Zompist Bboard Again

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 1:52 am

jcb wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 12:50 am Furthermore, chiding people for these things contributes to the deletion of economics from politics, teaching people that politics has nothing to do with economics, and that no matter who they vote for, they will get the same economic policy. Instead, it teaches them that politics has to do with only things like abortion, gay marriage, and trans rights, so they should be voting according to what they think about those things, and not economics!

[…]

As for the idea that a Trump victory would somehow lead to a net win for socialism -- I'm sorry, but that's just magical thinking.

I admit I haven’t been following this conversation particularly closely, but I don’t think that’s what jcb is saying? I think rather that he’s complaining about the erasure of economics as an important area of policy difference between the two parties, such that people end up voting based on the other stuff.

(The rest, yes, absolutely agreed.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 2:02 am I admit I haven’t been following this conversation particularly closely, but I don’t think that’s what jcb is saying? I think rather that he’s complaining about the erasure of economics as an important area of policy difference between the two parties, such that people end up voting based on the other stuff.

(The rest, yes, absolutely agreed.)

Ah, maybe I misunderstood that. My apologies then.

This seems to just be another case like what I was commenting on in another thread -- being willing to throw the election and have a fascist elected over one's pet issue -- except in this case the pet issue is socialism rather than Israel/Palestine. Frankly all that other stuff that jcb lumps together as "liberalism" is important, much moreso than simply making a point about one's favorite issue.

.

You know, you can delete your posts after you have written them... provided no one posts afterwards (like I am doing now). To go and write a post and instead of deleting it replacing it with a single period when you could have deleted it... what point are you trying to make?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 2:44 pm You know, you can delete your posts after you have written them... provided no one posts afterwards (like I am doing now). To go and write a post and instead of deleting it replacing it with a single period when you could have deleted it... what point are you trying to make?

i was working on rewriting it but i got interrupted by a phone call. what i was going to say was:

i think it is really abhorrent that, even after being called out on it, you continue to dismiss an active and ongoing genocide that the US is funding and arming and that harris has promised to continue funding and arming as a silly "pet issue" that people whose families and loved ones are being massacred should just suck up and ignore when they go to the ballot box. your refusal to even consider that threatening to withhold their votes to get the US to stop the killing could be a legitimate tactic to achieve their goal is, in my view, evidence of why the democrats are struggling. not because every single person in the united states is as angry about what's going on in palestine as those who are most directly affected by it, but because you 1. talk about Voting Blue No Matter Who as the only legitimate solution to political problems (even when those problems are things that the democrats are doing and have promised to continue doing), and 2. you are openly hostile to everyone who disagrees and treat them like an idiot who just doesn't see how stupid they're being. we (people who are not on board the vote blue train) get this kind of condescension from democrats and their supporters all the time (including from harris herself) and it isn't doing the democrats any favors

if you really want people to vote for the democrats, berating and insulting them isn't going to get it to happen. when your attitude is that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, you are not going to convince anyone who isn't already on your side. you (an individual who supports the democrats) need to make a solid case for harris—not just a case against trump. you need to hear what their concerns are and actually think about why your candidate is the one who is best going to address those concerns. if the democrats (meaning the party, not individual supporters like you) want to win, they need to run popular candidates and have popular platforms and policies beyond just "he's not the other guy". because with the exception of obama in 2008, it feels like "he's not the other guy" has been the only real platform any dem presidential candidate has had in my adult lifetime

You miss the point. As a socialist, I could be like jcb here and insist that I will only support any candidates that support socialism. But frankly that would a pet issue of mine, and doing so would only have negative consequences while not accomplishing bringing about said pet issue. By the way a "pet issue" is any issue where one views one's specifically chosen issue as more important than the greater good, and where one is willing to bring about negative consequences just for the sake of making a point w.r.t. that issue.

The matter is that we are dealing with a situation where we have one candidate who would turn the US into a fascist dictatorship, and who would strip away the rights and freedoms of everyone other than rich fascist White Christian straight cisgendered males, and one who would not. That should make it obvious about who to vote for, and any suggestion of voting in any other way is in essence advocating for fascism. And this is what you and jcb are doing.

And anyways, the failures of the Democratic party are not due to them not favoring any of your pet issues, be they anti-Zionism or socialism. Frankly, the average person does not care about anti-Zionism or socialism. And the matter is that more Americans support Israel than oppose Israel, so for the Democrats to take a strong stance against Israel would be even more politically suicidal than them trying to thread a careful line between the two as have they attempted to do. It just happens that they can't win either way, because there are people like you who, on the other hand, are willing to throw the election over the Democrats not supporting anti-Zionism just as much as there are people who certainly wouldn't vote for the Democrats if they openly opposed Israel.

Emily wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 3:22 pmi think it is really abhorrent that, even after being called out on it, you continue to dismiss an active and ongoing genocide that the US is funding and arming and that harris has promised to continue funding and arming as a silly "pet issue" that people whose families and loved ones are being massacred should just suck up and ignore when they go to the ballot box. your refusal to even consider that threatening to withhold their votes to get the US to stop the killing could be a legitimate tactic to achieve their goal is, in my view, evidence of why the democrats are struggling.

feels like "he's not the other guy" has been the only real platform any dem presidential candidate has had in my adult lifetime

Except that the other guy is on record as trying to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem; and given what he and Vance have said, do you really think they'd be less supportive of Israel's actions in any of the Occupied Territories?

Yes, under Trump, attacks on Jews went up in the US; thats not incompatible with them sending various forms of material and support to Israel.

Wasn't it Trump who was celebrating October 7th because it gave Israel a reason to go no-holds-barred in its treatment of the Palestinians?

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:47 pm Except that the other guy is on record as trying to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem;

Minor correction: Trump didn't just try. He did move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Biden did not undo this.

As for the idea that a Trump victory would somehow lead to a net win for socialism -- I'm sorry, but that's just magical thinking.

I never said that it would.

You miss the point. As a socialist, I could be like jcb here and insist that I will only support any candidates that support socialism. But frankly that would a pet issue of mine, and doing so would only have negative consequences while not accomplishing bringing about said pet issue.

Travis, I'm already going to vote Democratic this election, you don't need to explain the logic to try to convince me. But, the electorate is bigger than just me! Do you really think that your strategy of berating and insulting anybody who doesn't "vote blue no matter who" is a winning strategy on a large scale? Very few American voters are John Q Logic, after all.

it feels like "he's not the other guy" has been the only real platform any dem presidential candidate has had in my adult lifetime

It's because the truth is that many Democratic party officials agree with many of the horrible things that Republican party officials want, be it about Israel or the economy. They just dislike how the Republicans are so rude and assholish about it. Thus, they think that being "like the republicans, but nicer" is an attractive, winning, and even noble strategy.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:02 pm You miss the point. As a socialist, I could be like jcb here and insist that I will only support any candidates that support socialism. But frankly that would a pet issue of mine, and doing so would only have negative consequences while not accomplishing bringing about said pet issue. By the way a "pet issue" is any issue where one views one's specifically chosen issue as more important than the greater good, and where one is willing to bring about negative consequences just for the sake of making a point w.r.t. that issue.

i am aware of the definition of "pet issue". it is an inherently dismissive term and it is bizarre that you are doubling down on your use of it in this context. and call me old-fashioned but i believe that opposing genocide is a critical component of fighting for the greater good

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:02 pmThe matter is that we are dealing with a situation where we have one candidate who would turn the US into a fascist dictatorship, and who would strip away the rights and freedoms of everyone other than rich fascist White Christian straight cisgendered males, and one who would not.

this is an alarmist overstatement of the situation. he is a far-right figure to be sure, and he is surrounding himself with reactionaries who are far more ideologically driven than he himself seems to be. and the republicans are attacking women's rights, lgbtq rights, workers's rights, civil rights, and civil liberties all over the place. but the thing is, they're already doing those things under biden, and neither the white house nor the democratic party in general are making any real effort to stop them. (i'll concede that biden's NLRB has made some good progress on union rights, though his legacy here is marred by the huge betrayal of railroad workers in 2022; and some state- and local-level dems have taken piecemeal steps to try to push back against the attacks on abortion and trans rights, but in both cases with little or no effort from biden or congress.) a trump win means the republicans carry out their attacks with the full support of the white house. a harris win means the republicans carry out their attacks with a couple of token condemnations from the white house, and a veto here or there if the republicans try to push something through congress instead of at the state level like they've been doing, and no further pushback. they've already done nothing to strengthen the Voting Rights Act after it was gutted by the shelby decision (under obama!) and the brnovich decision. in 50 years they haven't lifted a finger to actually codify roe v. wade into law, not even after dobbs. as a low-wage trans woman and a union member, i am fully aware of the danger the republican party poses, but i am perfectly capable of seeing how much the democratic party is actually going to do about that danger: little to none

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:02 pmAnd anyways, the failures of the Democratic party are not due to them not favoring any of your pet issues, be they anti-Zionism ..

i never said they were struggling because of their support of israel, i said they are struggling because they run weak candidates on weak platforms. as an example, polls consistently show that universal healthcare is a widely popular policy among the US population, but they refuse to take any sort of action on it; the best they'll give us is obama's expansion of medicare (oops, now you get a penalty on your taxes if you don't have coverage!)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:02 pmFrankly, the average person does not care about anti-Zionism

this discussion was in the context not of "the average person" but specifically of arab voters in michigan refusing to vote for harris because of her support for the israel's attacks on gaza

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:02 pmAnd the matter is that more Americans support Israel than oppose Israel, so for the Democrats to take a strong stance against Israel would be even more politically suicidal than them trying to thread a careful line between the two as have they attempted to do.

frankly i think there are more americans who don't have an opinion than there are committed zionists or anti-zionists. and regardless, full-throated support of or opposition to the existence of the state of israel are not the only two options; it would be very simple for the democrats to say "i support israel in general but this particular act they have been taking is wrong, and we should stop selling them bombs and fighter planes until they agree to stop it" and most of the people in question who have been withholding their votes would probably vote for harris. the conclusion we have to draw from the democrats' refusal to do this is they are not interested in winning those voters over

Your point of view essentially is "because the Dems aren't leftist enough, and along with not actively opposing Israel haven't done enough on issues X Y and Z, and Trump and his crew aren't bad enough, we'll let Trump win to stick it to the Dems" -- when from all signs Trump and company really are that bad (look at what they have been doing at the state level for instance -- they'll do that nationwide given the opportunity -- and they have already vowed to do things like purge the federal government and weaponize it to attack everyone they see as having wronged them), and much of the reason why the Dems haven't done X Y and Z is because it hasn't been within their power given the political realities, and why the Dems haven't stopped much of what the Republicans have been doing is because it hasn't been legally within what they can do (whereas the MAGAt's don't care about legality), so to say you'll let Trump win just to send a message to the Democrats is so unbelievably wrongheaded.

Also, remember that on your chosen issue, Israel/Palestine, Trump is the guy who was celebrating October 7th specifically because it gave the Israeli gov't an excuse to murder tens of thousands of Palestinians, so to oppose Harris on the grounds that Harris hasn't done enough about Israel/Palestine is even more unbelievably wrongheaded -- it is essentially saying because one side is bad, you'll favor the side that is even worse just to show the bad side how bad they are.

Your point of view essentially is "everyone should unconditionally vote for the democrats, even if they're doing the holocaust 2.0, cause republicans even more bad". It's not a hard game, huh? making the other person's position sound silly.

so to say you'll let Trump win just to send a message to the Democrats is so unbelievably wrongheaded.

why tho? like, the left position is almost always that it's not that the dems can't do anything, it's that they won't do anything. if that is true -and this is presumably the position you're arguing against here, if one believes dems actually cannot do anything then your position is the much more sound- then obviously punishing them is about the only thing one can do, or at least a thing one can do. what else, forever rewarding them for going more and more right wing? back in the day reagan was not vetoing UN resolutions for the israelis to stop their genocide, was strongly admonishing israeli leadership for doing much less than what they're currently doing, and did in fact cut military aid to israel to stop it from invading lebanon. if this trend continues, the democrats will only be progressive in the sense that they'll advocate buying the gas for the chambers from companies who fulfill diversity quotas (of course they'd like the camps to be closed, but that's not viable, you see. what, the democratic president vetoed three such laws? shush, we don't want to lose the "center"). this is the insight that the advocate of blue-no-matter-who is up against, not the short term equation of which option is the lesser evil.

also, tens of thousands is almost certainly a gross underestimation.

Torco wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:42 pm Your point of view essentially is "everyone should unconditionally vote for the democrats, even if they're doing the holocaust 2.0, cause republicans even more bad". It's not a hard game, huh? making the other person's position sound silly.

so to say you'll let Trump win just to send a message to the Democrats is so unbelievably wrongheaded.

why tho? like, the left position is almost always that it's not that the dems can't do anything, it's that they won't do anything. if that is true -and this is presumably the position you're arguing against here, if one believes dems actually cannot do anything then your position is the much more sound- then obviously punishing them is about the only thing one can do, or at least a thing one can do. what else, forever rewarding them for going more and more right wing? back in the day reagan was not vetoing UN resolutions for the israelis to stop their genocide, was strongly admonishing israeli leadership for doing much less than what they're currently doing, and did in fact cut military aid to israel to stop it from invading lebanon. if this trend continues, the democrats will only be progressive in the sense that they'll advocate buying the gas for the chambers from companies who fulfill diversity quotas (of course they'd like the camps to be closed, but that's not viable, you see. what, the democratic president vetoed three such laws? shush, we don't want to lose the "center"). this is the insight that the advocate of blue-no-matter-who is up against, not the short term equation of which option is the lesser evil.

also, tens of thousands is almost certainly a gross underestimation.

Obviously, as you are not an American, you can pick and choose your issues because you feel you won't have to live with them (except for the ones that you specifically think matter). You're not going to be under a fascist dictatorship, are you? So you can think that it is worth it to vote against the Dems just to make a point, even though Trump et al certain are no better on basically any issue you can think of (even your chosen issue -- do you seriously believe that Trump will stay the hand of Netanyahu, considering how he was celebrating October 7th?).

no one here is arguing that trump is better than harris. no one is saying trump is going to be better for palestine than harris. you keep bringing this up as if it's something that's not understood so i think we might be talking past each other. honestly i was gonna bow out of this thread but i ended up having to take a sick day from work so let's see if we can make this a little clearer:

1. your argument is that voting for trump and harris are the only legitimate options in this election
   1. you additionally believe that harris is the clearly correct choice of these two (something i'd agree with if i agreed with point 1)
   2. with these two base assumptions, you believe that either voting for a third candidate or refusing to vote at all is morally equivalent to voting for trump
2. my argument (i don't want to speak for torco but it seems like it's their argument too) is that those are not the only legitimate options in this election. i feel and have been arguing that it is completely reasonable for someone who does not want to vote for harris for whatever reason—we've been talking about palestine in this thread because someone posted an article about arabs in a swing state refusing to vote for her on those grounds, but it could be any other reason or combination of reasons—to not vote for her, whether that means voting for someone who they feel is better or just sitting the election out

let me know if i'm putting words into your mouth, i'm honestly not trying to do that. but that's what it seems like this argument we've been having all boils down to. you keep trying to convince us that B is true, but the reasoning you keep bringing up ("but trump is even worse on palestine than harris!") is not in dispute.
it would only be a convincing argument if we agreed with point 1, which is the actual point of contention between us, not a given point we both agree on as a shared starting position! like i'm not trying to be a college debate bro about it but you are arguing in circles here. "if we assume that point 1 is true, then it follows that points A and B must also be true and you should agree with both of them" "but i don't agree that point 1 is true" "what are you talking about?? clearly point B is true!"

for the record, i have not been saying itt (or iirc anywhere on this board) that people shouldn't vote for harris if they agree with the argument that there are no other options, or even if they just think she's the best option! i'm not voting for her, i'm going to vote for claudia de la cruz (and if she wasn't on the ballot or a write-in option in my state i'd probably settle for jill stein), but the political calculus you're arguing people should make is certainly understandable and i don't begrudge anyone making it. what i disagree with is the assertion that everyone should agree with you on that calculus and they're fools if they don't. as a side point the tactic of scolding and berating people who don't agree with point 1 isn't going to convince many of them of point B—you have to do the work of convincing them of point 1

Your points 1, 1A, and 1B simply follow from the fact that the US has a first-past-the-post system. They wouldn't be true if we had a parliamentary system with proportional representation, where then it would make sense to vote for a third party in hopes that the Dems would be forced to form a coalition government with them and thus give them leverage. But that's not what we have, and there is no sign of this changing any time soon.

This is such a frustrating conversation, every time. Even just to read.

Like—actually, I agree in principle that if you're left of the Democratic Party's general center of gravity, withholding your vote may sometimes be a legitimate act. I would never do it myself, but the threat of it is one of the ways you can exercise leverage over a presidential candidate. "I realize you won't govern exactly the way I'd like, and I might still vote for you regardless, but if you disregard my concerns too much, I might also stay home. Work with me here."

But the thing is, that's only a legitimate move if the concessions you're asking for are realistic. And asking for the Democratic candidate for president to substantially break with Israel is a big ask. Like ... a really, really big one. You've objected to people calling Gaza a "pet issue," but I'm afraid it ... just ... is? As clear as it may seem to you that Israel is conducting a genocide and it's unconscionable for the US to not break with them, that just isn't clear to the general electorate. Most of the data shows that this is not a high-priority issue for the majority of voters and, while support for Israel has declined over the past year, it still remains broadly popular. As far as Harris's electability goes, it's widely seen as a liability that in 2019, she ran so far to the left and is having trouble explaining her shift back to the center now that progressive issues fallen somewhat out of vogue. (The Democratic Party's veer left in 2020 is generally believed to have hurt them significantly in that election.)

Nate Silver has a pretty good blog post about this. I have to say that the only sources I've seen arguing that a pivot left on Israel/Gaza would be a winning move, electorally speaking, are strongly and explicitly partisan. The sources that I consider credible show that Americans are unhappy with what's happening in the Middle East—who wouldn't be?—but are quite divided on what should be done about it.

If Harris gave a blistering speech on the campaign trail promising that her administration will slash US aid to Israel until they [do whatever], it would be viciously exploited by Republicans. I strongly suspect that the gains it would net her from alienated Arab-American and younger progressive voters would very likely be lost among older, largely centrist voters in swing states. Maybe I'm wrong about that ... I'm open to being convinced, but the articles etc. that I've read from people threatening to withhold their votes over Israel rarely dig into the data, or acknowledge electoral realities at all. They're usually quite idealistic, and ideological purity doesn't win elections.

(Self-edit acknowledgement: I changed the second paragraph from "if the concessions are reasonable" to "if the concessions are realistic" to make it clear I'm talking about the practical reality of what gains or loses voters, not talking in any moral sense at all.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:48 pm Your points 1, 1A, and 1B simply follow from the fact that the US has a first-past-the-post system. They wouldn't be true if we had a parliamentary system with proportional representation, where then it would make sense to vote for a third party in hopes that the Dems would be forced to form a coalition government with them and thus give them leverage. But that's not what we have, and there is no sign of this changing any time soon.

i don't find that a particularly convincing argument. i am not voting third party under the delusion that my candidate has a significant chance of actually winning a presidential election (and the reasons they don't have much less to do with first-past-the-post than with ballot access laws and, more importantly, who actually holds the reins of political power—who has the money to donate, who has the lawyers, who stands to benefit from this or that policy being promoted or shut down). i am voting third party because it is one of the tools available to me to signal to the political system that i am not interested in the garbage they are presenting to me. in the case of the michigan voters this discussion was started about, it is a tool they have to try to extract a concession from the candidate. as i've said before, they are making it very clear what their position is and what it would take to win their votes, and as they are in a swing state harris has plenty of incentive to listen. the choice is hers and the democrats what to do with that information: do they want to lose key voters in a vital swing state and potentially lose the election, or do they want to stop selling bombs to a country that is dropping them on schools and hospitals and risk losing voters who support bombing schools and hospitals? if there is no threat of losing the election when you do things voters don't like, what incentive is there for you to do things voters want you do to?

and where does this argument lead in the long term? in every single election of my adult life, i have been told that i have to vote for the democrat because the republican (bush or mccain or romney or trump) is too right-wing and evil to allow them to get the presidency, and meanwhile the democrats keep moving to the right. it's not just palestine, it's virtually every issue in the country. on the border, clinton implemented operation gatekeeper, obama opened immigrant concentration camps at the border, biden essentially blocked the entire asylum process, and now harris promises to beef up border patrol even further. same thing with war. same thing with welfare, same thing with abortion, same thing with almost everything. the republicans move to the right, and the democrats go with them but maybe not as far. what is your plan to get them to get them to move back to the left? i haven't heard you talk about any sort of political action people can take outside of voting, so should progressives just keep voting for the less right-wing of the two right-wing parties until the end of time and hope one of them has a change of heart? what is the endgame here? this is a legitimate question, not rhetorical, so i would appreciate it if you answer what you think progressives' long-term plans should be instead of just dismissing what i'm saying as "letting trump win to prove a point"

Emily wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 8:45 pm what is your plan to get them to get them to move back to the left?

My plan for it to move to the left is for Trump to bite the dust (he's old, it'll happen sooner or later), so the MAGA personality cult dissolves without its epicenter.