votes are also a terrible idea.
Not only is this not the only issue in the world, but even just on this issue, with both (actual) options being bad, it's still the case that one side is orders of magnitude worse than the other.
Protest votes are also a terrible idea.
Just want to make the point that this was the exact logic we had to stick with the grand malfeasance which was candidate Biden.
So no. Wrong. False.
It's election season brother you'll never outbark them blue dogs. I do appreciate it even so
Idk mang. I'm pretty fucking loud.
o7
If I had the option to vote for someone else in the primary (not counting brain worm or antivax, but even they had dropped out by then) then I would have.
My options were Biden or not vote in the primary. I wasn't happy about that, but I still would have chosen him over Trump in the general election of course.
Not voting or voting protest in Nov would still help Trump. That's just how the math works.
They can:
- stay home - this results in whomever gets the most votes from everyone else getting the electoral votes for that district/state. In many districts, this benefits trump
- write in someone else - more clearly shows protest, but what that actually does or if anybody really counts it, I have no idea. Effectively the same as option 1 for the outcome of this particular election
- vote for a third party - basically the same as the above, though certain things do happen if a party gets some percentage of the vote, but not until the next election. The outcome for this election is the same
- vote for one of the two major candidates - self-explanatory
How much not voting or protest voting impacts the actual results kinda depends upon the district and state. However, even in a seemingly secure district or state, enough people protest-voting could actually have a negative impact in that particular election (though I find that fairly unlikely). I vote in a rural district that supports trump. Since he's objectively worse in basically every way and has indicated that he's willing to let Netanyahu's government do whatever they want, I feel it unethical to do anything but vote against trump which, given what I wrote above, basically leaves Harris. If I know that trump will be worse, and I know that doing anything other than voting for Harris in my district helps cement trump, then I must vote for Harris or I'm just helping trump.
We are here because nearly everywhere uses first-past-the-post and voter turnout isn't great, particularly by voters in local and regional elections. I vote as progressively as I can in local elections and advocate for ranked choice or rated voting wherever possible. People in power tend to hate ranked choice voting or similar because it removes what almost always just becomes a two-party fight which often leads to tactical voting rather than properly representing people. The state in which I vote also has a huge gerrymandering problem, but that's another story.
They work towards passing state level electoral reform in their respective states so they are free to vote for who best represents them. All while secure in the knowledge that their vote would still be counted against the republicans.
It is possibly to late for this election without a general strike. But possible it remains. In fact, Alaska and Maine have already done away with First-past-the-post voting.
Democrats believe in democracy right? If so, why do the vast majority of blue states continue to use First Past the Post voting?
Tell any blue conservative that you are considering voting 3rd party and they will show that they understand the mathematical flaws of our voting system. Yet they do nothing to fix the issue between elections. Curious.
They have a choice of staying home and not vote
Makes sense. Biden was given the most money by AIPAC ($4m) and she's Biden's VP. I am not at all surprised that she's honoring whatever agreement came attached to that money. I think anyone who is surprised that she is continuing Biden's support of genocide isn't paying attention.
I hope she is such passionate about all rights. Like the students right to protest.
Lesser evil, but still evil.