MountingSuspicion @ MountingSuspicion @reddthat.com

Posts

1

Comments

389

Joined

2 yr. ago

Did you respond to the correct comment? I don't see how your comment follows from the one above.

Damn, if only the Dems had the presidency at some point, potentially between his death and now.

I don't think there a list that says "This is all the bad people I did bad things for", but if there was it should've been released already, and if there's not then this is just theater. They're entitled to theatre, but I'm not really sure what your comment is supposed to imply. Is it implying "look the dems want it released!", because this is the weakest attempt at doing that imaginable. If they wanted it released they had years to figure it out and it would've prevented maga from using it as a rallying point.

Yea, it helps if they're not two faced or scummy to begin with so that their private events aren't them admitting to lying about their beliefs etc too. See Romney for a great example of exactly the issue, but honestly it's just a quiet part out loud thing. We all know these are the conversations they're having regardless of how much they pay for the plate.

I didn't take them out of context. He admitted he thinks there are some great candidates that we should support but doesn't have the courage to back the one needing it most, or alternatively he doesn't support him. I didn't imply he dissed mamdani, just that he's a coward for not talking about one of the most watched races in the country at the moment. The DNC is actively not supporting the winner of a dem primary. Pointing that out is not "whingeing". I'm also not saying he's mean. He's either a coward or doesn't care. Possibly both.

I also didn't say she didn't have a chance, I'm saying to a certain extent it doesn't matter (though I always tell people to vote at the bare minimum). What are the dems in congress doing to stop Trump right now? Oh, that's right, at best nothing, and at worst voting for his policies. The same old Dems with the same old policies are not going to stop Trump.

You are clearly having a different conversation than anyone else here because no one was attacking you unless your name is Obama. If you want to be indignant, be so at your faves who apparently can't get anyone to like their policies enough to start a grassroots movement, or better yet at the people pushing this country to the right. Leftist are running candidates and raising money and supporting them getting things done, and if you actually cared about that you'd have something to say about the fact that Dems aren't supporting mamdani instead of acting like pointing this out is somehow a dis.

I was definitely using them mockingly here, but I think he actually did want universal healthcare. Congress fucked us over bad. The ACA is unfortunately a huge step up from what a lot of people had. Plenty still fall through the cracks, but the ACA was largely an improvement for people, especially after the federal penalty was removed so people were no longer fined.

Honestly, I don't care too much about this kind of private fundraising. Do I wish we had a system that was different, yes, but he's not actually running for anything. He's getting money for the party in general. If people wanna pay X to have dinner with Obama, I'm pretty indifferent about it. It's like a rent party for people who have no community, no solidarity, and no sense. I wish they would donate directly to candidates that need the support because I don't trust the DNC to make any decisions, but they probably would not be donating to the people I want anyway.

I think town halls are important though and if a candidate only has time for fundraising and not to listen to their constituents then that's a problem. Unfortunately these kind of fundraising events are the way a lot of Dems get funding since they don't actually inspire people with their platform.

I did read the article. I even quoted it. That absolutely does not address the fact that pouring money into races (which he said needs to be done in the article) is useless if the candidates don't actually help people. The NJ race features a 53 year old who's been an office holder since 2018. She's part of the "New Democrat" caucus who are pro business centrists.

He's calling for more of the same. He's not asking for "hope" or "change". I mentioned NY because that is an example of what the future of the party should actually look like.

"You have great candidates running races right now. Support those candidates,”

So he called out Cuomo by name? No? Who's the coward really? He's out there telling Dems/lefties to get shot in the face by "riot gear" his and his VPs admins put in the hands of police, and he can't even grow enough of a spine to tell Dems to honor their own primaries. What a disgrace. Apparently the protesters and activists are the ones he thinks need to toughen up, because he clearly doesn't think any specific politicians need to.

"Blame" might not matter to you, but in my experience it matters to some people. They do not want to be responsible for genocide and will rather have not voted for it, even if it was going to happen anyway. I am not attempting to police your personal feelings or morality or sense of responsibility, I'm just trying to offer some alternative perspective so that we can all work together to build a bigger tent. I think blaming people for everything their politicians do is counterproductive to harm reduction. If you don't, you can proceed as you were. I just don't think that it contributes to a better outcome and wanted to ensure someone pointed that out. Leftism has always been about building a broad coalition, and has had people with all kinds of approaches to political change. I just hope that your opinion is able to fit somewhere into the broader cause and not push people away.

My point is that it's not helpful to tell Good Samaritans they're responsible for the people they couldn't help. We don't generally do that as a society. So if you think it was a given that people in Gaza were going to get hurt either way, blaming Harris voters for genocide on her term would also not be helpful (unless they're saying they're pro genocide). If you want people to vote for harm reduction, you can't blame them when the candidate fails to do everything right, especially if they were vocally against that specific policy.

But if you're stating harris voters are still responsible for genocide then you're saying the Good Samaritan should be blamed too. If the Good Samaritan is tried for not doing enough and found guilty and so is the bystander, then people are encouraged to be the bystander because at least then they didn't choose to get burned up in addition to being held responsible for something. If you want people to help you have to have Good Samaritan laws. If you want people to vote Harris you have to give dem voters grace when the candidate does something they disagree with and they call it out. You can't just tell Harris voters "you voted for this" when Gaza is bombed while also telling trump supporters and nonvoters the same thing. At some point you leave people with no moral opinions so they check out or stop caring about your concept of morality since it cannot be lived up to.

It did make sense and I can appreciate and respect a coherent world view. It seems like some other people took my comment negatively, and I really appreciate you taking the time to share your viewpoint. I have also previously expressed at least some respect for people who were negatively affected but still hold fast to their trumpism. In my opinion they at least walk the walk after talking the talk. Other people have responded saying that I'm basically respecting people that are brainwashed and in a cult, but I agree with you somewhat that at least they didn't shy away from the consequences of their actions and that's commendable.

I think it's kind of terrible to put people in a lose/lose position that they had only an insignificant amount of control over being in in the first place. No one got to decide on Harris, and I think telling people that voting Harris and not voting Harris both enable genocide doesn't help the cause. If that is your firm belief and you're unable to conceal that because you think it's important that people know, then more power to you, I just feel like it doesn't really help. People will prefer to not vote for genocide than vote for it when if know its inevitable they'll be considered responsible. But I do have to respect you for being consistent in your beliefs, even if consistency might not be the most beneficial or expedient thing.

Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to genuinely respond. I hope next time there's a better option for us all.

I understand your frustration, but lower down in this thread you can see someone thinks that voting for Kamala makes you guilty of genocide AND not voting makes you worse than a trump voter. THAT is the issue. Not my question. The left is telling itself there is no good choice. I'm just asking if this person is someone that thinks that or not.

Maybe you don't know anyone who abstained, but I do, they are organizers and very involved. If they run into rhetoric saying "voting for Kamala makes you complicit" AND "not voting makes you complicit" they figure they're complicit either way so might as well not cast a vote for complicity. I'm not saying it's sensible, and I voted Harris, but we need to be able to separate voters from the worst parts of the politicians they voted for and give people some grace. I don't know the people in the article, but if Harris was elected and leftists that voted for her said "this isn't what we voted for" if she continued to support genocide, would these people still be in the comments saying "THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR!!" I just think it's important to understand that voters can disagree with individual policies and the left was told Kamala was "secretly wanting to be pro Palestine" so if people just got on board things would get better. If they voted for her and that didn't come true would people call the leftists idiotic for believing she would act differently? I just think we need to understand people as individuals and comments like the one above me can lead to good conversations about how we hold individual voters on both sides accountable while building a strong base.

I guess the question at that point is, if you think Harris voters would be responsible for genocide, and nonvoters are responsible potentially even more than Trump voters, than there is no winning option. If you want to say democracy has become a lose/lose, fine, but I think it's important we're conscious of the fact we're saying that. I don't think everyone is responsible for the worst actions the people they voted for take in their capacity as public officials. I think it's worthwhile to note that and give people grace in that regard. Because otherwise we end up deciding between voting for genocide, or not voting and still carrying blame for genocide, and people make the decision to just not directly vote for it.

I'm not saying Harris lost because of Gaza, but given the choice of being considered responsible for genocide because I voted for it or because I didn't vote for it, I'd rather not vote for it. I want to note that I voted Harris, but I know people who abstained and it's hard to reach them if we (the left) continue to claim that they'd be responsible for genocide either way.

How you feel about people who abstained?

I voted dem and am anti Trump, but can I ask if you feel the same way about Dems? If I voted for Harris and she continued to provide aid to Israel to bomb Gaza, did I technically vote for that?

This comes of as very "just asking questions", and I'm aware of that, but I hope you will take it as a good faith question because it is.

I see people mentioning that Trump has staff to inform him of this etc etc, but I think it's also pretty common knowledge that you don't comment on someone's grasp of a language unless you're teaching them or it's necessary. As a country of immigrants, Americans deal with a lot of immigrants, and that thought goes either way. You don't mention a heavy accent or a lack of accent. I grew up around a lot of ESOL, and even if their English was impeccable, it's quite othering and often condescending to have someone mention it. Some people don't mind it, but always better to err on the side of caution. I understand this is not someone from the US, but they're a foreign dignitary and there's no need to say something that would even be perceived as condescending.

If you think we should offload to AI even if it's worse, I have serious questions about your day to day life. What industry do you think could stand to be worse? Doctor's offices? Lawyers? Mechanics? Accounts?

The end user (aka the PEOPLE NEEDING A SERVICE) are the ones getting screwed over when companies offload to AI. You tell AI to schedule an appointment tomorrow, and 80% of the time it does and 20% it just never does or puts it on for next week. That hurts both the office trying to maximize the people seen/helped and the person that needs the help. Working less hours due to tech advancement is awesome, but in reality offloading to AI in the current work climate is not going to result in working less hours. Additionally, how costly is each task the AI is doing? Are the machines running off of renewables, or is using this going to contribute to worse air quality and worse climate outcomes for people you're trying to save from working more. People shouldn't have to work their lives away, but we have other problems that need to be solved before prematurely switching to AI.

I wonder how much of that difference can be attributed to gun violence. I'm not anti gun, but few countries have gun laws as lax as the US so there's a larger number committed by guns which may be more difficult to solve. The sale of guns themselves are not always tracked, and gun violence is something that can be done from afar and not leave as much evidence. We're also quite a large country with very populous cities. Berlin has 3.7 million people and is the most populous EU city. NYC has over twice that. Much easier to solve crime in a town of a few hundred people than in large cities, which the US has more of.

I understand that, but that imagines he's standing by his decision for the sake of it. I'm not trying to go to bat for a Trump supporter right now, but in general my point is that his "reasoning" seems to hold even if he's in the crosshairs. If his opinion is that sacrificing some freedom is necessary in order to ensure safety, then he seems like he still believes that even if it affects him personally. I understand your comment, but it doesn't actually address his position or my point. I don't think anything has happened to make him think he's wrong about the sleeper cell things. You're projecting your worldview onto him. He says he believes there's a problem and he's willing to face familial hardship to ensure the problem is rooted out.