banner80

We don't live in a perfect world. Someone is going to be president for the next 4 years, and at this stage of the game we have 2 distinct choices.

Also, what you called half-assed someone else might call the democracy process. Just because YOU want something doesn't mean I want the same thing. Your vision for how to solve Palestine or Ukraine or improve wealth equality might be vastly different from mine. Just because you don't get exactly what you want doesn't mean the system is useless or not worth participating in. If you were to get exactly what you want, then I'd be getting walked over. If I get exactly what I want, then you'd say you are not being heard.

The only fair system is to elect a big-tent party and then work through dialog on trying to reach either consensus or fair compromise on the various topics. But we won't have that option if we let the fascists get control and do their Project 2025 thing while ignoring us.

Here is another take. You vote for both:

1. The group that most closely resembles what you want AND
2. The group that most likely will listen to your requests during the administration

If there are things you want changed, Nov 5 is not the last day but the beginning. The next president will make decisions for 4 years, and every decision is influenced by people and our voices.

Ask yourself, between Harris and Trump, which administration is most likely to want the things I want, and which is most likely to listen and be influenced by my side of political views and the people I support?

For me, the answer is a hard NO on Trump, and a pretty solid Yes on Harris.

Like the other thread abut guns. Sure, the Dems talk about wanting gun reform and it never gets done because they don't have a super majority in Congress. But the GOP is 100% against it and will never contribute. Which side is more likely to do anything to help the reform I want to see? 4 years of Dems is a good amount of time to press for issues and seek some improvements. If I let the GOP have 4 more years, we are not even going to talk about change until the next election.

Those that are willing to sit out an election because the Dems are not perfect, are inflicting the worst candidate on all of us and themselves. Don't you dare later complain about school shootings, wealth inequality, tax cuts for the rich, abuse of queer folks, women's rights, international inhumane policy. Don't inflict Trump on us and then pretend to care about our issues or be on our side. If you sit out, you've picked a side.

Also, in case the nuance is getting lost since we don't all get our information from the same sources,

When the US sells weapons to Israel, the purpose is to ensure peace in the region by helping them hold a line of defense against military attacks from antagonistic countries; and in the case of Hamas, for the anti-terrorism operation of removing Hamas from power in Gaza, so that Palestinians can pursue self-determination free from terrorist rule.

-

Also, because around these parts the echo chambers are deafening,

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/

Most Americans are against the suffering of civilians in Gaza, but understand that under Hamas rule the Gaza people are screwed, and long-lasting peace is impossible, so there's significant value in removing Hamas from power so that we can drive towards a better future. This is the purpose for which we continue to sell any weapons to Israel that may be used in the Gaza operation, and we use the agreements to enforce guardrails to minimize civilian casualties.

In summary, If you think the Biden admin is supporting genocide, I wanted to point out that as far as the US leadership understands it, the weapons sales are intended for the purpose of driving towards peace, minimizing civilian casualties, and improving conditions for people in the region in the long-term. Whether you agree with that vision or not.

What's unclear is the alternative long-term solution that the "stop supporting Israel" crowd have mapped out for the region. What exactly is supposed to get better if the US pulls out and washes its hands of peace deals and weapons agreements, so that Israel and Hamas can double down on bombing each other to the last drop of blood?

Someone explain to me the 10 year plan that the "stop selling weapons" side has envisions for the Gaza region. Because I know Harris wants to end the war, rebuild Gaza, and force a permanent peace by leading international negotiations for Palestinian statehood. I cannot imagine a workable pathway that's more pro peace and pro civilians.

cutting off aid money and weapons sales

I don't understand this line of thinking.

First, Israel doesn't need top-tier modern weapons to attack a defenseless civilian population. If Israel's goal was outright genocide as it's being put, they could buy mid-tier weapons from any manufacturer for that purpose.

Second, if the US stops selling US-grade weapons to Israel, that will signal to the region that Israel is open to military attacks, which might result in a larger scale multi-country war that would dwarf the Gaza conflict.

Those that care about the lives of innocent civilians in the region should prefer that the weapons sold to Israel come with Western strings attached and conditions as part of the weapons agreements, and should also care that the region doesn't descend into another 1960s-70s war era but with more modern and powerful weapons.

See on US weapons:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-12-11/israel-must-comply-with-laws-of-war-under-us-weapons-assistance-policy

The U.S. expects every country receiving its military assistance to use it "in full compliance with international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and Israel is no exception," State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told a news briefing on Monday.

Enforcing the Western weapons rules is politically complex, but not having any rules on those weapons would only embolden Israel's operation in Gaza. I hope people around here will come to understand that every time you call for the US to pull out of weapon deals in Israel, what you are advocating for is to remove the weapons restrictions the West imposes on Israel.

It seems like we are talking about different things.

Also,

What you want to do is to flip the narrative by remaining calm, focusing on the facts, and pointing out the flaws in your opponents arguments.

We know with well-tested confidence that that does nothing for half the electorate.

I'm talking about controlling the narrative a bit more. Dems are masters at speaking ineffectively and letting the media decide the narrative. And the media spends half its time reacting to whatever outlandish thing Trump said. And Trump says the outlandish stuff on purpose to control the narrative.

So 80% of the time we are in this cycle: Trump says something insane on purpose -> media reports it like it's half presidential and worth talking about -> Dems are asked to comment on it -> Dems try to ignore it or reply something sensible that gets buried.

The effect is this: Trump controls the narrative -> the whorish media is happy to repeat his BS and normalize him for clicks -> whatever Dems want to talk about doesn't matter. Low effort voters see Trump and his message everywhere courtesy of the whorish media. Trump remains a viable candidate.

I'm proposing that Dems could try to join the cycle at the input level instead of the tail end. If they say some aggressive or outlandish things about Trump, they'd be trend setters at the start of the cycle instead of irrelevant at the end of it. Like what happened with the "weird" thing, when seemingly by accident the Dems landed one narrative origination that left Trump on the receiving end unable to shake it.

My point is that this shouldn't happen by accident. The Dems should plan it as part of narrative control. Keep a schedule and say another big thing once per week. Give the media something big to talk about, keep an aggressive message on Trump and his prosecutions, crimes, terrible policies and so on. Anything that controls the narrative, puts Trump on the defensive, and makes the media spread the Dems message instead of giving Trump free publicity.

When the Dems choose not to do this, they are letting the media decide what narrative they want and the media will always prefer to go with sensationalized BS as much as possible, which usually means going over to Trump to say something insane so they have more fodder to normalize and talk about for clicks.

I think that's a good point. I wonder if reasonable politicians should prepare a few outlandish talking points to give the media something tasty to sink their teeth into. Like do a normal interview saying normal thoughtful and nuanced things, but also throw in a couple specific wacky clickbait nuggets so the media has what they crave for their news cycle.

Like, what if Kamala had worked this into her interview: Once his criminal trials are over, I don't think imprisonment in Attica would be appropriate for Trump as an ex president.

Leave it at that and have the media frenzy over it, even though it means nothing. Then they won't spend as much time trying to invent drama over her interview because she gave them some drama to go with.

I think that's what Trump is best at. Trump knows most of his base are dumb and the media are thirsty clickbait whores, so he treats his interviews with the decorum of a 2-bit bordello and ends up getting tons of attention that works for his base.

6'3" 215lbs, is what Trump claimed for the official Georgia arrest record https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-height-weight-measurements-georgia-new-york-1822430

For comparison, the same body specs as Ukrainian MMA fighter Nikita Krylov https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Nikita-Krylov-110937#!

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-afghanistan-troops-killed-659053265479

There were 63 US military deaths in Afghanistan during the Trump administration. This piece of shit goes around saying that nobody died in that operation during his watch, and talks about how Biden cost the US THIRTEEN lives during the sundown of the Afghanistan war started by Republicans - a series of wars that go back to the first part of the century and sank the country in unimaginable debt.

Biden will be remembered for putting his foot down on the forever wars. And he will be remembered for eviscerating Russia's military and strengthening our EU alliance, using only a fraction of the US military national budget and without putting a single American solider in harm's way.

This piece of shit thinks that's a bad record for Biden, and he is going to go around lying about it, pretending he is making some powerful points about which parties does most to keep us safe.

Who starts unwinnable wars? Who has a barrage of "unavoidable" incidents on their watch? From terrorist attacks to pandemics to historical financial crashes and absurd deficits, it's always a Republican having to make excuses ... "who could have thought the terrorists were plotting and attack, or that the war on terror would take decades" ... "who could have known the virus wasn't going to disappear by April like a miracle."

Somehow the GOP that keeps us safe and is "best" at the economy are the same asswipes that can't protect us from attacks, start wildly misguided wars, and sink us into unpayable debt planted squarely on the shoulders of our youth.

But it's all somehow Harris' fault now. And this piece of shit is going to tell us why by fabricating some nonsense about the Biden admin, and lying about his party's record and his own.

Brazille was working for CNN at the time of Clinton, not ABC.

Harris is negotiating the rules of a debate she hadn't agreed to yet since she wasn't running for president at the time the debate was agreed to by BIDEN. Trump is also negotiating terms. Seems fair to me that they both get to negotiate for whatever they want before agreeing to final terms.

do a debate on a Conservative network

Conservative news network? WHERE? All I see on the right-wing are garbage propaganda outlets. Why would anyone serious agree to a debate at a propaganda outlet?

A debate has to happen on a real news network like ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, CNBC or something of the like, or hosted by a neutral university or some other serious institution. The point is to try to have less BS, not more.

And I agree, if the DNC operative Brazille gave one candidate the questions ahead and not the other, that's a major issue and she is right to be shamed for it and have been removed by CNN. Nobody wants to see that favoritism crap, which is also the reason we can't have the debate at Fox or any other trash-tier outlet either.

There's also politicking involved. Trump is currently losing this election, so he should be more desperate to get a debate going even if he is most likely to do poorly. From a politics perspective, the Harris campaign is right to press Trump and push the rules to make him as uncomfortable as possible. Trump can back out if he wants, but he is the one that needs the debate the most. That's just how politics works. If Trump was ahead he could simply avoid the debate and run a telethon by himself like he's done in the past when he refused to participate, in the same vein of political gamesmanship. It's only fair that when Harris is on top she gets to be the gamester. That's Trump's lack of decorum coming back to roost. Those that lead with being dicks get mirrored treatment when the tables turn.

When Trump speaks of "immigrants," he means immigrants like his wives and the people that work at his properties that were not born in the US. Not himself as someone born in the US to an immigrant mother, or his children born in the US to an immigrant mother.