Blankspace2010 Posted August 31 Posted August 31 (edited) 7 minutes ago, nadiamendell said: ย Hopefully this is a good sign? The problem is that it feels like the only shift will be ideological and not actually be put into action. Gordon acknowledging that destroying Hamas means destroying Palestine and stating this would be a humanitarian crisis. This is very mild, middle of the road language. Acknowledging something isn't action, doesn't make a difference to anybody, anywhere. We need stronger people voicing their disdain for Israel and then putting it into decisive action. Israel needs to be dismantled.ย Edited August 31 by Blankspace2010 5 1
Relampago. Posted August 31 Posted August 31 ย Lotta R-leaning polls today. Hopefully that changes after the debate. ย
GhostBox Posted August 31 Posted August 31 8 minutes ago, Blankspace2010 said: Israel needs to be dismantled.ย And this is never going to happen. Ever ๐
GhostBox Posted August 31 Posted August 31 2 minutes ago, Relampago. said: ย Lotta R-leaning polls today. Hopefully that changes after the debate. ย Seems to be a flooding of R leaning polls lately.ย
Sannie Posted August 31 Posted August 31 11 minutes ago, Relampago. said: ย Lotta R-leaning polls today. Hopefully that changes after the debate. ย A lot of R-leaning polls, like Trafalgar and Rasmussen, have the sole purpose of making Trump look better. That won't change, unfortunately, and people like Nate don't seem to care enough to remove their influence from their models. ย Like, +5 in MN is just a joke. ย After Labor Day is when things really start to kick into high gear. Some reliable, in-state polls from PA are set to be conducted and we'll probably see the same in other swing states. ย 2
i spit on haters Posted August 31 Posted August 31 42 minutes ago, GhostBox said: And this is never going to happen. Ever ๐ True. But they're also slowly but surely collapsing in on its self due to it's own self-destruction. Over 35k (and counting) israeli jews have also permanently left israel since Oct. 7th. Don't come here, either.
Communion Posted September 1 Posted September 1 (edited) 3 hours ago, nadiamendell said: ย Hopefully this is a good sign? We're entering fundamental contradiction territory where Dems' commitment to adventurism is at odds with what their voters are able to stomach. Usually this is an issue Republicans face from oppositional liberals, but Obama himself was confronted about the cruelty and lethality of drone strikes. ย Some might even point to Clinton's foreign policy as a non-insignificant reason to why she lost.ย ย America's commitment to Israel is deep and strong as an extension of its foreign policy that is exploitative, self-interested, and to the harm of other nations.ย ย The relationship between anti-war activists and Dems has not been collaboration but hostility and how to best inconvenience officials to give up. ย No matter one's view of Assad as an authoritarian, it's agreed that he... simply won the Syrian civil war. American involvement dwindled because it was became less and less to America's benefit, with post-9/11 backlash was occurring as leaks revealed just how much Obama was being pushed to escalate. ย Elected Dems folded on Saudi Arabia and moved to restrict Biden's ability to help them bomb Yemen when the Khashoggi story became too big. ย Israel proposes a unique problem, in that, Dems can and do move towards pulling American involvement when things look to be going bad. The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq have not been the mistakes of cruelty but the fear of embarrassment.ย Except now, they've built a genocidal regime who has no will to stop its genocide, and won't stop until there are simply no more Palestinians. Bibi does not care about American tears over dead children. ย So like, the good sis @GhostBoxย *is* right. Israel will always have Dems' support until that support teaches Democrats a very hard and painful lesson.ย Edited September 1 by Communion 2 1
Redstreak Posted September 1 Posted September 1 12 minutes ago, Communion said: So like, the good sis @GhostBoxย *is* right. Israel will always have Dems' support until that support teaches Democrats a very hard and painful lesson.ย ย I mean, wasn't that part of the rationale behind a Hillary loss in 2016? A majorly embarrassing defeat for the dems would galvanize them to do better and yet 1
ClashAndBurn Posted September 1 Posted September 1 At the end of the day, Dems are tacking to the right to appeal to moderates. In doing so, they're making it more likely they lose by depressing the base, and the lesson taken away from that will be that they need to move even further to the right. ย Proof of this is Hillary, then the most evil crony capitalist to win the nomination in the modern era, losing, which led to someone even more evil in every way winning the nomination and the presidency four years later. 1 1 1
Communion Posted September 1 Posted September 1 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Redstreak said: I mean, wasn't that part of the rationale behind a Hillary loss in 2016? A majorly embarrassing defeat for the dems would galvanize them to do better and yet I mean, following 2016 and Clinton's loss: Democrats largely moved to supporting legislation that would restrict and limit the president's war powers due to Trump The 2020 Democratic National platform includes a statedย promise to end the "forever wars' The promises and eventual implementation of the withdrawal of all US personnel and troops from Afghanistan Biden's administration having toย pivot and abandon much ofย the drone program in favor of escalating sanctions (their own problem) due to the backlash of drones Democrats rallied and pushed limits on Biden's own adventurism when it similarly flirted with the same backlash (KSA bombing Yemen) In that, the support for Israel feels even more antiquated because it is now causing a reversal of these stances. Why does the Israel lobby remain so powerful? ย The Houthis didn't pop up out of thin air on 10/08. It was the Houthis who Saudi Arabia claimed they needed American weapons to go after and which Dems didn't buy. But now that Israel is committing a genocide and pushing for regional war, America must now for some reason confront Hamas, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran.ย ย Biden wasn't a dove, but one just has to remember what nightly news was like during Obama's presidency vs now.ย US foreign policy coverage is dominated by wars removed from America (Russia's invasion of Ukraine) or a new frontier due to Middle East policy failures (China vs Taiwan, Philippines). ย Maybe DC hasn't clued up to war fatigue and maybe it was just Biden wanting redemption nearing the end of his political career, but then what does that spell for a Harris presidency with her being a blank slate for The Blob and supportive of the natsec's hunger for foreign wars?ย ย If the natsec is aware of war fatigue, why does Israel keep getting an exception to Americans discomfort in meddling in the Middle East? ย What *is* tolerated by the American public draws into further inspection the oddity of Israel. India is run by a far-right nationalist where ethnic and religious minorities are routinely murdered and attacked (Muslims within India have been lynched by Hindu nationalists, for example), and there's been little noise to isolate India economically outside of infrequent scolding of Modi by pundits. Ending weapons and money to Israel and telling them they'd have to do genocide on their own would likely vanish the war from most American screens, even if levels of brutalization continued. Which makes it even odder there's DC consensus America must remain a proud partner in the genocide. Edited September 1 by Communion 1 1
GhostBox Posted September 1 Posted September 1 If anyone thinks Harris losing to Trump is gonna cause some progressive revolution 3 years later ย (the same way some thought Hillary losing would) that's being naive.ย ย best bet is Trump loses and we the voters push Harris and her admin to go even further on alot of things Biden and his admin did that were good but not good enough.ย ย Trump NEEDS ย to lose and we should all be hoping for that.ย 3
ClashAndBurn Posted September 1 Posted September 1 6 minutes ago, GhostBox said: If anyone thinks Harris losing to Trump is gonna cause some progressive revolution 3 years later ย (the same way some thought Hillary losing would) that's being naive.ย ย best bet is Trump loses and we the voters push Harris and her admin to go even further on alot of things Biden and his admin did that were good but not good enough.ย ย Trump NEEDS ย to lose and we should all be hoping for that.ย No, no one thinks that. After 2016, everyone honest with themselves knows that the only options for dems at this point are a rightward shift and they win or a rightward shift and they lose followed by an even further shift to the right. Progress isn't even remotely on the table for the next decade, or possibly even for the rest of my life. 2 2
GhostBox Posted September 1 Posted September 1 21 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: No, no one thinks that. After 2016, everyone honest with themselves knows that the only options for dems at this point are a rightward shift and they win or a rightward shift and they lose followed by an even further shift to the right. Progress isn't even remotely on the table for the next decade, or possibly even for the rest of my life. I understand some people feel this way but i hope if Harris wins she proves everyone wrong and does do some great things. At least with her there's some hope that she will on certain things. When it comes to Trump there's none on any issue.ย
Sannie Posted September 1 Posted September 1 (edited) 14 minutes ago, GhostBox said: I understand some people feel this way but i hope if Harris wins she proves everyone wrong and does do some great things. At least with her there's some hope that she will on certain things. When it comes to Trump there's none on any issue.ย Trump is the reason for the rightward shift and things will continue to shift rightwards until he's gone. We will have to fight over and over and over again until he is gone. Harris is not going to be some Progressive savior, but she can act as the buffer we need to get to 2028 and beyond. Getting to where we want to be is not going to happen overnight and we will have to continue to vote as if our lives depend on it, because they do until we beat MAGA. I know it feels like there's no hope, but that's only because of the position we're in right now... but guess what, we've been in this place before, we struggled like hell, and we ended up moving forward. Progress is slow as hell sometimes, but it eventually finds its way. People are just too impatient and are willing to throw everything away if they don't get what they want right this instant. ย But really, you can't argue with or convince people who've given up. They have their reasons so we just have to ignore them for people who can still be persuaded. Thankfully, that's what Kamala is doing. Edited September 1 by Sannie 6
Communion Posted September 1 Posted September 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, GhostBox said: If anyone thinks Harris losing to Trump is gonna cause some progressive revolution 3 years laterย This framing doesn't work. It's ineffective and off-putting. People don't not vote in the hopes of Trump winning. That's not how that works. ย People don't vote because they became too unsatisfied and at odds with what all the options are offering. ย You hope to reframe an observation of what will happen if Dems continue to produce contradictions as a project by outsiders to remove agency from Democrats. ย No one needs to vote for Trump to accelerate anything. Most people already have an inherent rejection and discomfort with cruelty. Most people have no material need to inflict suffering onto others as others suffering does not improve their own. The more Dems continue to force into their voters' faces that they, too, stand for cruelty if the paycheck is enough, the more the party will continue to bleed support and repeat this cycle of loss, performative regret, and eventual return to the center. ย These contradictions got so bad that the most revered Democrat - the one anointed to be the first female president - lost to a reality TV show host. ย This isn't even a demand for leftists' goals. Dems being smarter on how to hide the brutality of American hegemony isn't aiding leftists. We're discussing the reality that Dems are backtracking on their perceived understanding that they must shield the average American from the brutality needed to maintain America as an empire because... a set of religious extremists believe that they have the right to genocide a people for a piece of land their ancestors sat on maybe over 2k years ago? Edited September 1 by Communion 1
Communion Posted September 1 Posted September 1 22 minutes ago, Sannie said: Trump is the reason for the rightward shift and things will continue to shift rightwards until he's gone. And what led to Trump coming into power?ย 1
Vroom Vroom Posted September 1 Posted September 1 Kamala becoming president and dems having a majority in senate and house (in 2024 or 2026) will indirectly give progressive policies more pathways in the futureย Kamala plans on suspending the filibuster to codify Roe V Wade. If this is done, the filibuster will be weakened significantly. After that bell has been rung, both parties will have an easier time overriding the filibuster to pass bills. This means progressive policies would have an easier time getting passed with only 51 votes in the Senateย 2
VOSS Posted September 1 Posted September 1 36 minutes ago, Vroom Vroom said: Kamala becoming president and dems having a majority in senate and house (in 2024 or 2026) will indirectly give progressive policies more pathways in the futureย Kamala plans on suspending the filibuster to codify Roe V Wade. If this is done, the filibuster will be weakened significantly. After that bell has been rung, both parties will have an easier time overriding the filibuster to pass bills. This means progressive policies would have an easier time getting passed with only 51 votes in the Senateย Would they really be able to suspend the filibuster with 51 votes though? Are there not other D senators who oppose it even without Manchin and Sinema?
Recommended Posts