I mean I can find more examples in case its not clear enough.
Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think Donald Trump would do less or more to try to restrain Netanyahu? I think most rational people believe that Trump would do very little to nothing to try to restrain Israel, and may actually, encourage more military actions against civilian populations. Trump and many Republican leaders have insinuated as much if not outright stated it.
Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think Donald Trump would do less or more to try to restrain Netanyahu? I think most rational people believe that Trump would do very little to nothing to try to restrain Israel, and may actually, encourage more military actions against civilian populations. Trump and many Republican leaders have insinuated as much if not outright stated it.
What's worse than genocide?
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Umm Democrats or Republicans the core fabric of the US has always been to suppourt Israel.
Yeah that's really what make me shake my head at these people.
Why protest Harris, specifically? The most standout thing she has done relating to Israel was shun Netanyahu personally, and that really isn't much. She's just been very basic about it. Protesting at her rallies is just very far from achieving anything at all. She's also the only person who is going to be put under serious pressure to answering questions about Gaza regardless.
Why not go shout the same things at Trump rallies? He's just as likely to be the next president.
And if these protests are about brining awareness, a Democratic political rally is probably close to being one of the last places where awareness about this topic needs to be heightened.
I am extremely strongly on the protesters side in their cause, but I just don't see what this is supposed to achieve beyond making Harris look bad and create strife inside Democrats.
There is an endless list of ways and places to protest, you don't have to do it there specifically.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Yes, because elected officials are notorious for being more likely to cater to opposition groups after they've obtained power.
So back to my original point, why aren't they protesting at Trump rallies as well. Their great game plan seems to be focusing solely protesting at the rally of a party that has shown they are somewhat willing to push back against Israel and their message is don't vote for the Democrats.
There isn't a pathway to either the Democrats or Republicans abandoning their support of Israel given the regional politics. It isn't an accident that Hamas attacked when Israel and Saudi Arabia were on the path towards normalizing relations with a signed agreement.
So back to my original point, why aren't they protesting at Trump rallies as well. Their great game plan seems to be focusing solely protesting at the rally of a party that has shown they are somewhat willing to push back against Israel and their message is don't vote for the Democrats.
This is the equivalent of "Well why don't they protest abortion/LGBTQ/climate change issues in China, <insert Muslim country>, etc.?"
You can disagree with message of the protest, but protesting when someone needs your vote is a hell of a lot more effective than protesting when they don’t.
I doubt anyone can convincingly argue otherwise.
Protesting the Dems after the election will be as effective as protesting the Republicans, regardless of who wins. If neither need your vote to hold power, why would they care any more than they’ll care today?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
1) They probably want/expect Harris to be president.
2) The threat of violence at a Trump rally.
The number one point is nowhere near a given and that is the issue. If they actually get people to stay home and not vote they could affect the outcome.
This is the equivalent of "Well why don't they protest abortion/LGBTQ/climate change issues in China, <insert Muslim country>, etc.?"
If you comparison point to protesting the Republicans is the same as protesting for LGTBQ rights in a Muslim country then you answered why I think it is dumb.
If you comparison point to protesting the Republicans is the same as protesting for LGTBQ rights in a Muslim country then you answered why I think it is dumb.
No, I'm saying it's the same argument you get from conservatives on those topics. Basically, America isn't that bad and if you really cared about these issues, you'd protest at people/countries who are markedly worse on the topics.
So back to my original point, why aren't they protesting at Trump rallies as well. Their great game plan seems to be focusing solely protesting at the rally of a party that has shown they are somewhat willing to push back against Israel and their message is don't vote for the Democrats.
There isn't a pathway to either the Democrats or Republicans abandoning their support of Israel given the regional politics. It isn't an accident that Hamas attacked when Israel and Saudi Arabia were on the path towards normalizing relations with a signed agreement.
Because the Democrats can change, the Republicans cannot. (You're) trying to instill change in the party you support before giving up on them.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I just very generally find it tiresome and pointless when people complain about always having to choose between "the lesser of two evils" in the presidential elections.
First off, its just factually really stupid. Especially the Democrats very consistently put forth candidates that are if nothing else extremely competent. That is _so_ much more than what you get in most elections in most countries.
Second: it's liteeally the worst possible situation in which you can make that argument. A president of a massive country is just almost never going to be your favorite politician in the world, that should just be statistically obvious.
Third, it's literally the least reasonable, least effective and most pointless time possible to make that observation. The final presidential election between two candidates is a culmination of years of politics from all sides. Tons of people work hard for very long times to get their issues on the board and their candidates on the ticket, and if you don't like the end result, you should consider trying to be a part of the process instead of whining about the end result of something you've spent years ignoring.
The ultraconservatives have understood this extremely well for a long time now, and that's how they took over the GOP. While the moderates twiddled their thumbs, the ultraconservatives always showed up at every primary and every internal party election until they controlled everything. On the scale of major political shifts, it wasn't even that slow as a process.
The people who whine about the two presidential candidates are like the people who don't participate when you're picking a place to eat, but then complain loudly about the menu when you're already all at the restaurant. Not the time and not the place. Next time, show up when these things are being decided.
And if you don't like the whole election system, or the gerrymandering, or whichever part is your least favorite, then show up to work with the people who try to change it instead of just whining about it. Or at least do the bare minimum and share their messages on instagram or something.
The absolutely worst possible move is to not vote. If you're not a likely voter, then no one is likely to care what options you would like or what topics are important to you. All you can achieve by not voting is make it a little less likely that you'll get a better candidate the next time.
Last edited by Itse; 08-08-2024 at 02:40 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
No, I'm saying it's the same argument you get from conservatives on those topics. Basically, America isn't that bad and if you really cared about these issues, you'd protest at people/countries who are markedly worse on the topics.
It doesn't quite work when the parties are in the same country though. If they are trying to enact change at the Federal level in the US then protest both rallies and have the same message of they won't vote for a genocide.
Last edited by Bonded; 08-08-2024 at 02:26 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
You can disagree with message of the protest, but protesting when someone needs your vote is a hell of a lot more effective than protesting when they don’t.
Looks like there WAS a West Wing clip for this. Yay!
The point is, there is speaking up for what you believe in and presenting your issues, and then there's shouting over a political candidate trying to disrupt a rally. The latter doesn't help the people you want to help, it doesn't bring attention to the problem you want to talk about, it just creates a process story where the Democrats don't have their house in order. No one cares about what you care about who didn't already, all everyone cares about is how it affects this race.
And now you're a useful idiot, while remaining useless to your own cause - actually, counterproductive to it. But hey, you spoke truth to power, or at least chanted a barely intelligible rhyming slogan at it. Nice job, you principled person you! Hopefully that helps you sleep at night next January and thereafter!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
First off, its just factually really stupid. Especially the Democrats very consistently put forth candidates that are if nothing else extremely competent. That is _so_ much more than what you get in most elections in most countries.
Extremely competent shouldn't be the only qualification. Why can't people be disappointed when the candidates capitulate to genocidal regimes and shrink in the face of corporate power?
Most recent event at the UAW local 900. Interesting here, shorter event - Shawn Fain spoke for 10 minutes and then Walz and Harris for 6-7 minutes each. This was a really effective job by Walz to get through a lot of the greatest hits in a condensed form, he's very impressive. Gets the message across at any pace. Harris seems to be field testing some new stump paragraphs - and she needs to because the old speech is old.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
