Almost like your "uncommitted" campaign did more harm than good.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
77 points (94.3% liked)
Politics
301 readers
637 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Please do your part in helping to stop an ongoing genocide should not have been met with how the Democrats met that demand. The harm this did to the Democrats is on them, not any member of the uncommitted movement.
Only because idiots and disinformation-merchants took it in the wrong way, though.
As a way to attempt to get Biden to understand the crushing urgency of stopping a second holocaust which is happening on earth during his time to be able to stop it, while the whole time he’s sending weapons to enable it to continue, by connecting it to his actual reelection which he cares about more than lives of people in Gaza for some fucked up reason, I thought it was pretty good. He made some “efforts” at a cease fire and I’m sure he is furious that Netanyahu is doing what he’s doing, but at the same time, he hasn’t stopped it yet, and so anything that might get him to wake up and also not for nothing send a strong message to Harris can only be a good thing, I think.
When people started saying, “Yeah he DID kill all those people on purpose, and now that you mention it so did Kamala Harris, and so therefore Trump getting into office would be fine and dandy for the Palestinians and perfectly safe, there’s nothing MORE than this that the American president could do to endanger Palestinian or Arab lives, after all,” that’s where the logic went off the rails for me.
Okay that's straight up victim blaming. Their demand has always been one thing: "Can you stop using my tax money to bankroll the funding of my family/friends/friends' families". If anything it's the fault of Biden and Harris for never taking a stand hntil the last moment, and other democrst voters for not acting in solidarity with the people literally getting genocided and quietly accepting the Dems' attempt to push two unelectable candidates in a row.
If the Democrats' rightward shift and blatant support for genocide don't bother you that's... Okay I guess, but if they do lose the election don't look at the only people who showed some sign of resistance and say "why didn't you lick the boot hard enough".
People in the uncommitted voting block are not victims.
Their demand has always been one thing: "Can you stop using my tax money to bankroll the funding of my family/friends/friends' families".
Actually, their demands were much smaller than that. They wanted the DNC to allow a Palestinian to speak at the DNC in order to bring attention to the destruction in Gaza and call for a ceasefire (which is totally in line with Harris' position). The DNC refused, so the Uncommitted movement next asked for Harris to just have a meeting with them to discuss Gaza, and gave her a month to do so. Harris ignored them, so they refused to endorse her. The whole movement was basically, "just make any gesture towards the Palestinian community," and the Harris campaign refused. It really was a massive unforced error on their part.
quietly accepting the Dems’ attempt to push two unelectable candidates in a row
Your agenda is showing, brother. Dial it back a little, make it more believable.
Biden was (still is) a senile old man that's further right than Reagan on many issues who also bankrolled and continues to bankroll a genocide using US tax dollars. There's a reason the DNC removed him as the presidential nominee; he was straight up not winning even with Trump as his opponent.
Harris, meanwhile, is another "nothing will fundamentally change" inheriting Biden's policies and refusing to make a single campaign promise on her own. Like, seriously, list me three things she stated she'll do differently from Biden. And to make matters worse she refuses to acknowledge Democrat voters' problems with her and keeps alienating them and going after "swing" voters who simply won't vote for her. It's straight up comical how she refuses to campaign like normal people. Any half-decent Republican candidate ((which Trump isn't) would decimate her in the election.
Spicy! Biden fought for unions more than any president in living memory, took the biggest action on climate change that any US president ever has many times over, paused shipments of weapons to Israel for the first time it's ever been done for humanitarian reasons that I know of, and reduced income inequality for the first time I'm aware of it having been done since Reagan. Why do you think he is further to the right than Reagan? Giving weapons to Israel, fuck him for. I agree with you on that.
I like how you pivoted the conversation away from "Trump is objectively horrifying on the issue of Palestinians as well as many, many others, and that's a good reason to vote against him," passed right over the issue of whether Harris will be good, and instead tried to focus the conversation on whether she'll be different from Biden, thus sneaking the concept that Biden was bad into the conversation as a default assumption, implicitly offering the framing to someone to try to offer that Harris is different from Biden, at which point we'll be well far afield of the important question: Is Harris better than Trump?
It's a commendable effort, because the answer to the question "Is Harris better than Trump?" is such a resoundingly deafening "yes" that there's no point in talking about it. I commend your framing technique! You are skilled, that I can see, well done.
Edit: Typos
paused shipments of weapons to Israel for the first time it's ever been done for humanitarian reasons that I know of,
He paused one shipment for a few weeks in what was no more than plain posturing. He then didn't repeat it again. Not much to say about that. Compare to Reagan's performance in a similar situation (he literally made them stop bombing Beirut with a phone call) and you'll see why people are mad.
Why do you think he is further to the right than Reagan?
He's not further right than Reagan in general, but his record as a senator from the 80s to 2009 is consistently center-right on many issues. The Reagan comparison mostly draws on those, as it's impossible to tell his views on these topics as VP or POTUS (though he does have the good sense to give politically correct answers). Anyway I called him unelectable because he was straight up failing. Again, the DNC saw it fitting to replace him with Harris for a reason. He was just unpopular for multiple reasons, including being unrepentantly Zionist.
passed right over the issue of whether Harris will be good, and instead tried to focus the conversation on whether she'll be different from Biden, thus sneaking the concept that Biden was bad into the conversation as a default assumption, implicitly offering the framing to someone to try to offer that Harris is different from Biden, at which point we'll be well far afield of the important question: Is Harris better than Trump?
My man chill out. I'm not smart enough to do any of that. I asked about things she'll do different from Biden because she's supposed to be her own candidate. "I'll do everything the current guy is doing, even the deeply unpopular stuff" is simply not okay for someone who's supposed to be campaigning for president. Beyond whether she'll be a good president or not, she's not even trying to campaign and convince people to vote for her based on anything other than "I'm not Trump". That's why I called her unelectable; nothing about her inspires Democrats to go out and vote.
It's a commendable effort, because the answer to the question "Is Harris better that Trump?" is such a resoundingly deafening "yes" that there's no point in talking about it. I commend your framing technique! You are skilled, that I can see, well done.
I never discussed that question because I know the answer is, as you said, a clear and resounding yes. And because that is literally not the point.
his record as a senator from the 80s to 2009 is consistently center-right on many issues
unelectable because he was straight up failing
unpopular for multiple reasons
she’s supposed to be her own candidate
unelectable; nothing about her inspires Democrats to go out and vote
Like I said, your agenda is showing.
I started out with an article explaining some Arab points of view as they pertain to American leaders, encompassing a couple of different points of view from "uncommitted but Trump is worse" all the way to "fuck the Democrats I don't care for as long as they're sending weapons." All legit points of view.
You pounced on the opportunity to start whacking the never-Kamala drum as far as you could possibly whack it, recycling a bunch of conveniently-packaged framings that are pretty popular within the right wing, ignoring me directly speaking to what you were saying and asking relevant questions.
I could continue the conversation, asking what happened to my list of very significant left-wing progress Biden accomplished as president, what your reaction to it is, why you're persisting in the framing that what he did was bad and Kamala needs to break away from him. I could explain the difference between Reagan pausing because Israel was bombing our allies the Iraqis while giving them a green light to kill any Arabs at all that weren't our friends, and so on, but I feel like you probably wouldn't respond to it any more directly than you did my previous message. I think you'd just keep whacking the same drum, which you can do without my participation.
ignoring me directly speaking to what you were saying and asking relevant questions.
Huh? I count exactly two questions (only one of which wasn't rhetorical) and I think I responded to both?
You pounced on the opportunity to start whacking the never-Kamala drum as far as you could possibly whack it,
Huh? I never tried to imply that I'm saying people shouldn't vote for Harris. If that's how I sounded like then I see why you're assuming I have an agenda, but that's not my point at all. Harris sucks as a candidate, Trump sucks as a candidate. Both are unelectable and both would lose by a landslide if the opposite side pushed a half-decent candidate. No, both are not the same that's not what I'm saying. This what I was saying and I thought I'd made that clear enough.
I could explain the difference between Reagan pausing because Israel was bombing our allies the Iraqis while giving them a green light to kill any Arabs at all that weren't our friends,
Huh? They were bombing Lebanese and Palestinians no?
Huh? I count exactly two questions (only one of which wasn’t rhetorical) and I think I responded to both?
You said Biden was to the right of Reagan. I brought up some examples which make him, to me, the furthest-left president we've had since LBJ. You ignored that and simply allowed as how he might not be to the right of Reagan, and started talking about what right-wing things he did in the 90s, instead of addressing or talking further about anything I said.
You did answer the question, that part is fair. But, you didn't really address the point, you just found a way to circle it back around to the same conclusion you'd already reached, without a substantive discussion about why to consider him a far-right president or not.
Harris sucks as a candidate, Trump sucks as a candidate. Both are unelectable
What on earth are you talking about? Harris is the most popular Democrat since Obama. The fact that it's a dead heat has nothing to do with her being bad, it's just that our media is so terrible that a lot of people think either that she's awful, or that Trump is good.
https://today.yougov.com/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians/all
I don't even really have a good idea of Harris's policies. I can talk about Biden's because he has some kind of a track record, which she doesn't have in the same way, but like I said, it basically doesn't even matter. Trump wants to blow up the world, and I don't want that to happen, so I voted for Harris. I'm fine talking with you about aspects of her policy, but it's definitely not relevant to the decision of who to vote for.
This whole framing of her being unpopular, or unelectable, is an absolutely textbook right-wing framing of the election. It's not true, but even that aside, it's just not any kind of relevant analysis. It's just a way to try to hook the groupthink in people's brains to make them think she's not worth voting for without focusing on any kind of policy.
Huh? They were bombing Lebanese and Palestinians no?
You're completely right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/us/politics/biden-reagan-israel.html
There was a whole separate incident, touched on in that article, where Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant and Reagan delayed the shipment of four F-16s as a response. I didn't know about the second incident with bombing Lebanon and Reagan's reaction.
And, looking at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war
The big thing that I see is that the pace of the killing has exploded, and of course we haven't done anything about it.
The whole reason that I posted this article, and what I keep saying, is that Biden's enabling of that whole operation is disgusting. He's not doing it, but you can certainly hold him accountable for not stopping it. I just don't think that Kamala Harris is "doing that" in the same way, and of course, it is relevant that Trump is several times worse, as hard as that might be to believe on this one particular issue.
I brought up some examples which make him, to me, the furthest-left president we've had since LBJ.
Biden has a good labor record; that's not really up for dispute, so I didn't dispute it. Also I didn't say he was further right than Reagan; I said he was further right than Reagan on some issues. Those, notably, don't include labor rights. Anyway Biden's biggest problem, as I understand it, was that he was simply too far gone. I mean the man had a series of very public cognitive failures, which added to his already well-known and unpopular policies (immigration and Gaza come to mind) and an overall meh administration (with some very real gains in many important areas, tbf) and setting aside how good or bad he was as president he just wasn't gonna beat Trump.
What on earth are you talking about? Harris is the most popular Democrat since Obama.
That makes her better than... Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
It's just a way to try to hook the groupthink in people's brains to make them think she's not worth voting for without focusing on any kind of policy.
Is it? I don't really understand these things so maybe you're right, but that's definitely not what I intended when I called her unelectable. I also explained what I meant twice, I think, so I'm not sure where the confusion is.
I just don't think that Kamala Harris is "doing that" in the same way,
She's not "doing that", but all her signaling so far has been that she'll carry over "doing that" when she's president.
Trump wants to blow up the world, and I don't want that to happen, so I voted for Harris. I'm fine talking with you about aspects of her policy, but it's definitely not relevant to the decision of who to vote for.
Okay I think we're having two different conversation. I never, at any point, talked about who anyone should vote for. Again, this is my second time making that clear. I was taking issue with criticism of the Uncommitted movement's, well, uncommitted campaign because it's both barking up the wrong tree and straight up victim blaming.
You did say he was more to the right on some issues. And then promptly didn't give any examples. Not super helpful when we could see if his position on those stances had changed since 2008 (considering it's been 16 years since....)
I mean in his senate years he was a small government, tough on crime, etc etc senator not unlike pre-Trump republicans. There's a Wikipedia page titled (I think) "Biden's political history" for more details.
Not super helpful when we could see if his position on those stances had changed since 2008 (considering it's been 16 years since....)
The thing about POTUS is that the office's ability to do... Well, most things is limited. He's said about a lot of things "yeah I don't believe this anymore", but then he went full Republican on the border when he felt it would get him more votes (which I don't think it did, but that aside) so you can't really judge his position on, say, police brutality or the war on drugs.