American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

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.

At the same time, a clear majority of Americans disapprove of Israel's actions.

But that's really beside the point. People are going to protest this issue. Even if you think they're the dumbest people on earth, it's still Harris' job to respond to that reality effectively. Hillary Clinton calling a segment of Trump's supporters deplorables negatively affected her campaign, even if none of them were going to ever vote for her, and even if what she said was largely true. It impacted her because she looked condescending and unlikable by basically writing off a segment of the population. If Harris continues to equate protesters with being Trump supporters, then it's probably going to do the same kind of thing to her campaign.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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

Apologies, for I neither agree or disagree. I can comment neither on said poster nor what he/she/they may/may not live for, otherwise I may be called mentally challenged and then have to spend a day reading said poster lie about me online. All I know is that he (sorry, he/she/they) has questionable storage intuition relating to bicycles, and perhaps that tells us something deeper, but that is not for me to surmise.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

You'd have to be pretty ####ing dense not to recognize that Trump being elected pretty much means the choke collar is getting taken of Israel and there will be nothing to stop Palestinians from being exterminated. Do you know what the support for Palestine is with Republicans over the age of 30? Just over 4% on average, and that drops to 3% over the age of 50. For a party that governs to its base, the elimination of Palestinians is not even a concern for Republicans. In fact, they may see it as a means to boost support.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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?

She's still the current VP of the United States and the nominee for president. One would think that she would still have some influence within the current administration. Pressuring her to act in her current role to influence policy changes could contribute to fewer dead Palestinian children, as could pressuring her to adopt a less pro-Israel stance as part of her campaign.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I guess people just ignored what Trump said today that Harris is very bad for Israel. But yes continue to protest at her rallies like idiots.

Meanwhile when you post about trans rights your king has this to say

[twitter]1821628745675108714[/twitter]

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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?

If the protesters actually had concern for Palestinians they should be able to read the room and help ensure the candidate who wants to assist Israel in genocide isn't elected. If Kalama wins, then after the election go nuts, protest the inauguration. But whenever they yell and scream at one of her campaign events it only helps Trump

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

You'd have to be pretty ####ing dense not to recognize that Trump being elected pretty much means the choke collar is getting taken of Israel and there will be nothing to stop Palestinians from being exterminated.

What choke collar is currently on Israel? There are 40k dead Palestinians. This administration has admonished the ICJ for taking up war crimes cases against Israel and barely offers tepid condemnation for Israel massacring civilians and butchering journalists.

Protesting Harris in the hopes of her adopting a better position than Biden has makes far more sense when she has something to lose than once she's in power, does it not?

EDIT: I'm not arguing that Trump would be better, just that this administration is doing F all to save Palestinian lives.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What choke collar is currently on Israel? There are 40k dead Palestinians. This administration has admonished the ICJ for taking up war crimes cases against Israel and barely offers tepid condemnation for Israel massacring civilians and butchering journalists.

Protesting Harris in the hopes of her adopting a better position than Biden has makes far more sense when she has something to lose than once she's in power, does it not?

EDIT: I'm not arguing that Trump would be better, just that this administration is doing F all to save Palestinian lives.

Seems like a pretty dangerous gamble to me when the election is a toss-up right now

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

She's still the current VP of the United States and the nominee for president. One would think that she would still have some influence within the current administration. Pressuring her to act in her current role to influence policy changes could contribute to fewer dead Palestinian children, as could pressuring her to adopt a less pro-Israel stance as part of her campaign.

OK, that's fine, I wasn't trying to skip ahead to the part about whether it would actually be an effective way to achieve the end goal yet. I was just trying to get us to agree on what the goal was - that is, what we're using to measure whether this is a good action. Am I right that you're agreeing with me that in your view, that "fewer dead Palestinian children" - presumably in the near term especially though not exclusively - is the metric you'd want to use for that purpose? Because then we're speaking the same language and we can get down to arguing about whether this sort of behaviour does, in fact produce that result.

I would also say, though, only because you suggested that this was a flaw, that this is still in some sense a "cold blooded pragmatist" way of coming to a conclusion - we're essentially trying to do our best to tally up the dead and picking the action with the lower number.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Seems like a pretty dangerous gamble to me when the election is a toss-up right now

Do you think she is more or less likely to adopt a less pro-Israel stance after the election if she has not been forced to campaign on it?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As could pressuring her to adopt a less pro-Israel stance as part of her campaign.

That loses her the election. She is about as anti-Israel as the US will allow. If they really won't vote for Harris then they are saying they are happier with a president that was endorsed by Israel.

Netanyahu also did not object when his hard-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, endorsed former President Donald Trump’s candidacy this week, a breach of protocol.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/har...esk-rcna163886


The Republicans don't care about Gaza and any discord in the Democrat base is exactly what they need.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by rubecube

EDIT: I'm not arguing that Trump would be better, just that this administration is doing F all to save Palestinian lives.

Serious question: Do you think it ever happens? Like any administration actually going even slightly against Israel? This is not meant to defend Harris or deride Trump or anything, but there are few issues more untouchable than this one. Even if Harris or any nominee actively despised Israel, doing anything public to show that is a political death sentence.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If Harris continues to equate protesters with being Trump supporters, then it's probably going to do the same kind of thing to her campaign.

Completely disagree. Support for Palestine is so low that it won't sway anyone how the protesters are treated. The average person in the US is tired of protesters on almost every subject and view them as the lunatic fringe. You can thank the media for that and their piss poor coverage of issues and educating the electorate on the things they need to understand. You're not changing minds by being disruptive in events like this. People came to hear and see their candidate of choice and don't like those things disrupted. Democrats are too polite to do much about it but shout them down. Republicans? Those protesters would leave bloodied. After the past few years, Americans are just fed up with protests.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I would also say, though, only because you suggested that this was a flaw, that this is still in some sense a "cold blooded pragmatist" way of coming to a conclusion - we're essentially trying to do our best to tally up the dead and picking the action with the lower number.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I just think it's pretty gross to suggest that people who care about this issue enough to protest it "aren't serious people."

I think also think you can still reasonably say that some people are just upset about dead kids and want to hear the nominee acknowledge them. They may not have any pragmatic goals beyond that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

After the past few years, Americans are just fed up with protests.

You're acting as if there weren't complaints and abuse of protestors during the civil rights movement. Almost every single example of protest is met by a collection of dickheads saying "I don't have an issue with protests. I just wish they'd do it in a way that doesn't inconvenience me."

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you think she is more or less likely to adopt a less pro-Israel stance after the election if she has not been forced to campaign on it?

She's already snubbed the most pro-Israel candidate she had for VP, if she goes any further left then she risks losing more centrists votes. She has to walk an incredibly tight line while Trump gets to go all-in on genocide without any repercussions. And there a whole lot more at stake for this election than just the Israel situation, if the protestors are trying to convince people to not vote for Harris then they're wearing horse blinders while they're running off of a cliff

[nfotiu]

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.

I'd imagine there are quite a few women, black people, poor people, immigrants, lgbtq people who's lives were made materially worse by the last Trump presidency would find these protests to be quite elitist if they thought they increased the chances of him getting a second term.

I've seen interviews with people from those groups saying things like I wish I had the luxury of being able to only support the perfect candidate who aligned with all my views.

Sure, blame Harris if she loses. But if a progressive left white guy college student doesn't vote for her and/or organizes others not to vote for her over this or another progressive issue, then they have basically turned their backs on all those groups.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not disagreeing with that. I just think it's pretty gross to suggest that people who care about this issue enough to protest it "aren't serious people."

Maybe they have very well-considered, thoughtful motivations for doing this and I just don't understand what they are. But I can't think of anything convincing and haven't heard anything convincing either.

I think also think you can still reasonably say that some people are just upset about dead kids and want to hear the nominee acknowledge them. They may not have any pragmatic goals beyond that.

But see - and I don't know what Cliff meant by "not serious people" - this would fall into my concept of "unserious". Why do you want to hear the nominee acknowledge that? Just her acknowledgment, without further action, accomplishes nothing and makes no one's life materially better - and I can see the argument that empty rhetoric in a political speech with no intention of acting on that rhetoric is worse than not saying anything at all. I mean, if Harris said "the oppression of Palestinians by the brutal Netanyahu regime must end immediately", maybe the people who agree with that feel good for a minute, but is that the "pragmatic goal" of a serious person? I would think you'd want her to actually DO something. And then the question becomes, what is that thing, and is this sort of behaviour more likely to make her do it?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

If the protesters actually had concern for Palestinians they should be able to read the room and help ensure the candidate who wants to assist Israel in genocide isn't elected. If Kalama wins, then after the election go nuts, protest the inauguration. But whenever they yell and scream at one of her campaign events it only helps Trump

I disagree. If they actually had concern for Palestinians, they would probably make their vote contingent on a party doing what they believe is right, which is at least how they’re positioning it.

There are a lot of comments questioning how much they care, dismissing them as people, deriding their maturity or intelligence, but not a lot of people actually putting themselves in their shoes and attempting to view it through their lens.

I don’t think it’s as binary as any criticism helps Trump. For one, it takes away Harris’ agency. We’re basically admitting she’s useless and unable to increase her vote share without people simply checking the blue box because blue good and red bad. I think both Harris and Walz are more intelligent and able than that.

So if we concede that they are, in fact, in control of this thing, they’re in control of how these protests and how these people impact their election chances. If that means they have to offer an olive branch and actually address them, then that’s what they should do. Maybe it means they don’t have to do anything but ignore them. But regardless, Harris and Walz determine their chances of being elected far, far more than any protestors.

And, if Trump and Republicans are actively worse for Palestinians and more “Pro-Israel” than the alternative, isn’t a protest against the Dems for being too Pro-Israel/bad for Palestinians going to endear them to Republicans? Why would those voters see the protests and think “Wow, people don’t like how Pro-Israel the Dems are? We better not vote for them!”

It doesn’t make a ton of sense.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

And there a whole lot more at stake for this election than just the Israel situation, if the protestors are trying to convince people to not vote for Harris then they're wearing horse blinders while they're running off of a cliff

Why do you see it as them trying to convince people not to vote for her instead of trying to influence her to adopt positions that are important to them? All she really had to say there is that she supports a ceasefire, which the majority of Americans also support. Instead she chose to chastise them.