Let’s consider the counterfactual: is it possible that this was a calculated decision about a complex topic and that abdicating led to a more positive outcome than not?
The subtext of this post seems to be: if only harris hadn’t ignored the Gaza problem! And I reject that as a premise
By the way, let’s consider another counterfactual: is it possible that Harris (the sitting VP) was privy to more information about the conflict than voters were?
Occam’s razor still applies. Your alternative explanations require additional and sometimes obscure factors, whereas the direct experience of the Uncommitted folks (actual Democrats! With previous Democratic campaign experience!) already gives an explanation that hasn’t been shot down by Harris campaign insiders either.
If this is the case, they have to publish the polling data that led them to believe it. Otherwise there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
On what planet do you think that American politicians “have to” do anything? They regularly break the law. It’s a bicameral system and until you riot or DDD it won’t change.
Also, your statement makes the assumption that the complexity lies solely in polling and voting, but politics is more complex than that. Israel is a nuclear power. For all we (civilians) know, they can be a regular destabilizing threat actor for the West, have damning blackmail that threatens the DNC, or has enough high powered offensive hacking actors that the US sees its alliance as more important than its ethics
By the way, this entire system of incentives illustrates the complexity of politics in a way that ought to dismiss any kind of black-or-white argument about really any political topic, including the (in my limited opinion, valid) condemnation of Trump.
On the basis that they want to win. It looked like the Democrats sold out in whole to a foreign power to the point that they were sanctioning the killing of American citizens.
And considering the number of unanswered US aid workers killed by Israel this was not unreasonable.
On what planet do you think that American politicians “have to” do anything?
Sorry, I thought it was obvious from the conversation that they “have to” do this if they want to get elected. You get that’s what we’re talking about, right?
Also, your statement makes the assumption that the complexity lies solely in polling and voting, but politics is more complex than that. Israel is a nuclear power. For all we (civilians) know, they can be a regular destabilizing threat actor for the West, have damning blackmail that threatens the DNC, or has enough high powered offensive hacking actors that the US sees its alliance as more important than its ethics
Sure, it’s possible Harris was playing 4D chess, but then she shouldn’t be surprised that people don’t vote for her. This kind of approach to politics is something that people have increasingly started to reject, so again, terrible approach if you want to get elected.
“Maybe the Democrats weren’t bought off by Israel, maybe they were being blackmailed. Wouldn’t that be better? Or wait, maybe they just really like having access to Israeli spyware and hackers, and consider that more important than not murdering women and children! This is a complex issue and there’s lots of possible reasons that you may not be privy to that the Dems could have sold their souls and the future of the american people for!”
How are any of those things better or worthy of support? Those are all still completely ghoulish reasons to support a genocide. Youre presumably worried about russian interference with trump, but youre cool with the Israelis blackmailing kamala? We’re just supposed to shrug that off and say “oh she didnt have any choice”?
Oh excuse me. I’m using “the bicameral system” to refer to “the way representation works in USA”. A more accurate and relevant way to point to the bad part would be “the two party system”, since in fact you could reasonably have a bicameral congress with proportional representation
What positive outcome pray tell? Losing some voters for good and depressing turnout? I thought Trump was a threat to democracy, why did Harris allow him to win?
Let’s consider the counterfactual: is it possible that this was a calculated decision about a complex topic and that abdicating led to a more positive outcome than not?
The subtext of this post seems to be: if only harris hadn’t ignored the Gaza problem! And I reject that as a premise
By the way, let’s consider another counterfactual: is it possible that Harris (the sitting VP) was privy to more information about the conflict than voters were?
Occam’s razor still applies. Your alternative explanations require additional and sometimes obscure factors, whereas the direct experience of the Uncommitted folks (actual Democrats! With previous Democratic campaign experience!) already gives an explanation that hasn’t been shot down by Harris campaign insiders either.
Can you tell me what you think the confounding factors are?
For example, you’re assuming the Harris campaign knew something we don’t. That’s adding extra variables.
If this is the case, they have to publish the polling data that led them to believe it. Otherwise there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
On what planet do you think that American politicians “have to” do anything? They regularly break the law. It’s a bicameral system and until you riot or DDD it won’t change.
Also, your statement makes the assumption that the complexity lies solely in polling and voting, but politics is more complex than that. Israel is a nuclear power. For all we (civilians) know, they can be a regular destabilizing threat actor for the West, have damning blackmail that threatens the DNC, or has enough high powered offensive hacking actors that the US sees its alliance as more important than its ethics
By the way, this entire system of incentives illustrates the complexity of politics in a way that ought to dismiss any kind of black-or-white argument about really any political topic, including the (in my limited opinion, valid) condemnation of Trump.
On the basis that they want to win. It looked like the Democrats sold out in whole to a foreign power to the point that they were sanctioning the killing of American citizens.
And considering the number of unanswered US aid workers killed by Israel this was not unreasonable.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious from the conversation that they “have to” do this if they want to get elected. You get that’s what we’re talking about, right?
Sure, it’s possible Harris was playing 4D chess, but then she shouldn’t be surprised that people don’t vote for her. This kind of approach to politics is something that people have increasingly started to reject, so again, terrible approach if you want to get elected.
“Maybe the Democrats weren’t bought off by Israel, maybe they were being blackmailed. Wouldn’t that be better? Or wait, maybe they just really like having access to Israeli spyware and hackers, and consider that more important than not murdering women and children! This is a complex issue and there’s lots of possible reasons that you may not be privy to that the Dems could have sold their souls and the future of the american people for!”
I think you’re trying to mock me but in fact this is exactly what I’m saying
I am very notably not defending Harris but lemmings have spent too much time on xitter to remember what critical discourse looks like
How are any of those things better or worthy of support? Those are all still completely ghoulish reasons to support a genocide. Youre presumably worried about russian interference with trump, but youre cool with the Israelis blackmailing kamala? We’re just supposed to shrug that off and say “oh she didnt have any choice”?
Who wants to change the bicameral system? Is that a new popular trend? What’s the better alternative?
I live in England, that would be a good starting point for your Google search
The US bicameral system is the House and the Senate (a two chamber legislature).
What system is the better alternative that we should riot about? You said it and I’m just asking you to explain.
Oh excuse me. I’m using “the bicameral system” to refer to “the way representation works in USA”. A more accurate and relevant way to point to the bad part would be “the two party system”, since in fact you could reasonably have a bicameral congress with proportional representation
Well they got their ass kicked so you know…
Genocide is a complex topic?
What positive outcome pray tell? Losing some voters for good and depressing turnout? I thought Trump was a threat to democracy, why did Harris allow him to win?
A far simpler explanation is that AIPAC bought politicians of both sides.
You are clearly a genocide denier if you are merely referring to it as a “problem”.