WoodScientist @ WoodScientist @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

836

Joined

11 mo. ago

What planet are you living on? This is the entire reason she lost. When asked what she would do differently from Biden, she responded:

“There is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of – and I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact, the work that we have done,”

https://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/index.html

She didn't want to change any of Biden's policies when it came to Israel. Do you have any evidence that she intended to? Because she certainly never stated as such as far as I'm aware.

I don't know if it will happen, but it absolutely should. We need to purge the corporate centrists from the Democratic leadership. They've delivered nothing but loss after loss after loss. Biden only barely managed to squeak out a win in 2020 because of Covid and by promising to run as a one-term caretaker president.

These tone-deaf idiots have the same fucking playbook every damn time. Their playbook is:

1. Prevent a primary if possible.
2. If a primary must occur, use any dirty trick necessary in the primary to make sure a corporate centrist whens the primary.
3. Once the centrist has the nomination, try to win by moving ever-more conservative and try to win over moderate Republicans.

In contrast, Republicans run with a platform that will actually energize their base, and they win.

Meanwhile, Democrats run candidates that their own polling shows will tank their chances of winning and will anger their base. Then they try to make up for the lost base voters by hoping that, maybe this time, Republicans will actually vote for a Democrat.

I'm glad all that AIPAC money was worth it. Good thing Kamala had the fundraising edge over Trump. It sure did her a lot of good.

It turns out that while, "vote for my candidate. She may be Mussolini, but at least she's not Hitler. She's the objectively better choice!" may be objectively true, it's a shit campaign strategy and message.

Don't ask people to vote for something they consider cartoonishly evil and then be surprised when they refuse.

Enjoy your Trump administration, all you dems who honestly expected LEFT WING VOTERS to just be OK with a genocide.

That is how YOU vote. A lot of people do not view it as a practical matter. They view their vote as an endorsement.

I don’t know where you are going with the utilitarianism and Hitler example. This is a massive stretch bordering on being rather insulting.

It really isn't when we're discussing fascists coming to power in the US. Godwin's Law is dead. It is not a stretch when the reason Kamala lost is for literally supporting a genocide.

Kamala's message was, "yes, I support a genocide overseas. But, my opponent supports it even more, and he will support crimes against humanity at home, while I will only support them overseas."

I'm not claiming things I have no evidence for. The Biden administration has repeatedly and explicitly refused to make any US aid to Israel contingent on any improvement on the situation in Gaza.

The Biden administration has openly refused calls to use US aid as leverage against Israel, and all you can do is wave your hands and say, "hrr, umm, actually, you can't know what went on behind the scenes, so maybe Biden did do that, but we just have no evidence of that."

You are asking me to prove a negative. You are demanding that I prove that Biden HASN'T secretly used US leverage to rein in Israel. That is not how this works. If you want to claim that the US actually has tried to put the screws on Israel, YOU need to produce some evidence of that claim. So far, a least according to everything publicly available from all sources, Biden has given Israel a complete blank check. If you want to claim something contrary to all evidence, then you need to supply that evidence.

After all, it's also possible that the Gazans aren't being killed by Israel at all. Maybe the Martians are just coming and abducting all the Palestinians to Mars. And we don't see the Martians, because they're invisible. You have no evidence that there AREN'T Martians killing all the Gazans, so I guess it would be foolish to write off the idea.

Then you run on:

"I'm going to establish national single-payer healthcare!"

"I'm going to break up the big grocery stores that are responsible for all the inflation!"

"I'm going to reign in and break up big tech!"

"My opponent wants to exterminate the Palestinians, and I will save them!"

"My opponent is a trans porn addict and is obsessed with them because of this. That's why he's always talking about trans people! It's weird as fuck!"

As a politician, exaggeration and making promises you know are a stretch are fine. You are a politician, not a journalist. It's OK to claim things that are aspirational.

This is what's killing modern democrats. Trump is not afraid to state his ideal vision for the world and promise to fight for it, knowing full well he won't even achieve half of it. Meanwhile, Democrats come up with these convoluted, slimy, meek programs that are dense tomes of policy papers only a few beltway consultants know or understand.

What do you mean? Biden was an anomaly in his party by supporting a genocide. Harris was the same anomaly, as she stated she would continue Biden's policies with no changes whatsoever.

They really aren't negotiating an end to the conflict though. That's the problem. Biden wasn't seriously trying to end the conflict, as he isn't using to use a single ounce of US leverage to force Israel to the table. The Gazans are being massacred; they have plenty of incentive to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. The Israelis currently have zero incentive. Their territory is expanding while their adversaries are being exterminated; they're doing great by this conflict. Israel has zero reason to come to the table, and the talks are just stall tactics and charades.

Yup. And she let him play her like a fiddle. And there are like, 3 anti-Israel voters in the US. Harris lost because of anti-genocide voters, not because of anti-Israeli voters. You seem to be implying that anti-genocide = anti-Israeli.

If you believe that the only way a person can be an Israeli is if they support the massacre of innocent civilians, then you are racist anti-Semitic trash that doesn't deserve to live. If that is the case, please chain yourself to a large rock, and throw the rock in the ocean.

You are ignoring how people actually think and live. You view voting as a utilitarian choice. Utilitarianism is not the only ethical system in existence. In fact, utilitarianism is exactly how histories worst autocrats justified their atrocities. Hitler himself ran on a platform of doing painful things that, he at least claimed, simply had to be done. The Holocaust itself was justified entirely from a "lesser of two evils" perspective. Hitler just had to convince the broader German populace that killing all the Jews was a necessary evil. Kill all the Jews or have the world taken over by godless Communists. That was Hitler's central "lesser of two evils" message.

This is the fatal flaw of appeals to the lesser of two evils approaches. Yes, you "achieve more" by picking the lesser evil. But from many ethical perspectives, if both choices are objectively evil, and you can't stop either, your only ethical choice is to not support either side. You're still supporting evil, even if it's the lesser evil.

I voted for Kamala, ya dingus. I just have enough self-reflection to note that her messaging was shit and that there was little difference between the two of them when it came to Palestine. I voted for her because of domestic policy, not foreign policy.

There are lessons to be learned here. And sticking our heads in the sand will not help us learn those lessons. And one of those lessons should absolutely be that, "vote for me. I support genocide, but my opponent supports it EVEN MORE!" is a shit campaign message. Whoever thought of that strategy should be shot.

I'm skeptical she would have done anything differently than Biden in terms of Gaza. There was plenty of polling out saying that voters, especially potential Democratic voters, overwhelmingly would favor her more if she differentiated herself on Gaza. Once she got the nomination locked, there was nothing really stopping her from making some changes. Yeah, Biden would not have liked it, but what was he going to do, endorse Trump? Plus, he didn't actually spend that much time campaigning. And as unpopular as Biden was, his endorsement really didn't mean much.

My point is that Kamala had everything to gain and nothing to lose by changing her Gaza stance. She chose not to because she didn't want to offend some very wealthy conservative donors. In the end, it didn't matter. She still massively outspent Trump, just like Hillary did. What Democrats can't realize is that fundraising dollars are less important than actual appeals to voters. Yes, fundraising is critical. But passed a certain point, ads lose their effectiveness. Once you've already spent a billion dollars, everyone has already made up their mind. At that point, it's more about getting out your base. And the problem for Democrats is that the same policies that will make them very popular to wealthy donors also make them unpopular to the voters they actually need to win over to win at the national level.

Democrats should just focus on appealing to actual voters and forget the donor class entirely. They have proven that they can raise more than enough money in small-dollar donations to produce all the messaging they need.

Kamala wouldn't have changed Biden's positions because the only logical time to change your policies to appeal to voters is when you actually need to appeal to voters. I could see Kamala telling voters she'll confront Israel, then turning her back on that plan after the election to appease donors, but there's no reason she would change her policies after the point such a policy shift could actually help her. Donor dollars can come in at any time, but voters are only important during the campaign season.

Vague bullshit platitudes. That's all she offered.

What you quoted is indistinguishable for saying, "I want all the good things for both Israelis and Palestinians! I like good things. I don't like bad things."

Zero acknowledgement about the hard choices involved.

She says she'll do "everything in her power," but we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she is lying.

Will she make US offensive aid contingent on a cease fire?

Will she make US defensive aid contingent on a cease fire?

Will she support US military aid contingent on Israel ending its ethnic-cleansing-by-zoning code in the West Bank?

Will she support slapping sanctions on Israeli leaders who support genocide and ethnic cleansing?

Will she agree to not interfere with the attempts to prosecute Israeli officials at the International Criminal Court?

Will she make long-term support of Israel contingent on the establishment of a two-state solution?

She cares for the Palestinians, but only if she doesn't have to life a finger for them.

Kamala is to the right of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush when it comes to actually reigning in Israeli excesses.

Again, Kamala supports a SLOW GENOCIDE. She doesn't mind genocide. She isn't willing to lift a finger to restrict it. Her only concern at all for the matter is that it might hurt her at the polls, so she opposes the kind of overt ethnic cleansing that Trump supports. Trump supports putting a line of tanks on the east side of the Gaza Strip and just driving forward until the entire Gazan population is forced into the sea. That's the kind of overt genocide Trump supports.

But in practice, Kamala is little different. I voted for Kamala, but I did so reluctantly. She says she opposes genocide, but those are meaningless words not backed by actual practice. Actions matter, words don't. And by her actions, it is clear she and Biden support genocide. They just want it done quietly.

They've already BEEN doing it. And this was the critical failure of all those who argued that Trump would be better for Palestine than Harris. I voted for Harris, but I am not at all surprised this cost her the election.

Israel doesn't need to do ANYTHING differently to complete its genocide of Gaza and the West Bank. It is already on that road, actively engaging in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. And the Biden/Harris team have, through their inaction, fully endorsed this genocide.

Kamala was so comically bad on Palestine that the only hair-brained thing they could come up with to defend her stance was, "well...well...Trump will let the Israelis do a genocide EVEN FASTER!"

Kamala's campaign slogan was, "a vote for Mussolini is better than a vote for Hitler!"

And then she was surprised when enough liberal voters in swing states stayed home to cost her the election. It turns out, there are plenty of people who will NOT turn out to vote for Mussolini just because Hitler is also on the ballot. They won't vote for either of them; they'll just say "a pox on both your houses!" and stay home.

Is a vote for Mussolini better than a vote for Hitler? Objectively, probably yes. Hitler objectively did a lot worse harm than Mussolini. But you also can't be shocked when people refuse to hold their noses and vote for Mussolini, just because Hitler might be objectively worse. Ultimately, it's your fucking fault for expecting people to vote for Mussolini.

I mean, aren't they? The only real difference I can see between Kamala and Trump on Palestine is that Kamala prefers a more respectable version of genocide. She supports genocide, but she just wants it to be done slowly and quietly. Trump is on board with a fast and overt genocide. Their policies lead to the same outcome; Trump is just a lot more honest about it.

I voted for Kamala, but be honest. The only difference between Kamala and Trump in terms of Palestine is that Trump supports a fast overt genocide, while Kamala supports a slow and quiet genocide. Neither of them care two shits if every last Palestinian is exterminated. Kamala just wants the genocide to be slow and quiet enough that she doesn't have to answer awkward questions about it.

Let's be honest, I voted for Harris. But her message was essentially:

"Vote for Kamala Harris. She will enable a slow genocide. But her opponent, Donald Trump, will enable a fast genocide. She is clearly the superior choice."

Saying that Kamala would be better than Trump was objectively true. However, it was also just shit, brain-dead, zero-awareness messaging. You cannot practically run on a message of, "yes, I will enable genocide, but my opponent will enable it WORSE!"

It's just a shit, poorly thought out message. Who actually is this for? Those pro-Zionist voters won't be persuaded either way. Those who want to see the Palestinians genocided will go with Trump instead, as he'll get the job done faster. Those opposed to genocide were asked to hold their nose and vote for someone who should be on trial at the Hague, simply because she was running against someone who deserves to be on trial at the Hague even more!

It's like running a campaign saying, "yes, I have some Nazi tendencies, but my opponent is a full-on avowed Nazi. My opponent is objectively worse."

A statement can be true, while also being just complete shit in terms of campaign strategy.

"Yes, my candidate is Mussolini, but her opponent is Hitler! Clearly a vote for Mussolini is better than a vote for Hitler!"

I don't see much concrete evidence. But OTOH, why not do a few audits? We should do that as a matter of course. The odd number of people not voting for president, the bomb threats, etc. And ultimately, Kamala was running against a man who tried to steal an election once before and is a convicted fraudster.

So you know what, why not just try a few hound recounts? There's no harm in it. I'm not talking whole states. Just select a few of the most statistical outlier precincts and compare their tabulated totals to the paper ballots.

I don't expect anything to change, but there is no harm in it either. If there is even a 1% chance Trump actually orchestrated a large scale hack. I mean, experts have been warming about the safety of voting machines for years. Recounts like this are the entire reason we have paper ballots backups. When you're running against a fraudulent who already tried to steal a presidential election, a little prudence is called for. Check the ballots. It won't hurt anything.

They have attacks planned on all forms of contraception. Not just surgical abortion, but the abortion pills as well. And they're also attacking general contraception. They're already trying to get mifepristone. Louisiana and Wyoming have already banned it. And in Project 2025, they discuss wanting to make it easier for employers to not cover birth control products in their insurance plans.

Mifepristone has already been banned in two states. Guess you owe me $100.

People really don't understand the history. Social practices evolved over the centuries and were as subject to evolution as anything genetic. Most traditional social practices evolved for a reason. Often practices stick around long after those reasons no longer apply, but they evolved for a very good reasons in the first place.

As you note, pregnancy is inherently dangerous to a woman's health, permanently alters her body, and has a permanent and profound impact on her life. And this has always been the case.

Think about how promiscuous women have traditionally been treated. Whore. Slut. Harlot. Women were expected to be chaste until marriage. Meanwhile, promiscuity was often accepted or even celebrated for men. The reasons for this disparity are likely multifaceted, but one likely reason is that sex had such a high risk for women and girls. Think of the mother who calls her own daughter a 'whore' for the way she dresses. Who does that to their kid? Someone who thinks they're doing that kid a favor. Traditionally, mothers expected their daughters to be chaste and conservative, and often that was to protect them from the inevitable risks that came with sex. Women have always had far more to risk when it comes to sex than men.

Effective contraception and abortion access changed this. It was only once the very real risks of premarital sex were ameliorated could modern straight casual sex culture emerge. Yes, some flings did happen in 1850, premarital sex did happen. But it was much rarer, and it was mostly among people who were already on the path to marriage anyway. There were not mixed-sex bars in 1850 that you could go and try and find a partner for a casual fling. Men could go hire a prostitute in most towns and cities, but the idea that a respectable woman would meet a man, alone, then go to his house and have premarital sex that night? That's the kind of thing that could literally end up in the town newspaper the next day.

Contraceptives - the pill, IUDs, condoms, and abortion; these are foundational technologies to modern sexual practices. They are as important as to modern dating culture as the automobile is to a suburban land use culture. When sex means pregnancy, it means you should never have sex with someone unless you are prepared to spend the next 20 years together raising kids. And yes, that means the casual dating scene is going to take a big hit.