American Politics

[shionoro]

Not everyone is an ascended paragon of moral supremacy as I am. There are moderates that would abandon the Democratic vote if they felt the party they were proud of for generations started to look like terrorist-sympathizing radical anarchists.

That is a hyperbole. The way you framed it, you are afraid lots of moderates jump ship if Harris stops sending weapons to a country that leads a genocide. That does not sound very pretty. Not to mention that the rhetoric on the pro israel side, including people who are otherwise staunchly centrist, is not pretty too.

That may have been an abrasive way of wording it, but at the very least politicians see voters as a number on a ballot and little more. At least until they gain said votes. Then, the politicians who care (they do exist) will take that victory and run with it, accomplishing their agenda as best as they can. But you've got to win first, and then worry about the specifics later. It's the unfortunate destiny of a 2 party system. There's no room for nuance or taking risks. Not until you've taken the power needed to do so.

That does not ring true. A wealth tax, which would solve quite many problems the democrats allegedly want to solve, is very popular in the demographic and worth fighting for. No democrat except warren (sanders it independent) ever fought for that, before or after the election.

If you win on a plattform that did not put true change on the ballot, you are not going to do it. Because by then you are so bogged down in corporate interestes and party interests that there is no incentive to do it. The only recent democrat that ran on change was Obama, and he did not deliver.

The claim "they only do it because they have to to win the election" is a very visible excuse, and the way that you need to put your morals on the backseat to win is a wrong one.

A democracy works by having candidates stand up and fighting for what they think is right and voters deciding who they agree with, not by candidates focus testing what most voters agree with and then claiming to fight for it. Because the latter just means a constant state of lying and deception.

 

[M3J]

Do you pursue violence yourself?

Against people that are violent or people that harm others, yes. This is nowhere near as bad as politicians and companies allowing people to die to make a quick buck, like forcing workers to keep working even through a hurricane despite evacuation orders. Or republicans banning abortion and women's right to healthcare, which caused several women to die when they could have been saved.

Trading Jewish votes for Muslim votes isn't a strategy, it's a waste of time, and it's dumb. Trading moderate votes for Leftist votes that aren't even votes because Leftists don't vote, isn't a strategy, it's dumb.

But it doesn't matter. A week isn't enough time to change anything. Either Kamala wins and proves me right that Leftists have no voice/power and will continue to have no voice/power into the near future until they can CHILL OUT... or Kamala loses and Leftists still don't have any power in the future, because they'll be the scapegoats blamed for throwing the election because they wouldn't fall in line.

Yet, without those leftist votes you keep whining about, Biden would likely not have won. It was the left's effort that helped him win, and Michigan is up in the air because Muslims said they won't vote for Harris. So no, it is not dumb to care about Muslim and leftists' votes, especially when plenty of them vote and are very important.

Trying to get 50 moderate votes over 1K leftist votes makes no sense, for most people. idk, that's what common sense tells me.

Not to mention, there are Jews who support Palestine. And maybe more people would be as well had Biden not been lying about the conflict since Oct 7. Actually pretty embarrassing that his own administration walked back his statement and made it obvious that he was lying, it feels like something that'd happen under Trump.


They may be the scapegoats, but it will still be a fact that it's not their fault if she loses. In an actual democracy, it's her responsibility to convince voters to vote for her, she's not obligated to get those votes.

And Trump said that he'd tell Netanyahu to "finish the job". You got two Dems saying they'll try to fix it. Maybe they're sincere. Maybe they aren't. But you've also got one Republican saying he'll motivate Netanyahu to KILL EVERYONE IN GAZA.

You either don't care about Palestinians, or you hate Democrats more than you love Palestinians.

... I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but there's currently a genocide going on under Biden and Harris, both who said they'd support Israel and have been supplying them weapons. There literally won't be any difference between Harris or Trump when it comes to Palestine, Harris made that clear. She and Biden continue to reiterate lies about Hamas and Palestine that have been debunked ages ago, by Israel themselves, in order to try to justify Israel's actions.

Main difference is, Trump openly admitted what his intentions are. Harris and Biden continue to hide their intentions verbally while helping Israel and letting them do whatever they want. You'd basically have to be blind not to see what Biden and Harris are actually trying to do. It's people like you that's also hurting the Dems' chances with the way you respond to Palestinians and Muslims. "I'm sure genocide is bad and all, but fuck your people, vote for the person that's similar to Trump in many things, like continuing to build the wall!"

 

[xi0]

We? Probably not. But I've acknowledged it for a year now. I'm reductive because I'm fucking done giving people the benefit of the doubt on this shit. Me denouncing the IDF and claiming I'm not an Israel supporter was intended to coax out honest discussion on the matter, but I was done after I was accused of being an Islamaphobe (M3J) who was calling for the glassing of Palestine (you).

Not intending to retread this discussion yet again, but I think saying you were saying something to "coax" out an "honest" discussion is kind of a confusing sentence to me. I'm not really sure the discussion was ever dishonest.

IIRC my part in that was a misreading

I can't argue with how you feel. I can only clarify his/our stance: You're making life worse for yourself to fail at making life better for Palestinians, if you're protesting by abstaining from voting.

That's the rub though, I'm definitely not. You know why? Because my vote for president doesn't matter. Just like everyone else in a deep blue/red state. That's why I can ignore the presidential election entirely and submit a ballot for everything else on it (not going to abide Hogan getting a Senate seat while lying to people on where he stands). And because of this system the issues presidential campaigns deem "important" enough to address or reckon with are often things that matter less than others. If we had a popular vote or ranked choice then maybe this would be more of a dilemma but the issues that actually matter might be focused on more by these candidates, but it's not what we have. What we have instead is a presidential candidate having lunch with the hellspawn of a warmonger, advocating for Trumpist border policy, and shirking responsibility for our hand in genocide, too cowardly to stand for anything and saying essentially nothing about preserving our rights.

Because of my circumstances what I can do in protest is vote uncommitted and hope that enough in my kind of situation do as well. Perhaps people will notice enough Democrats doing the same and they might look into why. Or not, I'm not holding my breath.

I think a Harris presidency is obviously the preferable outcome, so I won't tell anyone else and especially not those in battleground states to withhold their vote. However, I won't vote-shame them if they do, especially without knowing their background or circumstances. I can't advocate for the reduction of harm and then argue that a Trump presidency is the correct choice. It isn't.

And sure, I'm aware that this might all seem like pointless, moral-grandstanding, but I don't care anymore. Her campaign has been a disappointing clusterfuck and she's acted abhorrently IMO.

This is one of the most accurate things I've seen. I hope libs see this and understand why Harris's momentum has slowed down considerably.

But ninjabot comes off like this to a T

To be charitable to him, I don't know if he truly does or not. That account I linked is definitely the worst kind of example of this type of democrat though.

 

[ninjabot]

Yet, without those leftist votes you keep whining about, Biden would likely not have won. It was the left's effort that helped him win, and Michigan is up in the air because Muslims said they won't vote for Harris. So no, it is not dumb to care about Muslim and leftists' votes, especially when plenty of them vote and are very important.

There's no way you can demonstrate that the winning votes Biden received were thanks to Leftists. In fact, I can almost guarantee they weren't, because he won via the electoral college, and Leftists live and vote in blue states where their votes wouldn't even be missed if they didn't vote.... which is even MORE reason why it's okay to ignore them: they're inconsequential unless they live in swing states.

Trying to get 50 moderate votes over 1K leftist votes makes no sense, for most people. idk, that's what common sense tells me.

So then you really do think there are more Leftists in America than there are moderates? How!?

Not to mention, there are Jews who support Palestine. And maybe more people would be as well had Biden not been lying about the conflict since Oct 7. Actually pretty embarrassing that his own administration walked back his statement and made it obvious that he was lying, it feels like something that'd happen under Trump.

Not enough that they're willing to sacrifice the country to Donald Trump to force a ceasefire they don't.

They may be the scapegoats, but it will still be a fact that it's not their fault if she loses. In an actual democracy, it's her responsibility to convince voters to vote for her, she's not obligated to get those votes.

You think facts are gonna keep you from being ostracized? From becoming the whipping boys of the Democrats AND Republicans for the next 4 years, regardless of who wins? You think your "facts" are gonna keep you warm at night when everyone in the nation views you as lepers for gambling with the lives of women and LGBTQ people? In the name of non-Americans? In the name of terrorists?

Not intending to retread this discussion yet again, but I think saying you were saying something to "coax" out an "honest" discussion is kind of a confusing sentence to me. I'm not really sure the discussion was ever dishonest.

IIRC my part in that was a misreading

I'm speaking in totality of this entire year of the Israel/Palestine stuff. From jump street I've denounced the evils of the IDF thinking it'd lead to more productive conversations. I underestimated how bloodthirsty some of the posters in here were.

That's the rub though, I'm definitely not. You know why? Because my vote for president doesn't matter. Just like everyone else in a deep blue/red state. That's why I can ignore the presidential election entirely and submit a ballot for everything else on it (not going to abide Hogan getting a Senate seat while lying to people on where he stands). And because of this system the issues presidential campaigns deem "important" enough to address or reckon with are often things that matter less than others. If we had a popular vote or ranked choice then maybe this would be more of a dilemma but the issues that actually matter might be focused on more by these candidates, but it's not what we have. What we have instead is a presidential candidate having lunch with the hellspawn of a warmonger, advocating for Trumpist border policy, and shirking responsibility for our hand in genocide, too cowardly to stand for anything and saying essentially nothing about preserving our rights.

Well I'm in NC. A swing state. I can't afford to be flippant about voting. I've got a responsibility. And while we're generally a red state Trump isn't far enough ahead that my vote doesn't count. The rest of it is inconsequential to me. I'm voting against Trump. I don't doubt there'll be Leftists in unique situations where throwing away their vote doesn't harm the people around them, but it's still a culture that needs to be frowned upon so that it doesn't become en vogue amongst Leftists in places where their vote could potentially make a difference.

 

[shionoro]

Against people that are violent or people that harm others, yes. This is nowhere near as bad as politicians and companies allowing people to die to make a quick buck, like forcing workers to keep working even through a hurricane despite evacuation orders. Or republicans banning abortion and women's right to healthcare, which caused several women to die when they could have been saved.

What would interest me is which groups or actions you are taking part in (without incriminating yourself) or which you support, and how you think that these actions are constructive or can lead to a better world?

For example, I used to be in a climate group that took actions causing property damage (but not violence against humans) to make bad investments more costly for companies and politics. As an example, it was actions like this (not same group, article in german, but pictures): https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2024/10/tesla-stoppen-blockade-gruenheide-baustrasse.html against tesla to make it more costly to enhance their factory, facing down police and accepting legal punishment. Actions like that made sense to me at that time (and still do) because they are sometimes successful in making politicians reconsider such deals with companies and create ugly pictures for them and said companies.

You have been vague about what you think should be done. @ninjabot thinks that the election and supporting democrats is a huge priority and thus efforts should be focused on getting Harris elected. That can be argued (tho I think everyone here agrees with that), but it is a very concrete view for the next step. What would be yours and how should it be done?

 

[ninjabot]

Feel good tv.

You have been vague about what you think should be done. @ninjabot thinks that the election and supporting democrats is a huge priority and thus efforts should be focused on getting Harris elected. That can be argued (tho I think everyone here agrees with that), but it is a very concrete view for the next step. What would be yours and how should it be done?

In his defense, I don't think he's been vague. For months on end he's said over and over "Harris should stop appealing to moderates and Republicans and should appeal to the Left instead." So he agrees that Harris should win, he just wants her to win the impossible way.

To be charitable to him, I don't know if he truly does or not. That account I linked is definitely the worst kind of example of this type of democrat though.

Forgot to respond to this in the previous reply, but this is the same reaction I got with the "Glassing Gaza" incident. I said that the Israel/Palestine conflict wouldn't be over until Israel glasses Gaza, and that was interpreted as me promoting it. Here, I state the very obvious truth that abstaining from voting hurts both Palestinians and Americans because of what Republicans will do being worse than what Democrats are doing, only more people will be hurt aswell, and that's interpreted as me fantasizing about Republicans murdering leftists.

I could understand if I said "I really want Kamala to lose so that you Leftists can get what's coming to you!", or something to that effect. This is why my responses to you are becoming more abrasive and my rhetoric more charged. Because I'm responding to what you say, and you're responding to what you feel like I'm saying, and that's not fair to me. Especially when some of the people here are championing the destruction of Israel, which would result in the deaths and displacement of countless millions of Jews. I won't have my morals questioned by someone like that.

 

[shionoro]

In his defense, I don't think he's been vague. For months on end he's said over and over "Harris should stop appealing to moderates and Republicans and should appeal to the Left instead." So he agrees that Harris should win, he just wants her to win the impossible way.

What I meant with "vague" was his claim that we need violence to pressure politicians. I know that he wants Harris to embrace the pro Gaza crowd (even tho I think that would be impossible).

Generally, I think Harris had a B Minus run for presidency and I hope its enough. I wish she had taken more risks but i guess she thinks she is cruising for victory and doesnt want to fuck it up. Hope she is right. I also DO think she made concessions to the left, for example by choosing waltz oder shapiro.

 

[ninjabot]

What I meant with "vague" was his claim that we need violence to pressure politicians. I know that he wants Harris to embrace the pro Gaza crowd (even tho I think that would be impossible).

Generally, I think Harris had a B Minus run for presidency and I hope its enough. I wish she had taken more risks but i guess she thinks she is cruising for victory and doesnt want to fuck it up. Hope she is right.

Oh. I'm against political violence, but much like everything in life, there are situations where it can be justified. For example, if a woman is being arrested for trying to have an abortion, I wouldn't judge her if she got into a gunfight with the police coming to take her off of her property.

Or if slavery was reinstituted in America, I'd see if my dad's guns still work and start practicing.

But these are both defensive actions. Political violence in defense against political violence IMO, is justified. Political violence to force politicians to behave a certain way? That's unjust.

As for Harris... I will say, that there are some Leftists that aren't single-issue voters... and it would have been a good idea to court the votes of exclusively those leftists by leaning into the more "sexy" leftist ideas. Not the scary ones that would cause her to lose moderate voters. And also, if there was a way to take Cheney's endorsement without seeming like she's cosigning anything they were responsible for in the past... that would've been preferable..

 

[shionoro]

Oh. I'm against political violence, but much like everything in life, there are situations where it can be justified. For example, if a woman is being arrested for trying to have an abortion, I wouldn't judge her if she got into a gunfight with the police coming to take her off of her property.

Or if slavery was reinstituted in America, I'd see if my dad's guns still work and start practicing.

But these are both defensive actions. Political violence in defense against political violence IMO, is justified. Political violence to force politicians to behave a certain way? That's unjust.

As for Harris... I will say, that there are some Leftists that aren't single-issue voters... and it would have been a good idea to court the votes of exclusively those leftists by leaning into the more "sexy" leftist ideas. Not the scary ones that would cause her to lose moderate voters. And also, if there was a way to take Cheney's endorsement without seeming like she's cosigning anything they were responsible for in the past... that would've been preferable..

I pretty much do not want to judge Harris' campaign, as i reject the notion that politicians should do calculated campaigns at all. I know they do, I know she did, and she probably has more insights about what trends with whom than we do. So if she thinks she can win that way, that is what she must do. And if someone thinks they should support her by campaigning with her, that is what they must do.

But the real aim to me is to create a more democratic world in which people participate in society by more forms than just voting and everyone can vote for a person they have at least basic trust in. Right now, these campaigns are pure perversion and so is the whole process. Democracy starts when a normal, small person can make their voice heard, but election are usually defined by candidates deciding whose voices they want to hear to win the election.

 

[ninjabot]

So one of the Republicans Destiny debated on the 1 vs 25 Jubilee episode (Andrew Wilson, transphobic Christian Nationalist) came on Steven's stream to admit that the contestants intentionally would get up and stop their turn before they were voted out, so that Destiny wouldn't have enough time to rebuttal against their arguments.

Jesus. I mean the show isn't conducive to real debate in the first place, and they STILL had to cheat.

I pretty much do not want to judge Harris' campaign, as i reject the notion that politicians should do calculated campaigns at all. I know they do, I know she did, and she probably has more insights about what trends with whom than we do. So if she thinks she can win that way, that is what she must do. And if someone thinks they should support her by campaigning with her, that is what they must do.

But the real aim to me is to create a more democratic world in which people participate in society by more forms than just voting and everyone can vote for a person they have at least basic trust in. Right now, these campaigns are pure perversion and so is the whole process. Democracy starts when a normal, small person can make their voice heard, but election are usually defined by candidates deciding whose voices they want to hear to win the election.

I don't disagree with any of this. Where we'll disagree most likely is that I still think the best way to do it is through incremental change, slowly. Have you ever given a cat a bath? What happens to you if you're not slow and gentle while doing so? I think that's the perfect analogy to political change. Change is more easily accepted slowly.

 

[M3J]

What would interest me is which groups or actions you are taking part in (without incriminating yourself) or which you support, and how you think that these actions are constructive or can lead to a better world?

For example, I used to be in a climate group that took actions causing property damage (but not violence against humans) to make bad investments more costly for companies and politics. As an example, it was actions like this (not same group, article in german, but pictures): https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2024/10/tesla-stoppen-blockade-gruenheide-baustrasse.html against tesla to make it more costly to enhance their factory, facing down police and accepting legal punishment. Actions like that made sense to me at that time (and still do) because they are sometimes successful in making politicians reconsider such deals with companies and create ugly pictures for them and said companies.

You have been vague about what you think should be done. @ninjabot thinks that the election and supporting democrats is a huge priority and thus efforts should be focused on getting Harris elected. That can be argued (tho I think everyone here agrees with that), but it is a very concrete view for the next step. What would be yours and how should it be done?

Hackers taking away politicians' money and/or holding their money ransom until they pass bills that help people, or using that money and depositing it in people's account. Actually, doing the same to companies and their wealthy higher-ups as well. Plus, it does not make sense to me that a CEO can do a horrible job but still be paid millions of dollars upon exiting, while workers can't get an increased minimum wage.

I'm not a fan of violence, surprisingly, but I would not feel bad if people like insurance companies' CEOs get the shit kicked out of them, because of how many people are affected by their greediness. So many people have died unnecessarily or have been throw into an unescapable debt because insurance companies don't want to pay, while their CEOs make more and more.

Pelosi for example has been dabbling in stock markets and seems to put forward bills or stop bills that help her increase stock values that she sells. Shit like that should either stop, or hackers should just take that money and redistribute it amongst people who actually need it. Companies should not be allowed to "lobby" politicians, people who are impoverished are paying the price for that, especially under republicans. At least Dems are doing some things to protect consumers.

one problem is the consequences of that. What will the politicians do to stop that from happening, and how will they punish people? Not counting how the hackers would know who to give money to or how to do that but hey, at least as long as the politicians can't touch that money. Banks would also likely try to help politicians too.



As for Harris... it's very difficult to defend her when she and Biden aren't trying their best to uphold Biden's promises, and it spells a bad future that Harris is already saying she'd be okay with having republicans at the table when these same republicans would call for violence against Dems, women, and minorities. One thing Dems aren't understanding is that she deserves the criticisms she's getting, as well as the left not wanting to vote for her, and she hasn't really done a good job of convincing the left that she's better than Trump.

And I say this as someone annoyed with a lot of the left for wanting Trump to win just to stick it to Harris. But also, it's a bad sign that Muslims are backing an Islamophobic candidate even though he said he'd continue the genocide, before he did an 180. Republicans hate Muslims, but Trump still changed his tune to get the Muslims' vote, something that Harris isn't even trying to do. From what I read, her conventions have banned Muslims from coming in and didn't even let hasan talk.

If Harris loses, it's her own fault. It's not like her talking points aligned with the left and Muslims but they refused to vote for her for whatever reason. A lot of the left and Muslims refuse to vote for her because of her own words and actions, and lack of thereof, and Biden, Cheneys, and the CLintons aren't helping.

In his defense, I don't think he's been vague. For months on end he's said over and over "Harris should stop appealing to moderates and Republicans and should appeal to the Left instead." So he agrees that Harris should win, he just wants her to win the impossible way.

This is not impossible when Biden despite being unpopular with the left got their support and won. All it might take is a little misinformation from the republicans, Harris making a little slip, or Trump saying something sane for moderates and republicans to jump ship or jump ship again. The left are far less likely to do that as long as Harris for the most part align with most of their values and morals.

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/trump-harris-border-wall-arizona-rusting-2021-rcna173094 for example does not align with the left's values



The accuracy

 

[shionoro]

I don't disagree with any of this. Where we'll disagree most likely is that I still think the best way to do it is through incremental change, slowly. Have you ever given a cat a bath? What happens to you if you're not slow and gentle while doing so? I think that's the perfect analogy to political change. Change is more easily accepted slowly.

I am absolutely for incremental change. My problem is that most policies that call themselves incremental change are actually not change but a fortification of the status quo. For example, Kamala Harris promised that rich people will pay their fair share, and what she meant was raising the corporate tax (among many other proposals, but that is the most important one). And there is nothing wrong with raising the corporate tax after Trump lowered it, but:
1) Kamala Harris won't raise it back to where it was, so it cannot be said that it is incremental change, but just less of a step back.
2) This policy is not going to reduce inequality, which is THE fundamental problem in our (your) taxation.

In essence, Harris needs tax money for her social proposals and she does get it from corporations, but the powerful corporations will find enough tax evasion plans and the actually rich people can keep getting richer. Because their personal wealth is not impacted by the taxation of some companies, as it stems from stocks and investments, often abroad. The only meaningful way to reduce inequality is the taxation of wealth and the only way to incrementally change inequality is to incrementally change the distribution of wealth, which can mainly be done via a wealth tax, inheritance tax or tax on stock trading/owning. If democrats are not going to do that, then any other form of higher taxation is a fig leafs that keeps the system intact that lets rich people get richer and lets them take their money abroad, away from the people that earned it for them. These fig leafs strenghten inequality, because people THINK they are voting against inequality, but they are not. They are voting for a taxation that yields enough money to keep the poor calm and and also leaves the rich alone with their wealth.

We can see this scheme in a lot of policies. Aid for the third world is meant to keep it from starving so that first world nations do not need to take actual responsibility (like a debt cut). Electric cars are meant to keep the car manufacturers going even tho electric cars are also very bad for climate and biodiversity and a mass manufacturing of them locks us out of preventing millions of deaths. Electric cars and other such green capitalist measures are meant to keep the systrem of "buy more" intact while also giving consumers a good feeling about it. Both of these policies/measures are not incremental change, but they are meant to prevent change. True incremental change for an eco friendly mobility would be building rail and other forms of public transport while phasing out individual transport wherever possible.

To sum it up, the problem here is: What people call incremental change is usually the opposite of change. And the most moderate, smallest steps of incremental change (like Bernie Sanders moderate wealth tax that would just see a taxation of 2% for people with 50 mio upwards, leaving the absurdly rich even if they never lift a finger again in their life again) are rendered as radical, simply because the allegedly moderate measures paint themselves as meaningful change that is easier to accomplish.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 1, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 1, 2024 ---

Hackers taking away politicians' money and/or holding their money ransom until they pass bills that help people, or using that money and depositing it in people's account. Actually, doing the same to companies and their wealthy higher-ups as well. Plus, it does not make sense to me that a CEO can do a horrible job but still be paid millions of dollars upon exiting, while workers can't get an increased minimum wage.

That is an idea in the "someone should be doing that space". As you point out, that does not seem very realistic. For political action, we kinda need the "what can I do or which real thing can i support and how" space.

 

[ninjabot]

This is not impossible when Biden despite being unpopular with the left got their support and won. All it might take is a little misinformation from the republicans, Harris making a little slip, or Trump saying something sane for moderates and republicans to jump ship or jump ship again. The left are far less likely to do that as long as Harris for the most part align with most of their values and morals.

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/trump-harris-border-wall-arizona-rusting-2021-rcna173094 for example does not align with the left's values

I don't like the idea of a border wall either, but it's not inherently anti-democratic or anti-liberal. Every nation needs borders. Even a communist country requires borders. The wall in essence is just a giant virtue signal to conservatives, meant to placate their xenophobic ideals. If it pacifies them, it's a small price to pay.

I am absolutely for incremental change.

Good.

To sum it up, the problem here is: What people call incremental change is usually the opposite of change. And the most moderate, smallest steps of incremental change (like Bernie Sanders moderate wealth tax that would just see a taxation of 2% for people with 50 mio upwards, leaving the absurdly rich even if they never lift a finger again in their life again) are rendered as radical, simply because the allegedly moderate measures paint themselves as meaningful change that is easier to accomplish.

I dunno, it sounds like you're saying incremental changes aren't sticking, so we need radical actions to reach substantial incremental changes. Which defeats the purpose of using incremental change in the first place, because it's the radical acts that scare people away from political groups. Well, scares the average person away.

 

[shionoro]

I dunno, it sounds like you're saying incremental changes aren't sticking, so we need radical actions to reach substantial incremental changes. Which defeats the purpose of using incremental change in the first place, because it's the radical acts that scare people away from political groups. Well, scares the average person away.

No, I am saying that what people call "incremental change" is usually not an increment. Kamala Harris' Tax plan is not an incremental change for a reduction of inequality or for taxing everyone with their fair share, because it hides the fact that a fair taxation can only happen via the taxation of wealth. That is not a radical point of view, that is just how the facts lie. It is similar with climate change. Kamala Harris climate plan emits less co2 than trump''s, but it is de facto clear that Harris' want to maintain the status quo of overconsumption and of consumption of fossil fuels (she refuses a fracking ban, among other things). So we do not have an incremental change pro a renewable world, because she is factually against the US reaching basic climate goals, condeming the world to millions of deaths and failed states all over the world (i am not exaggerating here). Her climate plan is meant to keep people calm because it looks nice, but it is not actual incremental change, because it does not make us incrementally more likely to prevent a deathworld.

 

[M3J]

That is an idea in the "someone should be doing that space". As you point out, that does not seem very realistic. For political action, we kinda need the "what can I do or which real thing can i support and how" space.

Stuff like strikes, I guess? Strikes cause companies to lose money, as well as politicians.

I don't like the idea of a border wall either, but it's not inherently anti-democratic or anti-liberal. Every nation needs borders. Even a communist country requires borders. The wall in essence is just a giant virtue signal to conservatives, meant to placate their xenophobic ideals. If it pacifies them, it's a small price to pay.

It is anti-liberal when liberals are generally about giving people opportunities and helping them. It also makes no sense to spend millions or billions of dollars on a wall when a lot of the "illegal" immigration is due to staying past the expiration of visas.

And if the idea of a border wall isn't anti-liberal, then why did Harris oppose it when Trump was president?

It's a huge price to pay if it helps lose Harris votes from actual people that would have supported her. Her priorities are messed up, and I think she's lucky that so far, Trump and Vance have been so openly anti-woman that the left don't want to vote for them.

 

[ninjabot]

No, I am saying that what people call "incremental change" is usually not an increment. Kamala Harris' Tax plan is not an incremental change for a reduction of inequality or for taxing everyone with their fair share, because it hides the fact that a fair taxation can only happen via the taxation of wealth. That is not a radical point of view, that is just how the facts lie. It is similar with climate change. Kamala Harris climate plan emits less co2 than trump''s, but it is de facto clear that Harris' want to maintain the status quo of overconsumption and of consumption of fossil fuels (she refuses a fracking ban, among other things). So we do not have an incremental change pro a renewable world, because she is factually against the US reaching basic climate goals, condeming the world to millions of deaths and failed states all over the world (i am not exaggerating here). Her climate plan is meant to keep people calm because it looks nice, but it is not actual incremental change, because it does not make us incrementally more likely to prevent a deathworld.

Well, these things are more complicated than just "This is how you fix the problem, so do this." We can't just ban fracking for economic reasons, but we can do a lot of other things that could help with offsetting or carbon footprint. Instead of just fracking, we can limit it, while also looking into nuclear finally, and solar and wind. I'm sure when it comes to taxes the same can be said about multiple smaller steps can combine to make lasting change in one big step toward economic equality.

And none of these things will be large changes, meaning no one will feel them for years, but they're foundational to building a better future without turning the people against you. We'll never get coal mining families or rust belt families to accept a full on ban on fracking.

It is anti-liberal when liberals are generally about giving people opportunities and helping them. It also makes no sense to spend millions or billions of dollars on a wall when a lot of the "illegal" immigration is due to staying past the expiration of visas.

I didn't say take away opportunities. Except maybe the opportunity to just enter through illegal means. I'm not anti-immigration at all, but can only justify illegal immigration in certain scenarios. I agree that it's a waste of money though, but it could translate into bought votes.

And if the idea of a border wall isn't anti-liberal, then why did Harris oppose it when Trump was president?

Optics. Democrats are anti-racism. Trump wanted a racist wall. So she opposed it. Just like being pro-wall now is about optics too. I'm not a fan either, but I know why she's doing it.

It's a huge price to pay if it helps lose Harris votes from actual people that would have supported her. Her priorities are messed up, and I think she's lucky that so far, Trump and Vance have been so openly anti-woman that the left don't want to vote for them.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume the border wall isn't a single issue that any Democrat is voting on, so her campaign strategists probably signed off on it for that exact reason. As long as she avoids the horrible things like the razor wire and stuff that was in the news earlier this year.

 

[xi0]

I'm speaking in totality of this entire year of the Israel/Palestine stuff. From jump street I've denounced the evils of the IDF thinking it'd lead to more productive conversations. I underestimated how bloodthirsty some of the posters in here were.

Who is some of the posters here? I haven't read the thread verbatim, but the one moron has been banned for months. If you elect to continually go into the weeds with M3J then that's kind of on you lol.

In any case, I think you attempted to do that at first but then you decided to act adversarial over the issue, resulting in saying things like this -

You think your "facts" are gonna keep you warm at night when everyone in the nation views you as lepers for gambling with the lives of women and LGBTQ people? In the name of non-Americans? In the name of terrorists?

People advocating for Palestinian emancipation aren't doing so in the "name of terrorists". And even if you want to characterize people's ideological waffling on Hamas as being that, that's still not what the uproar and advocacy is about. And you know it isn't if you're at all capable of using a critical eye with the IDF, so what's the point of this kind of rhetoric? An embellishment is still an embellishment and it's the least charitable way to refer to people you disagree with on the topic of the election.

Well I'm in NC. A swing state. I can't afford to be flippant about voting. I've got a responsibility. And while we're generally a red state Trump isn't far enough ahead that my vote doesn't count. The rest of it is inconsequential to me. I'm voting against Trump. I don't doubt there'll be Leftists in unique situations where throwing away their vote doesn't harm the people around them, but it's still a culture that needs to be frowned upon so that it doesn't become en vogue amongst Leftists in places where their vote could potentially make a difference.

What I'm doing isn't flippant. Whether it's consequential or not is another story, but like I said, that isn't really up to me. It's a personal choice, and I'm not following or aware of any sort of national movement like there was in some places during the primaries.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 2, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 2, 2024 ---

Forgot to respond to this in the previous reply, but this is the same reaction I got with the "Glassing Gaza" incident. I said that the Israel/Palestine conflict wouldn't be over until Israel glasses Gaza, and that was interpreted as me promoting it. Here, I state the very obvious truth that abstaining from voting hurts both Palestinians and Americans because of what Republicans will do being worse than what Democrats are doing, only more people will be hurt aswell, and that's interpreted as me fantasizing about Republicans murdering leftists.

I could understand if I said "I really want Kamala to lose so that you Leftists can get what's coming to you!", or something to that effect. This is why my responses to you are becoming more abrasive and my rhetoric more charged. Because I'm responding to what you say, and you're responding to what you feel like I'm saying, and that's not fair to me. Especially when some of the people here are championing the destruction of Israel, which would result in the deaths and displacement of countless millions of Jews. I won't have my morals questioned by someone like that.

That was referring to the person who made the original tweet. If you just scroll your account there's far more worse things IMO.

Who here participating in this thread is championing the destruction of Israel and the deaths of millions of people? Please point them out. Because I think if that's not something that is happening then that has to be worse then a snide remark or meme that may or may not apply to you? Idk.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 2, 2024 ---

The accuracy

This isn't accurate at all? It's more like people accusing her of working with Russians (which may or may not apply far too much with Republicans anyway, but I digress). Jill Stein maybe being correct on Gaza doesn't make her a serious candidate, I have no clue where that notion is coming from all of a sudden.

 

[ninjabot]

Who is some of the posters here? I haven't read the thread verbatim, but the one moron has been banned for months. If you elect to continually go into the weeds with M3J then that's kind of on you lol.

M3J, hblock, one other who isn't around anymore (maybe hblock is the one that's been banned, or maybe it's the other one, I dunno). Raven's first response to me in here was to accuse me of being a troll and continued calling my race into question. Not as bad as wanting Israel destroyed, but still dishonest engagement and weird besides.

In any case, I think you attempted to do that at first but then you decided to act adversarial over the issue, resulting in saying things like this -

Literally what I said: I used to try my damnedest to be good faith, and

People advocating for Palestinian emancipation aren't doing so in the "name of terrorists". And even if you want to characterize people's ideological waffling on Hamas as being that, that's still not what the uproar and advocacy is about. And you know it isn't if you're at all capable of using a critical eye with the IDF, so what's the point of this kind of rhetoric? An embellishment is still an embellishment and it's the least charitable way to refer to people you disagree with on the topic of the election.

This was me characterizing the opinion of America at large, if Kamala loses. "Why does the left excuse terrorism? Do they hate Jews that much?" Partially because the media will keep having people like M3J on the news, put a microphone in their face and ask "Do you denounce the acts of Hamas?" and they're gonna say "Uh, I dunno. Do YOU denounce the acts of the IOF?" And Jews will get the message. Same with the "Nah, calling for the murder of Zionists isn't calling for genocide! Even though like, 95% of Jews are Zionists, meaning we'd have to kill all of you pig-dog fucks."

The rhetoric is because ridiculous behavior deserves ridicule to shame people for engaging in it. Fuck these people.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 2, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 2, 2024 ---

Who here participating in this thread is championing the destruction of Israel and the deaths of millions of people? Please point them out. Because I think if that's not something that is happening then that has to be worse then a snide remark or meme that may or may not apply to you? Idk.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 2, 2024 ---

I'm not going back through all of M3J's posts, because I did this once already, and you did what you usually do when you ask me to provide you with proof of something (you fucked off for like, 2 weeks and nothing came from it), so you're just gonna have to take my word for it:

M3J said that he wishes for Israel to be destroyed, and for all of the Zionists to be punished by either torture or worse. And hblock said that "no civilians were killed on October 7th."

 

[shionoro]

Well, these things are more complicated than just "This is how you fix the problem, so do this." We can't just ban fracking for economic reasons, but we can do a lot of other things that could help with offsetting or carbon footprint. Instead of just fracking, we can limit it, while also looking into nuclear finally, and solar and wind. I'm sure when it comes to taxes the same can be said about multiple smaller steps can combine to make lasting change in one big step toward economic equality.

And none of these things will be large changes, meaning no one will feel them for years, but they're foundational to building a better future without turning the people against you. We'll never get coal mining families or rust belt families to accept a full on ban on fracking.

But they are also more complicated than "we did s th that seems a little bit like s th else, so we started incremental change".

If you keep on fracking and expanding your economy, the decision to shut down your economy will be taken for you. Because the solar and wind you build is built because it is cheaper, it does not reduce your emissions (you simply are able to use more energy, and you do, without a strong push to shut down fossil fuels). You will not have another choice than to degrwoth eventually, as climate change takes your options out of your hands. Democrats know that obviously (so do Republicans), they will still use the economy as an argument to not do the right thing. Do not be fooled to think they are doing that because they are afraid of unemployment. They are doing that because the fossil fuel industry has a lot of sway.

With a wealth tax, the situation is even clearer. There is nothing complicated about a taxation of wealth being the only possible measure, the ONLY possible measure, to reduce inequality. Because if you live in an insanely unequal world in which the richest can just park their money wherever they want, what do they care abou income taxes? Nobody who does not push for a higher taxation of wealth can claim he is doing something incrementally do change inequality. They are just not.

These measures are vitamin pills claiming to heal cancer. A vitamin pill can be useful on its own, but it is not fit or meant to heal cancer. And it should never be claimed to do that. But that is what people usually do when they claim that they are for incremental change: they champion a measure unfit to change anything just because it is somewhat nice on its own.

 

[M3J]

I didn't say take away opportunities. Except maybe the opportunity to just enter through illegal means. I'm not anti-immigration at all, but can only justify illegal immigration in certain scenarios. I agree that it's a waste of money though, but it could translate into bought votes.

How many votes would it get her when her opponent is far more open about banning "illegal" immigrants?

Optics. Democrats are anti-racism. Trump wanted a racist wall. So she opposed it. Just like being pro-wall now is about optics too. I'm not a fan either, but I know why she's doing it.

Still shows she can't be trusted and that she's not any better than Trump. It does not make sense to run your campaign on saying you're better than the other person and then continue doing the same things that they were doing that got them criticized.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume the border wall isn't a single issue that any Democrat is voting on, so her campaign strategists probably signed off on it for that exact reason. As long as she avoids the horrible things like the razor wire and stuff that was in the news earlier this year.

Families under Biden were still being separated, and that just adds to some on the left not wanting to vote for her. That money can also be used to help people who need it, rather than build a pointless wall.

In any case, I think you attempted to do that at first but then you decided to act adversarial over the issue, resulting in saying things like this -

I don't think he was genuine about it, fel tmore like he said "fuck it, I'll just concede." Continuously bringing up Hamas, even when evidence and Israel's own confessions absolved Hamas, showed that he never believed IOF was bad.

Lots of silly claims like Hamas's tunnels underneath hospitals, but no mention of IOF raping Palestinian prisoners to death or rioting because they want to keep raping the prisoners. ninjabot also kept bringing up the left becoming more radical because Aaron Bushnell lit himself on fire, but he stayed quiet or mostly quiet on Zionists/Islamophobes attacking and killing Muslims and Palestinians.

This isn't accurate at all? It's more like people accusing her of working with Russians (which may or may not apply far too much with Republicans anyway, but I digress). Jill Stein maybe being correct on Gaza doesn't make her a serious candidate, I have no clue where that notion is coming from all of a sudden.

I am not in any way defending Jill, nor do I give a shit about her and her opportunistic ways. This is more of pointing out Dems' double standards. They accuse the left of wanting to help republicans win but have no problem with Harris wanting to work with republicans.

Who here participating in this thread is championing the destruction of Israel and the deaths of millions of people?

I am championing the destruction of Israel, but ninjabot somehow think that means deaths of millions of people no matter how many times it's been explained to him that Zionists can go elsewhere. The two-state solution is an extremely horrible option given that's what led to the 70+ years of genocide of Palestinians.