Ok, I pick the poison in which I call out the awfulness of genocide and its perpetrators, be they presidents, candidates, constituents, or commenters on forums. Also, who are the “you guys” you are referring to here? Sounds like you are talking about the people outraged by injustice, racism and genocide. Perhaps it’s the people trying to apply moral standards consistently? I know that concept can be annoying when you’re feeling good about an election, but why should I care when the stakes are so high? The dynamic you’re describing is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a lame excuse for allowing depravity, and ultimately the reason why we keep electing terrible leaders.
No, it’s not people trying to apply moral standards consistently, it’s about people thinking that cutting off arms to Israel would save the Gazans when high-end military aid is not actually necessary for an ethnic cleansing of a small land area, simply a luxury. Following the wishes of the BDS movement, at any time since the war began, would not save the Gazans in any way, shape or form when the Israelis can simply resort to even more indiscriminate, inexpensive tactics to accomplish their goals. In actuality, all it would do is remove what little leverage we actually have over there.
Not that I expect peace protestors to understand much about the logistics of warfighting, I am fully aware it’s just about identifying something negative and fighting it as hard as you can. Unfortunately, though, the lack of understanding makes your proposed solutions simply wishful thinking that fails to take Netanyahu’s precarious political position and potential available methods and resources into account. We see this with climate change as well, where we still have no actual viable solutions for emissions in Russia or India, simply because climate experts are not geopolitics experts.
Oh, listen people. We can’t stop providing aid, or selling arms, or providing intelligence and logistical support, or political cover in the international community or sending carrier group after carrier group in to threaten their neighbors, or else we might lose leverage over them. In short, you’re saying we have to do everything possible to enable their crimes, or we might lose the ability to influence their criminal behavior. Please examine how absurd that sounds. The dynamic you’re describing makes this sound vastly more complex than it is. This approach is frequently used by those on power to absolve themselves from responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, if economic pressure doesn’t work, I guess we can go ahead and open up Russia trade again. Right?
Sanctions against Israel would probably be effective, but impractical when they were attacked and still have a significant amount of support in the populace. You could get some Americans behind neutrality, but not helping hamas.
I don’t disagree that it sounds absurd, but global politics just very often is, due to its fundamentally unethical nature. At that scale people are not individuals, they are numbers on a sheet of paper, simply because of the purely mechanical perspective of so many world leaders. At the end of the day, you have to work with what you’ve got, whether absurd or otherwise. It’s not about absolving, guilt is guilt. It’s about there being no guilt-free paths, so this guilt is preferable to the guilt even greater Palestinian casualties. ~50k have died, right? You know that absolutely could be 500k, right?
And if you don’t think the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is genuinely complex, you’re probably buying into someone’s bullshit. It is very complex.
Lastly, it’s a pretty gross exaggeration that we’re doing everything we can to enable their crimes. If we were, there wouldn’t be any Palestinians left anymore. They’re not that hard to kill.
It’s not easy, actually, to kill or cleanse millions of people while maintaining some semblance of legitimacy in the international community.
Leaders don’t craft their ideologies on what they believe Americans will ‘get behind’. Leaders will attempt to steer Americans to the right position. Harris and this community are all proud of what a righteous leader she’s supposed to be. I’m just holding her to the standard set by her own rhetoric.
You underestimate Netanyahu’s pragmatism. He knows full well he can get rid of them all, and take the shame with him when he’s dead. He’s probably correct too. Do people blame Germany or Hitler for the Holocaust? Israel isn’t going anywhere, they have nukes. Even if the US abandons them, there are other global factions.
Good leaders don’t have set ideologies. They deal with realities, not ideals, and shift their opinions and perspectives based on what they learn. This is because they recognize they are humans leading other humans, and capable of making mistakes. No set ideology can keep up with all the varied circumstances that real life can throw at a country. Then in our country, we run them, not the other way around. They are always at our mercy. FDR knew this, and despite greatly wanting to help Britain in WW2, had to remain very careful about it until Pearl Harbor.
Also, I think you overestimate Harris’ righteousness, I do not see what you are describing. I think most dems realize she’s a pragmatist, she was a prosecutor after all. Throwing folks in prison is not a very idealistic job, that would be more public defender. Prosecutor is messy. What she absolutely is is several times better than her opponent, and something new, being a woman.
For the record, I strongly suspect that the kind of nihilism that you are describing does in fact mostly describe how the US operates. It’s a very succinct explanation of why we are as awful a nation as we are and why we slide further toward autocracy with each administration.
It’s not nihilism, that’s an ideology. If it’s any ideology, it’s liberalism, recognizing that the will of the population determines the course of the nation, regardless of the good or evil that the population desires.
I don’t see how a different ideology could prevent the forces that are currently pushing us towards despotism, either. People are too susceptible to believing bullshit, with entire false realities being spun up in people’s minds. It’s just wishful thinking to believe that some great leader could come by and suddenly everyone would “wake up” and “see”. They’d still be manipulated into fear and anger by the authoritarian opposition.
Fortunately we’re not lost yet. The Palestinians aren’t completely doomed either, Netanyahu remains unable to finish the job and maintain our support, and his right wingers are growing more impatient with him. With some election reform we might be able to turn the tide on the far right here at home, too, though that’s harder with the filibuster still in place and us having nowhere near 60 Senate seats.
Sooooo the stakes for women, LGBTQ+ and migrants actually living in the USA (you know, the country the elections are for) aren’t high enough but you draw the line at foreign policies and you’ll push people to not vote and therefore open the door to the Republicans (who will support that genocide even more than the Democrats) by insisting that Harris bad?
And yes, you guys, all the people who kept saying you wouldn’t vote because of Biden’s stance on Israel, ignoring all other issues because somehow the death the Republicans will cause in North America if they win count for nothing but the deaths Israel are causing in Palestine count for everything. You’re just part of the Russian division machine to try and get the Republicans in power.
You will find no bigger critic of Republican fascism than me. That doesn’t give Harris a pass for terrible policy, nor from the political consequences of them.
Honestly, how else do you suggest people exert influence over leadership in a democracy? The ‘campaign’ is an inconvenient time to debate these issues. Then, it will be ‘too early’ in her administration to debate these issues (why don’t we just give her a chance after-all!). Then it will be, ‘the electorate spoke when they voted her in. If you didn’t want this, why did you vote for her?’ Then it will be campaign time again.
If her position is an existential threat to her electability, then she is making a huge political mistake by taking this stance and you should call her out for endangering American democracy. If it isn’t, what are you complaining about?
“How else can people influence a government of the people by the people?”
You realize that one of the potential future vice President is an ex school teacher that decided to become a volunteer for a presidential candidate and that started his political involvement? Hell, even today he’s worth less than the average for people his age so don’t come and tell me you need to be rich to do it.
Not sure if you are responding to a different comment because this is confusing and not really addressing the point I made. Are you suggesting that every single constituent who has an opinion should run for office?
No, I’m saying you’ve got the power to change things if you want but if you can’t be bothered to get involved then the least you can do is vote for the best option you’ve got and don’t try and discourage people from voting because all you’re doing is helping the worst option.
Don’t make your involvement in politics an involvement against democracy.
Ok, I pick the poison in which I call out the awfulness of genocide and its perpetrators, be they presidents, candidates, constituents, or commenters on forums. Also, who are the “you guys” you are referring to here? Sounds like you are talking about the people outraged by injustice, racism and genocide. Perhaps it’s the people trying to apply moral standards consistently? I know that concept can be annoying when you’re feeling good about an election, but why should I care when the stakes are so high? The dynamic you’re describing is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a lame excuse for allowing depravity, and ultimately the reason why we keep electing terrible leaders.
No, it’s not people trying to apply moral standards consistently, it’s about people thinking that cutting off arms to Israel would save the Gazans when high-end military aid is not actually necessary for an ethnic cleansing of a small land area, simply a luxury. Following the wishes of the BDS movement, at any time since the war began, would not save the Gazans in any way, shape or form when the Israelis can simply resort to even more indiscriminate, inexpensive tactics to accomplish their goals. In actuality, all it would do is remove what little leverage we actually have over there.
Not that I expect peace protestors to understand much about the logistics of warfighting, I am fully aware it’s just about identifying something negative and fighting it as hard as you can. Unfortunately, though, the lack of understanding makes your proposed solutions simply wishful thinking that fails to take Netanyahu’s precarious political position and potential available methods and resources into account. We see this with climate change as well, where we still have no actual viable solutions for emissions in Russia or India, simply because climate experts are not geopolitics experts.
Oh, listen people. We can’t stop providing aid, or selling arms, or providing intelligence and logistical support, or political cover in the international community or sending carrier group after carrier group in to threaten their neighbors, or else we might lose leverage over them. In short, you’re saying we have to do everything possible to enable their crimes, or we might lose the ability to influence their criminal behavior. Please examine how absurd that sounds. The dynamic you’re describing makes this sound vastly more complex than it is. This approach is frequently used by those on power to absolve themselves from responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, if economic pressure doesn’t work, I guess we can go ahead and open up Russia trade again. Right?
Sanctions against Israel would probably be effective, but impractical when they were attacked and still have a significant amount of support in the populace. You could get some Americans behind neutrality, but not helping hamas.
I don’t disagree that it sounds absurd, but global politics just very often is, due to its fundamentally unethical nature. At that scale people are not individuals, they are numbers on a sheet of paper, simply because of the purely mechanical perspective of so many world leaders. At the end of the day, you have to work with what you’ve got, whether absurd or otherwise. It’s not about absolving, guilt is guilt. It’s about there being no guilt-free paths, so this guilt is preferable to the guilt even greater Palestinian casualties. ~50k have died, right? You know that absolutely could be 500k, right?
And if you don’t think the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is genuinely complex, you’re probably buying into someone’s bullshit. It is very complex.
Lastly, it’s a pretty gross exaggeration that we’re doing everything we can to enable their crimes. If we were, there wouldn’t be any Palestinians left anymore. They’re not that hard to kill.
It’s not easy, actually, to kill or cleanse millions of people while maintaining some semblance of legitimacy in the international community.
Leaders don’t craft their ideologies on what they believe Americans will ‘get behind’. Leaders will attempt to steer Americans to the right position. Harris and this community are all proud of what a righteous leader she’s supposed to be. I’m just holding her to the standard set by her own rhetoric.
You underestimate Netanyahu’s pragmatism. He knows full well he can get rid of them all, and take the shame with him when he’s dead. He’s probably correct too. Do people blame Germany or Hitler for the Holocaust? Israel isn’t going anywhere, they have nukes. Even if the US abandons them, there are other global factions.
Good leaders don’t have set ideologies. They deal with realities, not ideals, and shift their opinions and perspectives based on what they learn. This is because they recognize they are humans leading other humans, and capable of making mistakes. No set ideology can keep up with all the varied circumstances that real life can throw at a country. Then in our country, we run them, not the other way around. They are always at our mercy. FDR knew this, and despite greatly wanting to help Britain in WW2, had to remain very careful about it until Pearl Harbor.
Also, I think you overestimate Harris’ righteousness, I do not see what you are describing. I think most dems realize she’s a pragmatist, she was a prosecutor after all. Throwing folks in prison is not a very idealistic job, that would be more public defender. Prosecutor is messy. What she absolutely is is several times better than her opponent, and something new, being a woman.
For the record, I strongly suspect that the kind of nihilism that you are describing does in fact mostly describe how the US operates. It’s a very succinct explanation of why we are as awful a nation as we are and why we slide further toward autocracy with each administration.
It’s not nihilism, that’s an ideology. If it’s any ideology, it’s liberalism, recognizing that the will of the population determines the course of the nation, regardless of the good or evil that the population desires.
I don’t see how a different ideology could prevent the forces that are currently pushing us towards despotism, either. People are too susceptible to believing bullshit, with entire false realities being spun up in people’s minds. It’s just wishful thinking to believe that some great leader could come by and suddenly everyone would “wake up” and “see”. They’d still be manipulated into fear and anger by the authoritarian opposition.
Fortunately we’re not lost yet. The Palestinians aren’t completely doomed either, Netanyahu remains unable to finish the job and maintain our support, and his right wingers are growing more impatient with him. With some election reform we might be able to turn the tide on the far right here at home, too, though that’s harder with the filibuster still in place and us having nowhere near 60 Senate seats.
Sooooo the stakes for women, LGBTQ+ and migrants actually living in the USA (you know, the country the elections are for) aren’t high enough but you draw the line at foreign policies and you’ll push people to not vote and therefore open the door to the Republicans (who will support that genocide even more than the Democrats) by insisting that Harris bad?
And yes, you guys, all the people who kept saying you wouldn’t vote because of Biden’s stance on Israel, ignoring all other issues because somehow the death the Republicans will cause in North America if they win count for nothing but the deaths Israel are causing in Palestine count for everything. You’re just part of the Russian division machine to try and get the Republicans in power.
You will find no bigger critic of Republican fascism than me. That doesn’t give Harris a pass for terrible policy, nor from the political consequences of them.
“you will find no bigger critic of the Republicans than me” they said while increasing the odds that they would win the elections
Honestly, how else do you suggest people exert influence over leadership in a democracy? The ‘campaign’ is an inconvenient time to debate these issues. Then, it will be ‘too early’ in her administration to debate these issues (why don’t we just give her a chance after-all!). Then it will be, ‘the electorate spoke when they voted her in. If you didn’t want this, why did you vote for her?’ Then it will be campaign time again.
If her position is an existential threat to her electability, then she is making a huge political mistake by taking this stance and you should call her out for endangering American democracy. If it isn’t, what are you complaining about?
“How else can people influence a government of the people by the people?”
You realize that one of the potential future vice President is an ex school teacher that decided to become a volunteer for a presidential candidate and that started his political involvement? Hell, even today he’s worth less than the average for people his age so don’t come and tell me you need to be rich to do it.
Not sure if you are responding to a different comment because this is confusing and not really addressing the point I made. Are you suggesting that every single constituent who has an opinion should run for office?
No, I’m saying you’ve got the power to change things if you want but if you can’t be bothered to get involved then the least you can do is vote for the best option you’ve got and don’t try and discourage people from voting because all you’re doing is helping the worst option.
Don’t make your involvement in politics an involvement against democracy.
Oh. Advocating for a policy and calling out a candidate for their position is anti democratic. Got it.
Both sides are baaaaaaad!