American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

And what exactly would your solution be here. This is truly rock-and-a-hard-place country.

Protest all you want, but also understand the alternatives. Sure, protest the Democrats for trying to strike a balance while still supporting your only real ally in the region, but what is the alternative? The Republicans, who would love to see the Palestinians eradicated along with much of the Muslim world? That's kind of the point. Try this protest at a Trump rally and you're going home bloodied. Do this at a Harris rally and you get shhhhhed. Vote for the Republicans and you're going to see your side exterminated. Vote for the Democrats and they will at least try to sway Israel's behaviors and limit the access to the most damaging munitions. It's a Sophie's choice, but one is clearly much better than the other.

There is a third option though. Be a Bernie Bros ######bag and stay home. But then you risk really get kicked in the nuts because you possibly allow the Republicans getting in and then having to live with those consequences, which are going to much worse if they get in.

[ResAlien]

Corsi you’ve mentioned it multiple times now and seem to dislike when Harris or Walz repeat any kind of talking point or slogan. Are you expecting them to come out with a fresh set every time? I mean we all know how politics work right and repeating a message is kind of the name of the game.

I suppose I don’t understand what appears to be your disdain for how they’re operating. I could be misunderstanding your intent though

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What’s wrong with how Harris responded? The chants were drowning out her speech, and it didn’t seem like they were going to stop anytime soon. She had to regain control of the event. Behaving like the adult in the room looked like it won her more support at the rally than it lost her, never mind nationally.

It was a bit condescending, and honestly sounded like something Hillary Clinton would have said. I'm not saying most Americans agree with the protesters, but the ones that might have sympathy to their cause are ones she needs to turn out to vote.

Harris is ultimately not a strong candidate based on her history and what we've seen of her campaign abilities. Probably her best chance to win is to maintain the feel good/breath of fresh air sort of vibes she has going right now, and the kind of tenor she showed there goes against that. Biden's softer approach would be more effective than the Hillary Clinton-esque "vote for me or else" approach.

There are a enough people that dislike Trump, but that will still vote for him if they don't like the Democratic candidate. So maintaining the likability edge is important. I can't imagine many people who are still undecided at this point are giving a ton of thought to policy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Corsi you’ve mentioned it multiple times now and seem to dislike when Harris or Walz repeat any kind of talking point or slogan. Are you expecting them to come out with a fresh set every time? I mean we all know how politics work right and repeating a message is kind of the name of the game.

I suppose I don’t understand what appears to be your disdain for how they’re operating. I could be misunderstanding your intent though

But if they came out and opened every speech with West Wing soundbites they'd be GOATed.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

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…

There is an endless list of ways and places to protest, you don't have to do it there specifically.

Exactly. Purity policing and denunciation of compromise are all well and good to energize activist groups, raise awareness, and earn social media likes. With this issue, at a Democratic rally, they’re worse than useless. The protestors are so immersed in their activist culture that they don’t seem to recognize how ineffective their tactics are when it comes to real-world politics. They’re not serious people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Corsi you’ve mentioned it multiple times now and seem to dislike when Harris or Walz repeat any kind of talking point or slogan. Are you expecting them to come out with a fresh set every time? I mean we all know how politics work right and repeating a message is kind of the name of the game.

Slogans are totally fine - the crowd knows what to chant. In this case, "we're not going back" seems to be the choice. That should be worked into just about every speech.

But the name of the game now is authenticity. If you stick the same speech up on the teleprompter, word for word, and deliver it with more or less the same cadence for weeks, you will sound inauthentic. So you have to keep the message, keep the lines that work, but deliver them differently and in new contexts in order to keep it fresh. 30 years ago this wasn't necessary because the only way someone at your event in Detroit on Wednesday would have heard you use these lines in Philadelphia on Monday was if they drove across two states. Now a lot of people have seen this speech before you give it. Just for example, IMO, the "I know Donald Trump's type" bit has served its purpose and needs to be dropped - but that doesn't mean you can't come up with a new sound bite that serves the same purpose in terms of sending the "prosecutor versus convict" message.

The minimum, if you're delivering essentially the same speech, is to do it in a manner that makes it seem more like you're reading from cue cards with bullets on them than off a teleprompter. Walz gets this. He's given the same speech 4 times now, effectively, but he says more or less the same things in different sentences, throws in some off-script comments, leaves a line out here or there, and rearranges the order of various parts. As a result it doesn't sound like a recording. This was one of the things that made Obama such a great speaker.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The West Wing being written by a crackhead will always be amazing.

Given his suggestion of a Biden/Romney ticket a few hours before Biden dropped out of the race, you have to wonder if he's using again.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Exactly. Purity policing and denunciation of compromise are all well and good to energize activist groups, raise awareness, and earn social media likes. With this issue, at a Democratic rally, they’re worse than useless. The protestors are so immersed in their activist culture that they don’t seem to recognize how ineffective their tactics are when it comes to real-world politics. They’re not serious people.

You know, Cliff, for some people, genocide is wrong and should be protested on the basis of it being wrong. Not everyone is a cold-blooded pragmatist. That's not "purity-policing."

[puffnstuff]

You know what i appreciate in a president or head of state. Someone who isnt deranged. Seeing some of trumps presser today and then seeing this conversation in here is surreal.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You know, Cliff, for some people, genocide is wrong and should be protested on the basis of it being wrong. Not everyone is a cold-blooded pragmatist. That's not "purity-policing."

I don’t want to be accused of following anyone around but I will say that sneering at people protesting genocide and suggesting they aren’t serious people because they are not protesting at the time and place you deem appropriate feels elitist and some other words.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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?

Taking actions that increase the likelihood of Trump getting elected, makes it impossible for the person to claim any moral high ground.

Causing disruptions at Harris rallies will not save Palestinian lives. Helping Harris get elected (keeping Trump away from power) is the only way to save Palestinian lives. With Harris there will be more humanitarian aid getting in to Gaza, and fewer offensive weapons sent to Israel compared to Trump.

Sometimes in life you have to realize that the ideal outcome is not available to you. And there's nothing you can do to make it available. This is one of those situations.

In the debate between Biden and Trump, Trump used the term "Palestinian" as a slur. Shows you how much he values Palestinian lives. Remember that he moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (a giant middle finger to Palestinians), and when asked about what Israel should do about Gaza, he said "finish the job quickly" in other words go scorched earth.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

You know what i appreciate in a president or head of state. Someone who isnt deranged. Seeing some of trumps presser today and then seeing this conversation in here is surreal.

I think it is even more obvious now that angry demented Trump is missing his foil in slow Biden. Trump has the same issues with mental acuity as Biden he was just angry and could make a joke.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I'm not saying most Americans agree with the protesters, but the ones that might have sympathy to their cause are ones she needs to turn out to vote.

Glad you're not saying that because according to Pew only 16% of Americans sympathize with Palestinians more than Israel. The ones that do? Democrats. Republicans don't give a #### in any demographic and when you get into the ages that actually get off their asses and go vote (30 and over), the support dries up to almost nothing. This really is a young person's issue, and heavily skewed to Democratic support, so it seems crazy to protest those who support you and then attempt to piss them off. That's how your cause takes a hit more than the people you're demanding help from. Unless voting trends change, losing these protesters is likely not going to have a major impact.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Helping Harris get elected (keeping Trump away from power) is the only way to save Palestinian lives.

*citation needed

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You know, Cliff, for some people, genocide is wrong and should be protested on the basis of it being wrong. Not everyone is a cold-blooded pragmatist. That's not "purity-policing."

Getting stung by a bee is bad. Doesn't mean it's wise to hit a beehive with a stick...

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by rubecube

*citation needed

You're speculating that she won't be any better on Gaza than Trump. Where is your citation?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You know, Cliff, for some people, genocide is wrong and should be protested on the basis of it being wrong. Not everyone is a cold-blooded pragmatist. That's not "purity-policing."

OK, so we have established that you're not a cold blooded pragmatist. What are you then? What I'm trying to establish is the logic by which this particular act of protest - what the people at the Harris / Walz rally did yesterday - is a good or a right thing to do. What's the end goal of it?

For example, I would think that someone might say that the end goal is to stop the killing of Palestinian children. If that were the goal, the question would obviously be, is this more likely to contribute to fewer dead Palestinian children, or the same amount, or more?

Or alternatively, if that's still too much of a pragmatist lens to view it through, what's the alternative lens? Is there some sort of Kantian duty to say what you believe regardless of whether it hurts people or serves the interests of people who will hurt people? Is this Rorshach at the end of Watchmen yelling "never compromise, even in the face of armageddon"?

I just get the sense that the actual moral underpinnings here haven't been examined because the people chanting are just going "genocide is bad and this makes me feel good because I'm saying genocide is bad", and aren't willing to perform any sort of investigation about what the actual moral underpinnings of their behaviour are or how they should, at a base level, make decisions about how people should act, morally.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Taking actions that increase the likelihood of Trump getting elected, makes it impossible for the person to claim any moral high ground.

Causing disruptions at Harris rallies will not save Palestinian lives. Helping Harris get elected (keeping Trump away from power) is the only way to save Palestinian lives. With Harris there will be more humanitarian aid getting in to Gaza, and fewer offensive weapons sent to Israel compared to Trump.

Sometimes in life you have to realize that the ideal outcome is not available to you. And there's nothing you can do to make it available. This is one of those situations.

In the debate between Biden and Trump, Trump used the term "Palestinian" as a slur. Shows you how much he values Palestinian lives. Remember that he moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (a giant middle finger to Palestinians), and when asked about what Israel should do about Gaza, he said "finish the job quickly" in other words go scorched earth.

Shouldn’t that be Harris’ problem to solve?

I’m pretty sure in every election it’s up to the candidates to get themselves elected and, if there are people they need to get elected who may not, to listen to their voices and address their concerns.

Since when does it fall on the population to put their concerns aside and fall in line?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You're speculating that she won't be any better on Gaza than Trump. Where is your citation?

I never made any such claim. You made the claim that the ONLY way to save Palestinian lives is to vote for Harris. It's on you to provide the evidence to support that claim.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t want to be accused of following anyone around but I will say that sneering at people protesting genocide and suggesting they aren’t serious people because they are not protesting at the time and place you deem appropriate feels elitist and some other words.

You honestly expect Cliff to pass up a prime leftist-bashing opportunity? Dude lives for that ####.