switchboard_pete

Like, what “leeway” does Kamala have to say anything different than she already has, which she could shift to?

a significant enough chunk of her voter base credibly withholding a vote based on a desired policy change would force a shift toward that desired policy change

i’d say biden’s platform in 2020 was significantly more left-wing than clinton’s in 2016

But that was then, and this is now.

this is the same “it’s too late” or “it’s too unprecedented” or whatever you want to pick that was exactly the justification for biden being kept in as long as he was

I think it really does show voting not for a 3rd party but voting for the other side b/c “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe” (the title of the post), specifically wrt genocide.

people the post targets aren’t voting red. they’re just not voting at all, or voting third party. it’s an argument to a position held by an insignificant fraction of the left-anti-harris crowd.

it doesn’t address the core issue they have. they’d say that continuing to vote for the least-bad party is the reason both parties are bad, and that at a certain point you have to attempt to force a more radical change.

they’re not suggesting a third party candidate can win

they’re suggesting that the democratic platform can shift

which is what people said before biden was replaced

which is what people said before biden was replaced

anybody on the left withholding their vote at this point fundamentally disbelieves in a system with exactly two discrete options, so this type of post doesn’t persuade anybody

how much restraint is appropriate when their stated goal is ending a genocide?

presumably if somebody’s shipping weapons to israel, you’d be fine with the houthis sinking that ship? so you don’t disagree with the blockade in principle, you just think it’s being implemented too strictly?

the meme never mentions supporting houthis, it says praising them

acknowledging somebody has done something good is praising them

hence “If isis starts attacking israel, that does not mean you need to support isis…” is a bad response

If isis starts attacking israel, that does not mean you need to support isis…

it was a response to this, which in the context of the original post, has a sentiment that directly contradicts what you just agreed with

Yeah but being bad and doing a good thing from time to time doesn’t make you good.

sure, and i’m not saying that the hypothetical would make isis good

i’m saying that it would make fantasy isis worthy of praise for this specific hypothetical achievement

fucking christ can you stop wanking yourself off with rhetoric for 5 minutes and actually address something i’m saying? ta

it’s called a thought experiment

do i think anybody is realistically going to kidnap me and plumb my kidneys into a world famous violinist? no. but i can still use that hypothetical to make a point. do i think anybody is likely to run into a barn at 0.9c while holding a long ladder? no, but i can still use that to learn something.

based on your response, i presume you agree that a group can do bad things, or even be on the whole bad by a very wide margin, but still do something good worthy of praise?

so you agree that a group can do bad things, or even be on the whole bad by a very wide margin, but still do something good worthy of praise?

Hence a blockade is an act of war.

but we’re not talking about something being an act of war

we’re talking about whether it’s morally justifiable

are you saying any offensive war is automatically unjustifiable?

because it disrupts non-Israeli trade

so, just to set a baseline here, are we agreed that

• what israel is doing is bad
• stopping israel from doing what they’re doing is good
• stopping israeli trade might stop what they’re doing
• therefore stopping israel from trading is good

given that trade is definitionally between two separate parties, one of the countries in the equation has to not be israel

how can you stop israel from trading without impacting other countries?

tldr: the sanctions on russia also have an impact on global trade, so if this is your redline, you should be anti-sanctions

I’m sorry that the words ‘attack’ and ‘war crime’ mean nothing to you.

are you saying the blockade is different to sanctions because russia attacked ukraine and is committing war crimes?

i’m not sure if you’ve paid attention to things in israel recently

I dispute that, even if they were, that their actions constitute in any way a viable way to blockade Israel

so their actions are bad because you don’t think they’ll be effective? honestly, pressuring global trade has historically been a pretty good way of achieving goals in capitalism

I dispute that attacking civilians, a war crime, is morally acceptable.

again, sanctions on russia have definitely killed people

so you’re fine with people dying, just so long as they do it from freezing to death in their homes rather than by direct military action?

what’s your position on western sanctions on russia? innocent russians have definitely died as a result of the sanctions

do you agree with the notion of a blockade but not with the specific group doing it? can an action be bad solely because of the party that’s enacting it?

if in some bizzare, hypothetical fantasy world, isis somehow invaded israel and stopped the ongoing genocide there and delivered a perfect two state solution overnight, would you be morally against specifically that action because it was isis who did it?

to be clear, i’m not asking whether you’d be against isis as a whole: just whether you’d be against isis ending the current israel-palestine situation peacefully