I agree with you - it would be great if we could vote on policy and not individuals. (I say that, but I also acknowledge that in the past, majority rule at times had been detrimental to minority rights. But I digress.)
Since the reality is that we vote for representatives, and in the case of the presidential election, should we not vote for the candidate that is most closely aligned with our own interests? I think we also largely agree on that.
The critical point that we may disagree on is this. I posit that: If we ignore the reality of how our political system works, we ultimately end up losing our leverage to even make a point. You talk about making the Dems compromise, but if the Reps get into power, they sure aren’t going to compromise, but rather, actively work against our interests.
I’m trying hard to find common ground here, but it seems like you haven’t read my response at all.
Can you define the word anything? From my point of view, the Dems have compromised and shifted left on such things as legalization of same sex marriage, decriminalizing border crossings, higher taxes on the wealthy, access to cheaper/free higher education, reparations, trans rights, etc. Many of these were really not talked about in the 90s/00s or were actively disparaged back then.
In contrast, I’ve seen the overturn of RvW due directly from a Trump presidency, continual climate change denial, tax breaks for the wealthy, environmental protections abolished, etc. from the R side.
Therefore, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by making them work for the vote for once. Let’s say we didn’t vote D two decades ago, it would not have pushed into action many of the policies and rights that we enjoy right now. It seems more like, if we vote against the Dems, my interests will never come to fruition. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Obama purposely did not encode Roe v Wade to use it as a carrot to force voters to keep voting Democrat.
Abortion rights are being lost is because the Democrats refused to be progressive and compromised with the Republicans on everything.
Biden voted against Gay marriage, trans rights and other issues for a loooong time until it started costing votes. When they started needing votes they started adopting those policies.
Even now Biden is not fighting for abortion rights. He is fighting for weapons to israel.
Genocide is a breaking point. A red line.
There is no compromise for Genocide. The Genocide stops or the Biden stops. Light that fire under Bidens ass so he makes that choice. No more fence sitting.
And that’s better for Biden too. The sooner Biden uses his power to stop the Genocide, the sooner he will get votes again.
All this bad Democrat publicity will disappear very fast if Biden fixes the issue. Ignoring it is not an option. We need to pretending it is.
Okay, so maybe we’re getting somewhere. I can see that you just described that the Dems can compromise (e.g. gay marriage), although you really want to frame it in the context of losing votes. Whatever, fine. I think we just agreed that Dems can compromise. That’s big.
Second thing is that it sounds like you’re a single issue voter. Or rather, this issue with Israel and Palestine, right now, is a roadblock.
Third thing is I want to set the stage and expectations first. You mentioned earlier about how Obama did not encode (I assume into law) RvW. Can we first agree that it’s Congress, not the president that has that power? If so, let’s move on.
Moving onto the Palestinian genocide, can we also agree that this is a complex foreign conflict? And that any actions, words, or even the wrong look our president gives will have serious, often unexpected consequences? If so, let’s proceed.
There are 2 expectations you need to set for yourself: what would you be happy with and are those things realistic?
For the first: since this is another nation, would you be happy with him denouncing Israel’s actions? How about invoking sanctions? Can you only be happy with things that he cannot directly control, for example, having Israel and Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire? Or Israel withdrawing?
The second part of this: if you want a specific outcome that is out of the president’s direct control, we need to do a thought experiment. What, specifically, would you say would be the actions that Biden must take (BE SPECIFIC) and at what time and at what location and in what order to achieve your desired outcome?
I’ll give you an example that you could mimic, if you want complete removal of Israeli troops from Gaza immediately, should Biden: 1) threaten Israel with reneging on military support, at 2) within 24 hours, and 3) at a press conference and live phone call? The consequences of this could be 1) Israel complies, 2) Israel is offended and ignores the demand, 3) Israel is offended and becomes an enemy. What are the chances that #1 is the outcome? And if it was, what are the global consequences of that? America just forced an ally under threat of not protecting them to do something it wasn’t willing to do. This proposal is terrible, and I think my made up expectation of immediate removal of troops through threatening Israel is not a good expectation to have. Your turn.
I really want to see your proposal of what Biden should do, with specifics, that would satisfy your demands. Please don’t cop out and just say “END GENOCIDE” without specifics. Global politics is hard.
Dems controlled everything during Obama but let’s not dwindle on that.
Besides the Holocaust thing Hitler was pretty big on industrializing. It guess that was also just a “one-issue thing.”?
Direct ceasefire.
Hostage exchange.
Palestinian state according to 1967 borders or make israel find a compromise with the Palestinians. Palestinians have shown to be willing to negotiate. Israel does not negotiate because they don’t need to as long as Biden supports them unconditionally.
This issue is going on only because everyone wants to hot potato it. Even Biden is actively doing everything he can not to fix it.
Israel can not ignore those demands because they are fully dependent on American support. Biden can 100% control these issues. These types of issues with israel have happened in the past and American president’s were able to shut them down at will.
Reagan picked up the phone and threatened Israel in 1984, and Israel immediately withdrew from their invasion of Lebanon.
HW Bush did a similar thing: call up Israel, threaten their military aid, and Israel immediately capitulated.
Why does Biden refuse to pick up the phone? Saying this solution is impractical is simply ignoring history.
If hes so afraid of the backlash, maybe he should also consider the backlash of being the only powerful nation to support this genocide. Loss of prestige and moral superiority on the world stage? Violent blowback against US troops in the region, or even worse, terrorist attacks on US civilians? And on the domestic stage, this is a huge gift to Trump.
Why is Bidem willing to sacrifice so much to continue this genocide?
You should vote for your own interest to make a point of where your priorities lie so the Dems will start to compromise for them.
The Democrats are supposed to be a compromise vote not a fucking Hostage situation.
I agree with you - it would be great if we could vote on policy and not individuals. (I say that, but I also acknowledge that in the past, majority rule at times had been detrimental to minority rights. But I digress.)
Since the reality is that we vote for representatives, and in the case of the presidential election, should we not vote for the candidate that is most closely aligned with our own interests? I think we also largely agree on that.
The critical point that we may disagree on is this. I posit that: If we ignore the reality of how our political system works, we ultimately end up losing our leverage to even make a point. You talk about making the Dems compromise, but if the Reps get into power, they sure aren’t going to compromise, but rather, actively work against our interests.
That is not happening if people keep voting Democrat while the Democrats refuse to compromise on anything.
Let them work for the vote for once.
I’m trying hard to find common ground here, but it seems like you haven’t read my response at all.
Can you define the word anything? From my point of view, the Dems have compromised and shifted left on such things as legalization of same sex marriage, decriminalizing border crossings, higher taxes on the wealthy, access to cheaper/free higher education, reparations, trans rights, etc. Many of these were really not talked about in the 90s/00s or were actively disparaged back then.
In contrast, I’ve seen the overturn of RvW due directly from a Trump presidency, continual climate change denial, tax breaks for the wealthy, environmental protections abolished, etc. from the R side.
Therefore, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by making them work for the vote for once. Let’s say we didn’t vote D two decades ago, it would not have pushed into action many of the policies and rights that we enjoy right now. It seems more like, if we vote against the Dems, my interests will never come to fruition. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Obama purposely did not encode Roe v Wade to use it as a carrot to force voters to keep voting Democrat.
Abortion rights are being lost is because the Democrats refused to be progressive and compromised with the Republicans on everything.
Biden voted against Gay marriage, trans rights and other issues for a loooong time until it started costing votes. When they started needing votes they started adopting those policies.
Even now Biden is not fighting for abortion rights. He is fighting for weapons to israel.
Genocide is a breaking point. A red line.
There is no compromise for Genocide. The Genocide stops or the Biden stops. Light that fire under Bidens ass so he makes that choice. No more fence sitting.
And that’s better for Biden too. The sooner Biden uses his power to stop the Genocide, the sooner he will get votes again.
All this bad Democrat publicity will disappear very fast if Biden fixes the issue. Ignoring it is not an option. We need to pretending it is.
Ok… so when Trump wins Palestine will be in a great situation right? Better than now?
Depends on if you actually put pressure on Biden to stop the Genocide.
Else Palestine will be fully Genocided before Trump will win.
Which then causes Trump to win.
Trying to ignore this issue will be what actually causes Trump to win. It’s in everyone’s best interest to stop ignoring it.
Okay, so maybe we’re getting somewhere. I can see that you just described that the Dems can compromise (e.g. gay marriage), although you really want to frame it in the context of losing votes. Whatever, fine. I think we just agreed that Dems can compromise. That’s big.
Second thing is that it sounds like you’re a single issue voter. Or rather, this issue with Israel and Palestine, right now, is a roadblock.
Third thing is I want to set the stage and expectations first. You mentioned earlier about how Obama did not encode (I assume into law) RvW. Can we first agree that it’s Congress, not the president that has that power? If so, let’s move on.
Moving onto the Palestinian genocide, can we also agree that this is a complex foreign conflict? And that any actions, words, or even the wrong look our president gives will have serious, often unexpected consequences? If so, let’s proceed.
There are 2 expectations you need to set for yourself: what would you be happy with and are those things realistic?
For the first: since this is another nation, would you be happy with him denouncing Israel’s actions? How about invoking sanctions? Can you only be happy with things that he cannot directly control, for example, having Israel and Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire? Or Israel withdrawing?
The second part of this: if you want a specific outcome that is out of the president’s direct control, we need to do a thought experiment. What, specifically, would you say would be the actions that Biden must take (BE SPECIFIC) and at what time and at what location and in what order to achieve your desired outcome?
I’ll give you an example that you could mimic, if you want complete removal of Israeli troops from Gaza immediately, should Biden: 1) threaten Israel with reneging on military support, at 2) within 24 hours, and 3) at a press conference and live phone call? The consequences of this could be 1) Israel complies, 2) Israel is offended and ignores the demand, 3) Israel is offended and becomes an enemy. What are the chances that #1 is the outcome? And if it was, what are the global consequences of that? America just forced an ally under threat of not protecting them to do something it wasn’t willing to do. This proposal is terrible, and I think my made up expectation of immediate removal of troops through threatening Israel is not a good expectation to have. Your turn.
I really want to see your proposal of what Biden should do, with specifics, that would satisfy your demands. Please don’t cop out and just say “END GENOCIDE” without specifics. Global politics is hard.
Dems controlled everything during Obama but let’s not dwindle on that.
Besides the Holocaust thing Hitler was pretty big on industrializing. It guess that was also just a “one-issue thing.”?
Direct ceasefire.
Hostage exchange.
Palestinian state according to 1967 borders or make israel find a compromise with the Palestinians. Palestinians have shown to be willing to negotiate. Israel does not negotiate because they don’t need to as long as Biden supports them unconditionally.
This issue is going on only because everyone wants to hot potato it. Even Biden is actively doing everything he can not to fix it.
Israel can not ignore those demands because they are fully dependent on American support. Biden can 100% control these issues. These types of issues with israel have happened in the past and American president’s were able to shut them down at will.
Reagan picked up the phone and threatened Israel in 1984, and Israel immediately withdrew from their invasion of Lebanon.
HW Bush did a similar thing: call up Israel, threaten their military aid, and Israel immediately capitulated.
Why does Biden refuse to pick up the phone? Saying this solution is impractical is simply ignoring history.
If hes so afraid of the backlash, maybe he should also consider the backlash of being the only powerful nation to support this genocide. Loss of prestige and moral superiority on the world stage? Violent blowback against US troops in the region, or even worse, terrorist attacks on US civilians? And on the domestic stage, this is a huge gift to Trump.
Why is Bidem willing to sacrifice so much to continue this genocide?