And the real irony is that of the two candidates, which one is most likely to respond to post-election pressure to adjust the policies?
Sure sure sure, Trump can be influenced by money and flattery, but the people that are going to pay and flatter him are not exactly the ones arguing to save the lives of innocent civilians.
So the irony remains, of the two candidates to choose from, the people complaining about what is happening in Gaza picked the one least likely to do anything helpful once elected (“do” as opposed to what they said to get elected).
And there is no political leverage the proletariat has to push for policy change after the election. The pressure came from “do what we say or at election time we vote for someone else”
Well, every fucking election when it comes time to follow through after they again failed to hold up their end of the bargain the majority gets cold feet and caves to familiarity because risking change is scary.
At this point, we get to make a lengthy explanation about First Past the Post always leading to a 2 party system because of the spoiler effect, we get to a lengthy history explanation about how the (at the time) progressive republican party won the election with Abraham Lincoln because the (at the time) conservative Democrat party split into Dixiecrats in favor of slavery and northern Democrats who didn’t care either way and the Whig party just up and died in 1850 and that’s the only way a 3rd party becomes viable in FPTP. And then we just argue back and forth of “well if people just spontaneously saw things the way I do they would vote third party too!” to “That’s not how reality works.”
I didn’t ask which has the different policy now (ignoring my opinion about the truth of your assertion) but which is most likely to be responsive to public opinion; and I’d add, which one actually cares about the plight of others and which is an unofficially diagnosed narcissist.
But I’m fairly certain we won’t agree and sadly we’ll never know what Kamala coulda/woulda done. But with trump we’re about to Find Out. I hope we’re both wrong about him.
which is most likely to be responsive to public opinion
Neither. There were states that voted 11% undecided in the Democratic primaries with the explicit public purpose of trying to force Dems to stop sending WMD’s to Israel. That was a fairly significant public statement on administration policy.
The Dems ignored them and sent more WMD’s anyway.
Whether you agree with me or not is immaterial. On the issue of Israel’s genocide, both parties are exactly the same.
I don’t agree that 11% undecided in the primary is a “fairly significant public statement”, I mean, literally 11% is like, you know, small. Nor does a lack of policy change during the election cycle (which has a lot more factors than just Gaza to consider) immediately mean Kamala wouldn’t be open to changing tactics post election. But we’ll never know because, like I said, Trump won and now we get to find out if voting for him was net good or net bad for the Gaza cause.
But I can appreciate the emotional investment you have in “both sides-ing” this and ignoring the material differences between a narcissist that is already talking about lifting arms restrictions to Israel and Kamala.
Weather you agree with me or not is immaterial. On the issue of both parties being the same, you’re wrong. See how easy that is to say and it means nothing to an actual debate?
Well, they were significant enough, clearly. Probably wish you had those votes now.
See how easy that is to say and it means nothing to an actual debate?
It’s easy to say because I’m right. It doesn’t matter what Democrats say they’re going to do when they have exactly the same position as the other party.
Exactly.
And the real irony is that of the two candidates, which one is most likely to respond to post-election pressure to adjust the policies?
Sure sure sure, Trump can be influenced by money and flattery, but the people that are going to pay and flatter him are not exactly the ones arguing to save the lives of innocent civilians.
So the irony remains, of the two candidates to choose from, the people complaining about what is happening in Gaza picked the one least likely to do anything helpful once elected (“do” as opposed to what they said to get elected).
On the issue of Israel, neither. They have exactly the same policies.
And there is no political leverage the proletariat has to push for policy change after the election. The pressure came from “do what we say or at election time we vote for someone else”
Well, every fucking election when it comes time to follow through after they again failed to hold up their end of the bargain the majority gets cold feet and caves to familiarity because risking change is scary.
You’re not wrong.
That’s why 99% of voters pick the same two shitty parties that are driving them to the brink of homelessness.
At this point, we get to make a lengthy explanation about First Past the Post always leading to a 2 party system because of the spoiler effect, we get to a lengthy history explanation about how the (at the time) progressive republican party won the election with Abraham Lincoln because the (at the time) conservative Democrat party split into Dixiecrats in favor of slavery and northern Democrats who didn’t care either way and the Whig party just up and died in 1850 and that’s the only way a 3rd party becomes viable in FPTP. And then we just argue back and forth of “well if people just spontaneously saw things the way I do they would vote third party too!” to “That’s not how reality works.”
People know how reality works. That’s why 10,000,000 fewer people voted this election.
I didn’t ask which has the different policy now (ignoring my opinion about the truth of your assertion) but which is most likely to be responsive to public opinion; and I’d add, which one actually cares about the plight of others and which is an unofficially diagnosed narcissist.
But I’m fairly certain we won’t agree and sadly we’ll never know what Kamala coulda/woulda done. But with trump we’re about to Find Out. I hope we’re both wrong about him.
Neither. There were states that voted 11% undecided in the Democratic primaries with the explicit public purpose of trying to force Dems to stop sending WMD’s to Israel. That was a fairly significant public statement on administration policy.
The Dems ignored them and sent more WMD’s anyway.
Whether you agree with me or not is immaterial. On the issue of Israel’s genocide, both parties are exactly the same.
I don’t agree that 11% undecided in the primary is a “fairly significant public statement”, I mean, literally 11% is like, you know, small. Nor does a lack of policy change during the election cycle (which has a lot more factors than just Gaza to consider) immediately mean Kamala wouldn’t be open to changing tactics post election. But we’ll never know because, like I said, Trump won and now we get to find out if voting for him was net good or net bad for the Gaza cause.
But I can appreciate the emotional investment you have in “both sides-ing” this and ignoring the material differences between a narcissist that is already talking about lifting arms restrictions to Israel and Kamala.
Weather you agree with me or not is immaterial. On the issue of both parties being the same, you’re wrong. See how easy that is to say and it means nothing to an actual debate?
-Cheers
Well, they were significant enough, clearly. Probably wish you had those votes now.
It’s easy to say because I’m right. It doesn’t matter what Democrats say they’re going to do when they have exactly the same position as the other party.