Two things can be true at the same time
Two things can be true at the same time
You're viewing part of a thread.
Show Context
236 comments
-
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren't any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I'm tired of people pretending that he doesn't desperately need keeping out of the White House.
-
there are only two possible outcomes of this election
And there's the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there's only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don't only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They're the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you're threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you've committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that's required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn't even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they're the not-fascists, and that's all that's needed.
And this isn't even slippery-slope. It's happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year's time after they've had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
-
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they've had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they've had in decades, they will pivot back to the "centre".
-
So if they loose because leftists don't like their policies enough to vote for them, they'll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There's thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you're suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they'll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that's in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who'd vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
-
They'll lose because some fatally online "leftists" can't bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is and they'll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists, and the right wing politicians are the ones who are winning and the supposedly left wing ones get 1% of the popular vote and zero members into the electoral college. It's America after all.
-
they'll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists
What makes you think that?
I've already, in a different thread, posted the latest polls showing the majority of Americans want to stop arms sales to Israel. The data suggests stopping arms sales would win a huge number of votes, but it isn't Democrat policy.
If the Democrats are likely to shift policy to seek votes, then why haven't they shifted to banning arms sales to Israel?
Absent of further data, it doesn't look at all like Democrat policy follows available votes. It looks more like Democrat policy follows the wishes of their wealthy donors, so unless they tack to the right, I can't see why Democrat policy will.
If you want to make a case that Democrat policy chases votes, you'll have to explain why they're not chasing the obvious anti-genocide vote?
-
Sigh. They'd see the republicans win and move right because it's the right who won. Stupid? Yes. Damaging? Yes. Can you or I change it? No.
It's so illogical of you to suggest that losing to the right will shift them left. That's not how it works. It's not how it ever works. It's not even how it works in countries that have more balanced political systems.
And victory for an incredibly delusionally far right wing president isn't the left wrong victory you seem to think it would be.
Stop pretending that if the Democrats lose just one more time, America will suddenly turn communist. It won't. The route left comes through moving left, not lurching to the right again.
-
If you read the whole post rather than just the bit of it you think you've got a condescending answer to, we might have a more productive conversation.
The question was if your claim is that the Democrats have a policy of shifting in the direction of more votes, then why do they not shift in the direction of opposing arms sales to Israel?
Your assumption that the Democrats move policy in the direction of more votes (the one you think it's so "stupid" to not know), is directly contradicted by the evidence that the majority of the country are anti-war and they are not shifting in that direction.
Just repeating blind platitudes you read in The Atlantic is not an argument. You have to actually attempt to respond to what your interlocutor is saying.
-
I didn't say it was stupid to not know that the Democrats pivot right when they need to gain more votes, I said that it's stupid and damaging that they do so.
But it's also logical. Sadly, there isn't a secret leftist majority just waiting in the wings for that one extra well worded announcement from Harris so they can vote in droves and give the Democrats a supermajority up and down the ticket.
Unfortunately, it's America, and elections are won or lost in the song states, so it'll be decided by a bunch of "centrists" in Pennsylvania who can't decide which is better, loony right wing Republican policies or more moderate Democrats. If it's too "communist", they're scared of it, but if you can give it some good ol' American branding like "Help for Heroes", you can get away with it.
These are the centrist votes the Democrats need to win, but if they can win without them, they can afford to be more left wing.
The centrist's both sidesism is as reality denying as your own, but the bad news for you is that there are a lot more of them than of leftists, so the Democrats are only safe from centrist influence of the left wing folk show up and vote for the less right wing option. Your refusal to compromise is exactly how you make it senseless for the Democrats to chase your votes. You were never going to vote for anything short of communism, so you were never going to participate in choosing the president so your opinions cannot ever matter to the Democrats. This is, unless you're prepared to vote for them sometimes, you know, when the choice is particularly stark and the country stands on the brink of fascism.
-
Nice story, but none of it is true.
I've already provided the data proving that there is a massive pool of voters ready to vote Democrat if they renounce genocide, but further to that data, here is more data specifically about the swing state Michigan which is a key state of the exact type you describe. The 'uncommitted' campaign specifically promises thousands of votes specifically on an anti-genocide ticket and the potentially election-deciding Arab-American demographic have dropped in Democrat support specifically on this issue.
Your argument is just post hoc storytelling to provide a reasonable sounding justification for the position you've nailed your flag to, but it's wrong. You've provided no data to support it and the data that is available shows the opposite.
Edit: forgot the 'uncommitted' link https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68427304
-
You seem to think that I think the Democrats should both sides the Israeli conflict. I don't. They should absolutely stop propping up Netanyahu's evil campaign and tell Israel it can have military support from the USA again only when it withdraws from Gaza and Lebanon.
Where we disagree is the effect on American politics of leftists abstaining from choosing the president by not voting or voting third party. The more leftists that the republicans' online pals can convince to exclude themselves from the electorate through voter purity arguments, the more right wing victories they get and the further to the right the Overton window is pushed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh and this...
They'll lose because some fatally online "leftists" can't bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is
... is a disgrace.
They work for us. They chase our vote. That's how democracy works. We don't owe them a vote.
I suggest maybe you stop blaming your fellow man, and defending those in power, and start blaming those in power and defending your fellow man.
-
They’ll lose because some fatally online “leftists” can’t bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is
… is a disgrace.
True. You should be ashamed of yourselves. This vote matters. Stop pretending it's a game. Trump would be a disaster internationally and for American workers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
236 comments