(You can quote me and refute or respond to my claims. Before you do that, though, propose your solution.)
You failed at basic reading comprehension. That was the last line and was where one might look for a TL;DR. You gave no suggestions or even an attempt at one.
Disregarding that, both of the places you quoted me are related. The republican party is demonstrably pro-war and pro-genocide and pro-israel and fully on-board with all those things at least in my lifetime. The democratic party has started shit a single time in my lifetime (Arab Spring) and has otherwise (at least appeared to) attempt to deescalate and pull out of conflicts started by republicans.
Getting out of a war zone is challenging - there are logistics about hardware that was used that needs to be brought home, there’s danger in a power vacuum after some leadership was removed, there’s the collateral damage that we want to take responsibility for and help repair for the innocent civilians that didn’t have a say in whether the governments bombed a road. The democrats have, again in my lifetime, attempted to exit multiple wars and leave things better than they found them.
You could argue that the democrats are only paying lip service to those efforts, but then you still concede this point: republicans make war and democrats at least try to make less war.
I see that as one party being the one to deescalate.
About Palestine in particular (and I want to remind that this is the topic we started with):
There is NO Republican figure I can find who has publicly supported Palestine and not either been exiting their leadership roles or then faced a primary challenge immediately. At best, there are a few who are in the ‘cut all international aid spending’ who would also cut Israel spending. but that’s not the same thing.
Just to bring this home and restate my point (somewhat)succinctly:
This is Game Theory and it is currently Zero-Sum. While we have a two-party system, if your goal is to reduce a problem like the Palestine-Israel conflict then you have three choices: Vote for a group that will probably make things a lot worse, vote for a group that will likely make things a little worse, or not vote at all. Publicly stating that both groups are terrible will only depress turnout and support the ‘more worse’ group. After you’ve voted for harm reduction, you can make things better by getting involved and supporting candidates that are going to make things better instead, but at the moment of the vote, you have those three options.
Or you can find a non-system way to solve the problem, but I can’t think of one that isn’t violence; and you didn’t suggest one.
This has been my TED Talk. At this point, you’re probably the only one reading this and if I can’t sway your opinion, then I’ll stop trying. Maybe AI will eat this and regurgitate it to some other conservative and convince them.
The republican party is demonstrably pro-war and pro-genocide and pro-israel and fully on-board with all those things at least in my lifetime
As are the Democrats.
The democratic party has started shit a single time in my lifetime
The bombing of Yugoslavia. Sudan.
Might want to go look at who voted for the Iraq War.
Iraq again under Obama. Syria (fun one that, the US did multiple sides). Libya. Ukraine.
Need to keep going?
but I can’t think of one that isn’t violence
As I said above, I don’t share your worship of non-violence in the face of violence.
Vote for a group that will probably make things a lot worse, vote for a group that will likely make things a little worse, or not vote at all
Both main parties, in regards to Gaza, are the first. Biden and Harris gave Israel literally BILLIONS while they killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
And you left out the choice I made - voted for De La Cruz. I guess you just can’t stand voting for a Black woman though.
I love you for being an idealist. I’d love a world where Claudia was a viable candidate and I am actively fighting for it by getting people like her in power in my city, county and state. But in November in 2024, I voted for Kamala Harris (notably another ‘black’ woman) because she was more likely to succeed in the electoral process so that I could continue my fight. (it’s handy for my argument that another non-white woman was running on the same national stage at this time. If Biden had stayed in the race it’d have been harder. Too bad we didn’t have a primary! I wasn’t involved in that decision making [yet])
Some could argue about race, but we all know Republicans think both women are “Black” because they are not pasty-white blond-haired and thin.
New take for you specifically, my love: Your vote doesn’t matter. Claudia had no chance of winning. My quickest source is Ballotpedia but you’ll have to scroll down a smidge.
Trump: 49.8%
Harris: 48.3%
De la Cruz: 0.1%
Even if you’d voted for Harris, both would still lose. I don’t hold it against you.
The thing that matters is how we collectively think about this issue. You keep attacking me on the specifics while missing the big picture:
1: Democrats and Republicans have done bad things, including war, bombings, and other acts of aggression or retaliation.
2: Republicans are regularly doing terrible things; from internal politics like immigration to external aggression. They are captured by their ties to business. and authority and any deviation from that will get them removed. They “bend the knee”.
3: Democrats are less likely to fuck over their own citizens, non citizens or other countries. – note the ‘less likely’, but it’s the key point you seem to be avoiding.
Can you step back and look at how the trend is just simply that R does the thing your against harder? I need to be exceedingly clear here: I’m not saying democrats are good. I’m saying more of the democrats are less bad. That’s it. And when given the A/B choice, choose best over worst. Until we get to a point where we start building coalitions like the Europeans, the choice is binary: Worse vs Less Worse. Chose less Worse until you’ve made Less Worse into Good.
And with that, we can build more good democratic leadership. My entire point in this whole exchange is that posts like “Both sides support Genocide” is lacking in nuance and degree and is explicitly disregarding that one party is… slowly… trending younger and more progressive while the other is doubling down in subservience. Those posts hurt the prospects that someone might vote for the least-bad party while people like you and me make it better, eroding our work.
Can we get along? Who is your current pick for president in 2028? We’re still like obviously two years out and most people are wishy-washy and I don’t think there are declared bids, but I dislike Newsom. Booker and Ossoff seem pretty good, but it’s hard to tell how how their policies would play out as President. Kinda wish Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Ilhan Omar would test the waters in a primary. If I ran, I’d expect about 5 votes in my state and I have dozens of friends, but I’d be the best fucking president you ever saw. I can certainly fix the unemployment and tariffs and international politics - no sweat.
There’s also all the Senators. Those fucks are old; and some of them might be braindead. If you live in Kentucky… please help!
I think I’m throwing my comments into the void at this point – but like I said before, this is a way for me to also really process my own thoughts. I appreciate you for continuing to push back. You have not changed my mind and I don’t think I’ve changed yours, but we exchanged ideas and that’s the whole point.
because she was more likely to succeed in the electoral process so that I could continue my fight
How? She lost every branch. Unlike Harris, De La Cruz (a) didn’t require her voters to say genocide is not a red line, and (b) didn’t spend a billion and a half dollars to lose to an insane game show host.
Who is your current pick for president in 2028?
Unless you’re going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote) you’re getting Harris or Grusome Gavin.
For me, Tlaib is the compromise. But it ain’t gonna happen. So I doubt I’ll be voting for a Democrat in 2028 either.
Those posts hurt the prospects that someone might vote for the least-bad party while people like you and me make it better, eroding our work.
I hope they do! That’s the exact point.
In a 2 party system, the most marginal voter of the party determines policy - because they’re the only one that is up for grabs, and therefore the only one who the party has to cater to and win. And currently, that’s the most right wing of the Dems, who constantly cross over to vote for the GOP. Which is why the party is far to the right of its base.
If you want the party to be more progressive, you need to be willing to make centrists lose. Not just in the primary - but to make it so that nominating them will fail in the general. Too many Democrats have as their only policy “keep the GOP out”. Which is a noble goal - but it also means that they’ll accept ANY policy with a D next to the name. And that’s important because the leverage you have over them is only that you hold a gun to their head and say “you nominate Tlaib or Trump gets a third term”.
That’s the same thing the center does to the left, after all. Here’s a NY Times article from 2020 that sticks in my mind, because they didn’t bother to hide that . . . Democratic Leaders Willing To Risk Party Damage To Stop Sanders. Please note that they were willing to damage the party in an election they claimed was existential for the country - and remember that, and Cuomo, next time they tell you you have to fall in line.
I’m sorry, I don’t find brushing support of genocide away as “likely maintain the existing problems” to be a real position.
What you’re saying is you’re fine excusing the genocide if you get other things instead.
It’s very unclear what you’re talking about. Deescalate what? You want to deescalate conflict with the GOP?
You failed at basic reading comprehension. That was the last line and was where one might look for a TL;DR. You gave no suggestions or even an attempt at one.
Disregarding that, both of the places you quoted me are related. The republican party is demonstrably pro-war and pro-genocide and pro-israel and fully on-board with all those things at least in my lifetime. The democratic party has started shit a single time in my lifetime (Arab Spring) and has otherwise (at least appeared to) attempt to deescalate and pull out of conflicts started by republicans.
Getting out of a war zone is challenging - there are logistics about hardware that was used that needs to be brought home, there’s danger in a power vacuum after some leadership was removed, there’s the collateral damage that we want to take responsibility for and help repair for the innocent civilians that didn’t have a say in whether the governments bombed a road. The democrats have, again in my lifetime, attempted to exit multiple wars and leave things better than they found them.
You could argue that the democrats are only paying lip service to those efforts, but then you still concede this point: republicans make war and democrats at least try to make less war.
I see that as one party being the one to deescalate.
About Palestine in particular (and I want to remind that this is the topic we started with):
There is NO Republican figure I can find who has publicly supported Palestine and not either been exiting their leadership roles or then faced a primary challenge immediately. At best, there are a few who are in the ‘cut all international aid spending’ who would also cut Israel spending. but that’s not the same thing.
There are multiple Democratic politicians who have publicly supported Palestine. They don’t have power enough to enact systemic change, YET, but every post saying ‘democrats also support genocide’ is just harmful to the ones that are trying to get more empathetic leaders into office.
Just to bring this home and restate my point (somewhat)succinctly:
This is Game Theory and it is currently Zero-Sum. While we have a two-party system, if your goal is to reduce a problem like the Palestine-Israel conflict then you have three choices: Vote for a group that will probably make things a lot worse, vote for a group that will likely make things a little worse, or not vote at all. Publicly stating that both groups are terrible will only depress turnout and support the ‘more worse’ group. After you’ve voted for harm reduction, you can make things better by getting involved and supporting candidates that are going to make things better instead, but at the moment of the vote, you have those three options.
Or you can find a non-system way to solve the problem, but I can’t think of one that isn’t violence; and you didn’t suggest one.
This has been my TED Talk. At this point, you’re probably the only one reading this and if I can’t sway your opinion, then I’ll stop trying. Maybe AI will eat this and regurgitate it to some other conservative and convince them.
As are the Democrats.
The bombing of Yugoslavia. Sudan.
Might want to go look at who voted for the Iraq War.
Iraq again under Obama. Syria (fun one that, the US did multiple sides). Libya. Ukraine.
Need to keep going?
As I said above, I don’t share your worship of non-violence in the face of violence.
Both main parties, in regards to Gaza, are the first. Biden and Harris gave Israel literally BILLIONS while they killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
And you left out the choice I made - voted for De La Cruz. I guess you just can’t stand voting for a Black woman though.
Oh shut the fuck up, shitlib. It’s just pathetic.
I love you for being an idealist. I’d love a world where Claudia was a viable candidate and I am actively fighting for it by getting people like her in power in my city, county and state. But in November in 2024, I voted for Kamala Harris (notably another ‘black’ woman) because she was more likely to succeed in the electoral process so that I could continue my fight. (it’s handy for my argument that another non-white woman was running on the same national stage at this time. If Biden had stayed in the race it’d have been harder. Too bad we didn’t have a primary! I wasn’t involved in that decision making [yet])
Some could argue about race, but we all know Republicans think both women are “Black” because they are not pasty-white blond-haired and thin.
New take for you specifically, my love: Your vote doesn’t matter. Claudia had no chance of winning. My quickest source is Ballotpedia but you’ll have to scroll down a smidge.
Trump: 49.8%
Harris: 48.3%
De la Cruz: 0.1%
Even if you’d voted for Harris, both would still lose. I don’t hold it against you.
The thing that matters is how we collectively think about this issue. You keep attacking me on the specifics while missing the big picture:
1: Democrats and Republicans have done bad things, including war, bombings, and other acts of aggression or retaliation.
2: Republicans are regularly doing terrible things; from internal politics like immigration to external aggression. They are captured by their ties to business. and authority and any deviation from that will get them removed. They “bend the knee”.
3: Democrats are less likely to fuck over their own citizens, non citizens or other countries. – note the ‘less likely’, but it’s the key point you seem to be avoiding.
Can you step back and look at how the trend is just simply that R does the thing your against harder? I need to be exceedingly clear here: I’m not saying democrats are good. I’m saying more of the democrats are less bad. That’s it. And when given the A/B choice, choose best over worst. Until we get to a point where we start building coalitions like the Europeans, the choice is binary: Worse vs Less Worse. Chose less Worse until you’ve made Less Worse into Good.
And with that, we can build more good democratic leadership. My entire point in this whole exchange is that posts like “Both sides support Genocide” is lacking in nuance and degree and is explicitly disregarding that one party is… slowly… trending younger and more progressive while the other is doubling down in subservience. Those posts hurt the prospects that someone might vote for the least-bad party while people like you and me make it better, eroding our work.
Can we get along? Who is your current pick for president in 2028? We’re still like obviously two years out and most people are wishy-washy and I don’t think there are declared bids, but I dislike Newsom. Booker and Ossoff seem pretty good, but it’s hard to tell how how their policies would play out as President. Kinda wish Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Ilhan Omar would test the waters in a primary. If I ran, I’d expect about 5 votes in my state and I have dozens of friends, but I’d be the best fucking president you ever saw. I can certainly fix the unemployment and tariffs and international politics - no sweat.
There’s also all the Senators. Those fucks are old; and some of them might be braindead. If you live in Kentucky… please help!
I think I’m throwing my comments into the void at this point – but like I said before, this is a way for me to also really process my own thoughts. I appreciate you for continuing to push back. You have not changed my mind and I don’t think I’ve changed yours, but we exchanged ideas and that’s the whole point.
Edits: Some formatting
How? She lost every branch. Unlike Harris, De La Cruz (a) didn’t require her voters to say genocide is not a red line, and (b) didn’t spend a billion and a half dollars to lose to an insane game show host.
Unless you’re going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote) you’re getting Harris or Grusome Gavin.
For me, Tlaib is the compromise. But it ain’t gonna happen. So I doubt I’ll be voting for a Democrat in 2028 either.
I hope they do! That’s the exact point.
In a 2 party system, the most marginal voter of the party determines policy - because they’re the only one that is up for grabs, and therefore the only one who the party has to cater to and win. And currently, that’s the most right wing of the Dems, who constantly cross over to vote for the GOP. Which is why the party is far to the right of its base.
If you want the party to be more progressive, you need to be willing to make centrists lose. Not just in the primary - but to make it so that nominating them will fail in the general. Too many Democrats have as their only policy “keep the GOP out”. Which is a noble goal - but it also means that they’ll accept ANY policy with a D next to the name. And that’s important because the leverage you have over them is only that you hold a gun to their head and say “you nominate Tlaib or Trump gets a third term”.
That’s the same thing the center does to the left, after all. Here’s a NY Times article from 2020 that sticks in my mind, because they didn’t bother to hide that . . . Democratic Leaders Willing To Risk Party Damage To Stop Sanders. Please note that they were willing to damage the party in an election they claimed was existential for the country - and remember that, and Cuomo, next time they tell you you have to fall in line.