No, because you are still failing to address the time aspect. Tomorrow, as in 6 months before the elections.
It doesn't. This is our american bed. Lay in it. This is what happens when lobbyists and affluent people are allowed to place hundreds of millions of free speech into the pockets of politicians. This is what happens when religion and government mix, even slightly. The only chance those people have of America ending support tomorrow is a violent uprising that would most likely make everything worse for every American. Pick your poison, they all cause death.
Wow, what agreat sales pitch to encourage people to vote for the guy who's killing their family members...
Go ahead and bury your head in the sand then. You know what? Just go vote for Trump. You'll love it.
I'm definitely not voting for Trump. I live in a blue state where my vote doesn't matter anyway. I'm just saying, you guys aren't helping as much as you think you are. Look at it from their point of view. They're not thinking rationally, and honestly, I don't expect them to. It's an emotionally charged situation when people you know or people like you are being genocided. The effort would be better spent trying to force Biden to change tactics on supporting Israel before election day.
Oh believe me I did the uncommitted thing too. There are just other remedies than voting for Trump and fucking all of us.
If the choice is between just them being fucked and everyone being fucked, there's plenty of people who would choose the latter, especially if that threat could potentially be used to reduce their fucking. Maybe just try to do something to help people whose families are dying instead of pleading for them to think of you?
"That shit over there is killing my family, let me bring it to where I live."
a) That you need to enhance a Trump victory to him bombing US cities has to induce some minimal recognition that you're going far off course.
b) That you think people wouldn't risk their lives to save their family really speaks to how dumb it is to stick your head into their business. It's just a hypothetical in a game theory thought argument to you, not actual people.
That b point sounds like a wild assumption. Israel is ruled by a right wing extremist party. Can you see how we don't want a right wing extremist party to take control here? That's the relation. No game theory hypothetical.
The right wing party is killing people outside of Israel. Most Israelis are perfect fine with the bloodshed, just as most Americans were happy with our decades of war and drone strikes. And you're still not approaching this as if real people these voters loved are being killed right now because of Biden's policy choices. It's not an assumption, it's evident in how flippant you are about them just letting it go.
Still making assumptions, still no reason to bring the dictatorship home.
Yeah there aren’t any US Presidential elections before November, that I’m aware of anyway.
I mean after six months is a kind of tomorrow, it’s just not literally tomorrow. Using the election to press a point is not really relevant if we’re not talking about the election though. We’d otherwise just agree.
They want him to change NOW. Not six months from now after he's elected. NOW. The electoral threat is meant to cause current changes.
Threatening to vote against a politician is really the only leverage voters have, and it's not like they just wait until the week of an election to demand things. "If you don't do this, I won't vote for you" is a standard template for demanding action.
well, howabout this: we’ll join in all the foot-stomping and loud sighing up until the election. If we can get some concessions through it - great! All for it.
But we vote Biden in November. Because if you want to drive the election like an asshole and steer it into the ditch so trump gets in - Yeah, no. Not just no, but HELL no.
How is this even a question? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Have you ever even voted before? Honestly the cavalier attitude to trump getting in is batshit insanity. I hope y’all are just stoned as fuck.
Sure, that seems pretty reasonable to me. It'll notably look exactly like what you're exasperated about though. "We're definitely going to vote for you but we're angry" is shorthand for "ignore me".
Only if the whole “representative” part of democracy is a sham and a joke. I don’t think it is.
It’s weak, yes, in some ways broken, constantly under siege, in actual existential danger at the present time - but it’s real and the best version we’ve come up with yet in the history of the world. And it wasn’t easy to get here.
It's representative because the representatives need their constituents' votes to stay in power. It may not be a spoken exchange, but that's exactly the exchange that takes place with every call. That's not a sham, that's exactly what makes it a democracy. The idea that elected officials broadly act out of the goodness of their hearts is describing a benevolent aristocracy. Also a fantasy.
. . . ? Sorry, it’s representative but only because politicians need votes?
Not sure what the point is there.
And they do things for their constituents because otherwise they will lose votes. Which you seem to think would only occur if the democracy was a joke rather than the very core of the system.
Not “only” because they’d lose votes, but yes that is a feature of the representative system. What is it you think I’m saying about it? I think you’re saying representative democracy is bad because the representatives need votes to be in office . . . ?
It’ll notably look exactly like what you’re exasperated about though. “We’re definitely going to vote for you but we’re angry” is shorthand for “ignore me”.
Only if the whole “representative” part of democracy is a sham and a joke. I don’t think it is.
This sounds like you believe telling a representative that your vote is assured but your angry with their choice will get them to take your concerns seriously unless the "representative" part is a sham, but there's no inherent expectation of goodness in a representative democracy. If they don't want to do something and you (and all your allies) tell them "we want you to change your position, but we're going to vote for you regardless of what you do", you've told them all they need to know, because ignoring you won't cost them any votes and presumably the other choice either will or is just what they'd like to do.
"Representative" democracy just means we hand over immediate power to the people we vote for to do the day to day governing. It doesn't mean they actually innately represent their constituents nor does it involve just guessing who'd be best every four years and then sitting back and hoping it goes well.
Politicians ignore their constituents all the time. I'm glad that Biden doesn't give a fuck that some pro-life zealots are big mad that he doesn't ban abortion. He knows they have almost no chance of voting for him and it would lose him a bunch of his actual voters. But if we all got together and said "hey Joe, don't worry about what we want on abortion, we're 100% with you regardless", he might start thinking about softening his stance on abortion bans to pick up a few more votes from the zealots. You can leave the threat to not vote for them unsaid, but the threat is what gets them to change their stance, and if you preemptively rule out ever taking away the thing they want in the transaction, they have no reason to do so.
Votes in exchange for policy is the whole deal. There's no requirement in a functioning democratic system for the representatives to just do stuff out of innate goodness.
I guess it would depend on your representative. If your hyptothetical representative in this case is simply saying words to secure your vote but has no intention of working towards what you've asked of them, then yeah that's fucked up and you shouldn't vote for them. But again, that's also part of the system.
If you're saying on the national stage we have a two-party system and the only way to extract concessions from the one party that will listen is to throw the election to the other party - that's insanity. Firstly, it's not the case, and secondly, the second party will absolutely make everything worse for everyone. It's like saying if I can't have ice cream for dinner I'm going to shit in the food.
So here- your representative in the House - whoever that is - have you gotten their position on Palestine? Have you told them what you want them to do? If both of those are yes, then you've done the direct action part of it. The rest of the marching and protesting and whatever else anyone wants to do - absolutely fine and not specifically ineffective. All the college protest press has created some momentum, so maybe the DNC will add a relevant plank to the platform in September when the convention is.
But here's the thing - if your representative (and/or Senator, same rules apply) is either saying but not doing, or not saying what you want - you support their competition. Practically that means another Democrat, unless you've got a shot at electing an Independent as in the case of Maine or somewhere else. It does not mean allowing republiQans to run riot because we "only" agree on 90% of the issues.
Is the entirety of the system broken? No. It's managed - yes. And that can be seen as bad, absolutely I get it. I'm not a huge fan of the DNC or the DNCC in particular. But the fact that it's managed is relatively meaningless for what we're talking about - a particular position wrt Israel & Palestine. Those people should agree with us, and if they don't we should be able to persuade them with logic and reason. And if we can't, we have to look at why.
For what it's worth, I think there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff regarding arms sales and political donations going on that isn't accounted for because it's not talked about. By talking about it we can get closer to what the fuck is wrong with them. Are they not holding Israel's right wing (republiQan) administration to account because they need their money? Their political intel? Their spies? Their footprint in the middle east? All of that must play some sort of role in the decision, but it's never mentioned by either side. The one side, in power, who knows it won't talk about it, and the other side, not in power, doesn't know it.
So what we're left with is an imperfect system that nevertheless is functional and has all the avenues necessary to affect change. Is your representative (like mine) a republiQan dipshit possessed by the evil MAGAt virus? Well, I'm supporting their challenger, a Democrat, who will vote the way I want them to. If my rep was a Democrat who was voting the way I wanted to in 90% of the issues but this one, I'd back another Dem who voted 100% of the way I want them to. Those are valid paths to getting what we want done.
Not voting, which is as previously discussed effectively allowing the republiQan incompetent corrupt turd circus to win, is not a valid path. Third party is a valid path, it's just not likely. Like, at all. Hey - if you and some friends can raise a third party to win national elections, hell yeah, go for it. But there's a reason it hasn't been done yet and no one has addressed that reason. Until then, we have a bit of an existential issue in this upcoming election. Like we can discuss how to deal with Netanyahu but there's still a ticking nuclear weapon under our feet we should probably address first.
No, because you are still failing to address the time aspect. Tomorrow, as in 6 months before the elections.
It doesn't. This is our american bed. Lay in it. This is what happens when lobbyists and affluent people are allowed to place hundreds of millions of free speech into the pockets of politicians. This is what happens when religion and government mix, even slightly. The only chance those people have of America ending support tomorrow is a violent uprising that would most likely make everything worse for every American. Pick your poison, they all cause death.
Wow, what agreat sales pitch to encourage people to vote for the guy who's killing their family members...
Go ahead and bury your head in the sand then. You know what? Just go vote for Trump. You'll love it.
I'm definitely not voting for Trump. I live in a blue state where my vote doesn't matter anyway. I'm just saying, you guys aren't helping as much as you think you are. Look at it from their point of view. They're not thinking rationally, and honestly, I don't expect them to. It's an emotionally charged situation when people you know or people like you are being genocided. The effort would be better spent trying to force Biden to change tactics on supporting Israel before election day.
Oh believe me I did the uncommitted thing too. There are just other remedies than voting for Trump and fucking all of us.
If the choice is between just them being fucked and everyone being fucked, there's plenty of people who would choose the latter, especially if that threat could potentially be used to reduce their fucking. Maybe just try to do something to help people whose families are dying instead of pleading for them to think of you?
"That shit over there is killing my family, let me bring it to where I live."
a) That you need to enhance a Trump victory to him bombing US cities has to induce some minimal recognition that you're going far off course.
b) That you think people wouldn't risk their lives to save their family really speaks to how dumb it is to stick your head into their business. It's just a hypothetical in a game theory thought argument to you, not actual people.
That b point sounds like a wild assumption. Israel is ruled by a right wing extremist party. Can you see how we don't want a right wing extremist party to take control here? That's the relation. No game theory hypothetical.
The right wing party is killing people outside of Israel. Most Israelis are perfect fine with the bloodshed, just as most Americans were happy with our decades of war and drone strikes. And you're still not approaching this as if real people these voters loved are being killed right now because of Biden's policy choices. It's not an assumption, it's evident in how flippant you are about them just letting it go.
Still making assumptions, still no reason to bring the dictatorship home.
Yeah there aren’t any US Presidential elections before November, that I’m aware of anyway.
I mean after six months is a kind of tomorrow, it’s just not literally tomorrow. Using the election to press a point is not really relevant if we’re not talking about the election though. We’d otherwise just agree.
They want him to change NOW. Not six months from now after he's elected. NOW. The electoral threat is meant to cause current changes.
Threatening to vote against a politician is really the only leverage voters have, and it's not like they just wait until the week of an election to demand things. "If you don't do this, I won't vote for you" is a standard template for demanding action.
well, howabout this: we’ll join in all the foot-stomping and loud sighing up until the election. If we can get some concessions through it - great! All for it.
But we vote Biden in November. Because if you want to drive the election like an asshole and steer it into the ditch so trump gets in - Yeah, no. Not just no, but HELL no.
How is this even a question? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Have you ever even voted before? Honestly the cavalier attitude to trump getting in is batshit insanity. I hope y’all are just stoned as fuck.
Sure, that seems pretty reasonable to me. It'll notably look exactly like what you're exasperated about though. "We're definitely going to vote for you but we're angry" is shorthand for "ignore me".
Only if the whole “representative” part of democracy is a sham and a joke. I don’t think it is.
It’s weak, yes, in some ways broken, constantly under siege, in actual existential danger at the present time - but it’s real and the best version we’ve come up with yet in the history of the world. And it wasn’t easy to get here.
It's representative because the representatives need their constituents' votes to stay in power. It may not be a spoken exchange, but that's exactly the exchange that takes place with every call. That's not a sham, that's exactly what makes it a democracy. The idea that elected officials broadly act out of the goodness of their hearts is describing a benevolent aristocracy. Also a fantasy.
. . . ? Sorry, it’s representative but only because politicians need votes?
Not sure what the point is there.
And they do things for their constituents because otherwise they will lose votes. Which you seem to think would only occur if the democracy was a joke rather than the very core of the system.
Not “only” because they’d lose votes, but yes that is a feature of the representative system. What is it you think I’m saying about it? I think you’re saying representative democracy is bad because the representatives need votes to be in office . . . ?
This sounds like you believe telling a representative that your vote is assured but your angry with their choice will get them to take your concerns seriously unless the "representative" part is a sham, but there's no inherent expectation of goodness in a representative democracy. If they don't want to do something and you (and all your allies) tell them "we want you to change your position, but we're going to vote for you regardless of what you do", you've told them all they need to know, because ignoring you won't cost them any votes and presumably the other choice either will or is just what they'd like to do.
"Representative" democracy just means we hand over immediate power to the people we vote for to do the day to day governing. It doesn't mean they actually innately represent their constituents nor does it involve just guessing who'd be best every four years and then sitting back and hoping it goes well.
Politicians ignore their constituents all the time. I'm glad that Biden doesn't give a fuck that some pro-life zealots are big mad that he doesn't ban abortion. He knows they have almost no chance of voting for him and it would lose him a bunch of his actual voters. But if we all got together and said "hey Joe, don't worry about what we want on abortion, we're 100% with you regardless", he might start thinking about softening his stance on abortion bans to pick up a few more votes from the zealots. You can leave the threat to not vote for them unsaid, but the threat is what gets them to change their stance, and if you preemptively rule out ever taking away the thing they want in the transaction, they have no reason to do so.
Votes in exchange for policy is the whole deal. There's no requirement in a functioning democratic system for the representatives to just do stuff out of innate goodness.
I guess it would depend on your representative. If your hyptothetical representative in this case is simply saying words to secure your vote but has no intention of working towards what you've asked of them, then yeah that's fucked up and you shouldn't vote for them. But again, that's also part of the system.
If you're saying on the national stage we have a two-party system and the only way to extract concessions from the one party that will listen is to throw the election to the other party - that's insanity. Firstly, it's not the case, and secondly, the second party will absolutely make everything worse for everyone. It's like saying if I can't have ice cream for dinner I'm going to shit in the food.
So here- your representative in the House - whoever that is - have you gotten their position on Palestine? Have you told them what you want them to do? If both of those are yes, then you've done the direct action part of it. The rest of the marching and protesting and whatever else anyone wants to do - absolutely fine and not specifically ineffective. All the college protest press has created some momentum, so maybe the DNC will add a relevant plank to the platform in September when the convention is.
But here's the thing - if your representative (and/or Senator, same rules apply) is either saying but not doing, or not saying what you want - you support their competition. Practically that means another Democrat, unless you've got a shot at electing an Independent as in the case of Maine or somewhere else. It does not mean allowing republiQans to run riot because we "only" agree on 90% of the issues.
Is the entirety of the system broken? No. It's managed - yes. And that can be seen as bad, absolutely I get it. I'm not a huge fan of the DNC or the DNCC in particular. But the fact that it's managed is relatively meaningless for what we're talking about - a particular position wrt Israel & Palestine. Those people should agree with us, and if they don't we should be able to persuade them with logic and reason. And if we can't, we have to look at why.
For what it's worth, I think there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff regarding arms sales and political donations going on that isn't accounted for because it's not talked about. By talking about it we can get closer to what the fuck is wrong with them. Are they not holding Israel's right wing (republiQan) administration to account because they need their money? Their political intel? Their spies? Their footprint in the middle east? All of that must play some sort of role in the decision, but it's never mentioned by either side. The one side, in power, who knows it won't talk about it, and the other side, not in power, doesn't know it.
So what we're left with is an imperfect system that nevertheless is functional and has all the avenues necessary to affect change. Is your representative (like mine) a republiQan dipshit possessed by the evil MAGAt virus? Well, I'm supporting their challenger, a Democrat, who will vote the way I want them to. If my rep was a Democrat who was voting the way I wanted to in 90% of the issues but this one, I'd back another Dem who voted 100% of the way I want them to. Those are valid paths to getting what we want done.
Not voting, which is as previously discussed effectively allowing the republiQan incompetent corrupt turd circus to win, is not a valid path. Third party is a valid path, it's just not likely. Like, at all. Hey - if you and some friends can raise a third party to win national elections, hell yeah, go for it. But there's a reason it hasn't been done yet and no one has addressed that reason. Until then, we have a bit of an existential issue in this upcoming election. Like we can discuss how to deal with Netanyahu but there's still a ticking nuclear weapon under our feet we should probably address first.