I asked a very simple question about that plan. Why do you think you can change the minds of all these people who currently are not going to vote, but you don’t think you can change the minds of the Democrat strategists?
You seem to be implying that getting Democrats to actually change policy to help them win is a lost cause, but then have this tremendous optimism toward changing the minds of thousands of people, many of whom are withholding their vote in protest against genocide. I asked why.
I did not ask “could you repeat your plan”. This is a discussion forum, it should have been obvious you might expect some scrunity of an argument put forth on it. If your intention is to ignore “naysayers” then might I suggest a discussion forum is not the best place for you to be posting. Maybe a blog, or Substack?
I don’t agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that. At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump. I hope enough of them will decide Harris is better and hold their noses, vote, then work from the inside on changing policy. That could actually work. If they don’t, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.
I don’t agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that.
What makes you think that, given the evidence to the contrary?
At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump.
Again, why are thousand of voters responsible for keeping Trump out, but not the Democrats?
Or, a slightly different question, why do you pin your hopes on these thousands and not on the Democrats? Do you think they’re more likely to change their minds? Do you think people are actually going to vote in favour of a party committed to facilitating genocide, often of their distant relations, than the Democrats are to change policy.
Don’t you think that’s an absolutely devastating indictment of democracy? That no amount of voting block pressure can actually get a party to change policy.
work from the inside on changing policy.
I don’t understand what this means. Voters vote. They don’t control party policy “from the inside”, they just vote on stuff.
If they don’t, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.
And again, blaming the electorate for being moral, not blaming the Democrats for refusing to listen.
Because the policy isn’t going to change before the election. Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election. All of your philosophical discussion of morality means nothing if Trump is reelected. Objectively, Palestinians will suffer far greater under Trump than Harris. The protesters have a decision with actual consequences on front of them. If they help Trump get elected, I don’t see how that = a moral choice in anyone’s mind. I believe enough will come around. If not, we all suffer the consequences. Simple as that.
Also, you act as though the needle isn’t moving yet I see stories like this on my feed:
Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election.
On what evidence do you believe this. All the evidence provided thus far shows the opposite to be the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats want to end arms sales to Israel. By what twisted mathematics does gaining a majority of supporters risk losing the vote?
The evidence in question, to save trawling through posts
My personal conclusion is the “just vote” people are actually pro-genocide. Why else would they insist on shaming individual voters for using the only tool they have rather than the Democratic Party.
I think that not really feeling it viscerally about it is part of the problem, yeah.
But my take, for what it’s worh, is that ever since Covid people have just got a good feeling of righteousness by simply repeating the standard mainstream messaging. There was a very strong narrative that the mainstream was right and questioning it amounted to dangerous conspiracy theory (which, to be fair, it often did). So now a certain class of people (slightly left of centre, middle class urbanites) have this Pavlovian response to any questioning of the mainstream narrative, that they simply must repeat it because of that good feeling they got supporting it during Covid.
Unfortunately, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a couple of coincidental conspiracy-bashings doesn’t change the fact that the mainstream media are fundamentally bought and paid for by their corporate advertisers and CEOs of their hedge-fund owners on the board.
The American press’s reporting on Gaza has been nothing short of actively complicit. And that’s not even a rhetorical flourish, it’s the view of no small number of international human rights lawyers.
My plan is to ignore nay sayers and vote and help others vote. Thought I was pretty clear about that.
So basically ignore people like you… Vote anyway. That’s the plan.
The clarity of your plan was not in question.
I asked a very simple question about that plan. Why do you think you can change the minds of all these people who currently are not going to vote, but you don’t think you can change the minds of the Democrat strategists?
You seem to be implying that getting Democrats to actually change policy to help them win is a lost cause, but then have this tremendous optimism toward changing the minds of thousands of people, many of whom are withholding their vote in protest against genocide. I asked why.
I did not ask “could you repeat your plan”. This is a discussion forum, it should have been obvious you might expect some scrunity of an argument put forth on it. If your intention is to ignore “naysayers” then might I suggest a discussion forum is not the best place for you to be posting. Maybe a blog, or Substack?
I don’t agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that. At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump. I hope enough of them will decide Harris is better and hold their noses, vote, then work from the inside on changing policy. That could actually work. If they don’t, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.
What makes you think that, given the evidence to the contrary?
Again, why are thousand of voters responsible for keeping Trump out, but not the Democrats?
Or, a slightly different question, why do you pin your hopes on these thousands and not on the Democrats? Do you think they’re more likely to change their minds? Do you think people are actually going to vote in favour of a party committed to facilitating genocide, often of their distant relations, than the Democrats are to change policy.
Don’t you think that’s an absolutely devastating indictment of democracy? That no amount of voting block pressure can actually get a party to change policy.
I don’t understand what this means. Voters vote. They don’t control party policy “from the inside”, they just vote on stuff.
And again, blaming the electorate for being moral, not blaming the Democrats for refusing to listen.
Because the policy isn’t going to change before the election. Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election. All of your philosophical discussion of morality means nothing if Trump is reelected. Objectively, Palestinians will suffer far greater under Trump than Harris. The protesters have a decision with actual consequences on front of them. If they help Trump get elected, I don’t see how that = a moral choice in anyone’s mind. I believe enough will come around. If not, we all suffer the consequences. Simple as that.
Also, you act as though the needle isn’t moving yet I see stories like this on my feed:
US threatens Israel with arms shipment suspensions over Gaza conditions
On what evidence do you believe this. All the evidence provided thus far shows the opposite to be the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats want to end arms sales to Israel. By what twisted mathematics does gaining a majority of supporters risk losing the vote?
The evidence in question, to save trawling through posts
https://cepr.net/press-release/poll-majority-of-americans-say-biden-should-halt-weapons-shipments-to-israel/
My personal conclusion is the “just vote” people are actually pro-genocide. Why else would they insist on shaming individual voters for using the only tool they have rather than the Democratic Party.
I think that not really feeling it viscerally about it is part of the problem, yeah.
But my take, for what it’s worh, is that ever since Covid people have just got a good feeling of righteousness by simply repeating the standard mainstream messaging. There was a very strong narrative that the mainstream was right and questioning it amounted to dangerous conspiracy theory (which, to be fair, it often did). So now a certain class of people (slightly left of centre, middle class urbanites) have this Pavlovian response to any questioning of the mainstream narrative, that they simply must repeat it because of that good feeling they got supporting it during Covid.
Unfortunately, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a couple of coincidental conspiracy-bashings doesn’t change the fact that the mainstream media are fundamentally bought and paid for by their corporate advertisers and CEOs of their hedge-fund owners on the board.
The American press’s reporting on Gaza has been nothing short of actively complicit. And that’s not even a rhetorical flourish, it’s the view of no small number of international human rights lawyers.