this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
-67 points (21.8% liked)
Political Memes
5401 readers
3356 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're not 'arguing' anything at all. You're just declaring it to be the case with so much as a scrap of evidence offered.
All the evidence provided indicates a sizeable demographic of ex-Democrat voters who would readily vote Democrat again if they changed policy on arms sales.
No polling data from anywhere indicates that keeping arms sales is the key to the swing states.
All polling data that's been provided indicates that banning arms sales is the key to the swing states.
So what is tying Harris's hands exactly? Spell it out.
Just because you're not following the argument nor participating in the conversation doesn't mean I'm not making one.
Anyone who cares about Gaza and doesn't vote for Harris doesn't actually care about Gaza and are just attention seeking, trolling, and/or fucking stupid.
You've provided no evidence at all for this, and all the available evidence demonstrates the contrary.
Just declaring things to be the case isn't an argument. You have to bring evidence to bear.
Again. No evidence, and all the available evidence is to the contrary.
Again, all the evidence given shows the opposite.
The vast majority of Democrat voters and a smaller group of Republican voters want to stop arms sale to Israel.
A huge proportion of key voters in swing states want to stop arms sales to Israel.
Voters angry at the Democrats for not stopping arms sales to Israel are actively saying they will abstain or vote Trump.
No group, poll, or campaign has come out to claim they'll vote Trump if the Democrats stop arms sales to Israel.
All this evidence supports the view that stopping arms sales to Israel will gain Democrats a massive number of additional votes, some of which will be from otherwise Trump voters.
You've provided no evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps you don't understand how elections work? In this case, either Harris or Trump is going to win. That will be based on which one gets the most votes. Every vote cast that is not for Harris automatically helps Trump. There is really nothing to debate here.
And that makes them fucking stupid because they'd rather put in someone who will definitely destroy Gaza than someone who might not help Gaza as much as they'd like.
Trump's voters want Gaza gone. They would be perfectly fine with just dropping a nuke on them an calling it a day. For Harris to come out now to support Gaza over Israel would mean two things. Those who might have been leaning away from Trump for other reasons will have cause to go ahead and vote for him. Harris will lose votes from those who support Israel. Believe it or not, there are plenty of Democrats who also wouldn't mind if Gaza would just go ahead and die, already. You will have religious zealots who might have otherwise voted for Harris instead vote for Trump.
So just doubling down on blind assertions? The lack of intellectual integrity is astounding.
To win, Harris does not need to take votes from Trump. She can win by taking votes from Independents and currently non-voters.
The evidence is that this group would vote for her if she changed policy on arms sales to Israel.
There is no evidence of a similar sized group of currently committed Democrats who would not vote for her if she changed policy on arms sales to Israel.
As such, there is no evidence for your claim that she needs to keep this policy to win and what evidence there is suggests the opposite.
That's how evidence works, your theory is supposed to respond to it.
No they don't. The polls suggest they are about 50/50 on the matter. Again, evidence helps us here rather than just spewing whatever we reckon.
No. Again, there's no evidence from polling of a significant group who would do this.
No. Again the actual evidence shows over 60% of Democrats want arms sales to Israel banned, and only a tiny percentage actually want them maintained (the rest undecided). The figures are even higher in Michigan, as an example of a key swing state.
The evidence is that if they don't vote for her then they're going to get Trump who will absolutely destroy Gaza (and the U.S.) If they don't vote for her or don't vote at all then they are fucking morons. They will take their moral convictions to their graves.
Yes. That's right. And it's entirely Harris's fault. No one else's. She could change policy and earn their vote. She doesn't, and so hands the election to Trump.
Yet you're such a sycophant that instead of outrage at her, you're outraged at the voters whom you think somehow owe her a vote. You're outraged at the people practising democracy for not falling into line with the authoritarians trying to undermine it.
Harris will win more votes than she will lose if she changes policy on arms sales to Israel. That is what the evidence shows - overwhelming support for such a policy among previously Democrat voters and abstainers in key states.
Candidates changing policy to meet voter's expectations is exactly how democracy functions, even flawed ones like the US normally vaguely track voter preferences.
So if Harris changed policy she would not worsen her support, nor would she be doing anything other than her job.
The fact that she isn't will be the single fact responsible for a Trump win, if he wins. Nothing else. Every other person involved would have been acting accordingly, only the Harris team are out of line.
They are acting undemocratically, and probably illegally, backing a genocide. And you're defending them, and attacking the people supporting democracy and peace...
Oh fuck off with that... They'd rather vote for the fascist who has outright said he'd destroy Hamas? That's on them for being stupid fucking morons. Don't blame Harris for their stupidity.
At the general election for POTUS is the wrong fucking time to plant your stake in the ground. Anyone who wants a different candidate in 2028 that supports their views needed to get really involved in 2020, at the latest. The next best time to do that is right now for 2028. I'm not defending Harris. I'm saying the people you're talking about are fucking morons and need to suddenly get smart.
They did.
Again, your blind faith that the system will work if only the people just tried harder is sycophantic at best, if not downright insulting.
And besides, you're the one imploring them to just vote without any regard to policy, so what exactly is "getting involved"?
Why would the Democrats listen to anything anyone says if they're guaranteed your vote come election day anyway?
No, I'm saying that at this point in time that the next POTUS is either going to be Harris or Trump. Which of those two do you want it to be? Vote accordingly.
That's the same thing.
Your claim is that, come election time, we should always vote for the least worst party which has a chance of getting in. That's always the Democrats and always will be if we follow your system.
So the corollary of your system is that one party runs America for ever.
So why bother with elections at all?
You can deny reality all you want, but Harris or Trump is going to be the next POTUS. Which one do you want it to be?
I want it to be whichever results from us attempting to preserve democracy.
Our nation has taken far, far bigger risks than 4 years of Trump to preserve democracy.
Determining something to be an acceptable risk is not the same as wanting it. Casualties are an acceptable risk of a just war. No one says people want soldiers to die.
I'm prepared to risk a Trump presidency to preserve some semblance of democracy and make it clear that genocide is never an acceptable option. That doesn't mean I want a Trump presidency any more than being prepared to risk soldier's lives during war means you want soldiers to die.
You're not taking a risk. You are promoting a Trump presidency. If you can't or won't accept reality then there is no need to continue this conversation.
This is beyond the pale. You must have checked off on all of your entitlements before you came to this realization. Because what you’re doing by “risking” a Trump presidency is potentially going to hurt a lot of people. Get over yourself and pay attention to what’s going here.
This is beyond the pale. You must have checked off on all of your entitlements before you came to this realization. Because what you’re doing by “risking” genocide being normalised is potentially going to hurt a lot of people. Get over yourself and pay attention to what’s going here.
See how pointless conversation becomes if you just assume your interlocutor is mistaken without a case.
We might as well be in a school-yard yelling "no you are..."
If you think a Trump presidency risks more harm than normalising genocide and undermining democracy, then make the fucking case. This is a discussion forum. Discuss. What is your evidence, how have you weighed it, what critique can you offer of the case I've made... Give us something beyond childish bleating.
bUt mUh gEnOciDe!!
No one is normalizing anything here except you- normalizing the idea that it’s okay to selfishly hurt others by withholding a vote.
It’s too late now to bother with the details. Bur since you feel you need to have it explained to you why Trump is worse, I’ll bite:
What you’re doing by pissing away your vote, is you’re essentially giving the middle finger to the LGBTQ+, women, immigrants, and non-Christians- all because of your entitlement and inability to find reason in arguments against your decision. He is going to help Israel finish the job against those that live in a country I’d wager you couldn’t point to onna map a year ago.
We’re at the eleventh hour. You single-issue “leftists” know better and chose to pull this shit anyway- so at this point I’m going to say you are all purposefully trying to hurt people.
And to me, that’s as bad faith as it gets.
So still no actual counter-argument then? You realise that just saying option 1 is bad doesn't constitute an argument for choosing it over option 2?
I've argued thay voting for a party supporting genocide will create a norm that supporting genocide is OK, that it doesn't risk loss of support. That's a dangerous precedent to set because if politicians find it expedient to support another genocide they will know they can do so without risking their power. Withholding a vote is the only way of ensuring politicians know they will lose support if they are complicit in genocide. Therefore it is the only option to ensure genocide is not normalised.
I've also argued that if we follow a principle of voting Democrat no matter what their policies are, this will set another dangerous precedent that a) politicians do not have to adjust policy to meet the will of the electorate, and b) that we're effectively thereby creating a one party state.
Note the uses of phrases like "because..." and "therefore..." These are how you construct an argument. Take some agreed premise and draw conclusions with rational steps.
Your counter-argument can't just be "but Trump's goimg to do bad things to minorities" because that doesn't counter any of the points in the argument I made. You'd have to disagree with some premise or one of the conclusions therefrom, or argue why you think minority rights are more import than the consequences I've reasoned toward.
And it may alarm you to discover that putting something in alternating capitals doesn't really persuade anyone of even moderate intelligence of anything. It's not really a stand in for justificatory reasoning.
I have no idea why I bothered. Enjoy your entitlement and- have a….. day.
And let's be clear here what you're advocating.
In the case that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, people should vote Democrat and no other party.
The Republicans will always be worse than the Democrats.
Therefore, people should always vote Democrat in all cases and no other party.
That's exactly the Chinese totalitarian system. One party which you must vote for regardless of what you think of their policies.
I'm saying that Harris or Trump will be the next POTUS and all you can do right now is express your preference on which one you want it to be.
If you're driving down the road and you come to a situation where you can either run over a person or hit a telephone pole then you have to decide what to do. You can gripe and moan about your situation and how you don't want to either one, but that doesn't change the reality. If you choose to not make a choice then the choice will be made for you and you'll have to live with the consequences.
That's true of all decisions. You're advocating a single party autocracy. One whose opening policy is to support genocide. You'll have to live with the consequences of that decision too.
I'm telling you the reality that Harris or Trump will be the next POTUS. Which one do you want it to be?
I'm not required to want either.
"Either some Ukrainian soldiers die, or Putin takes over Ukraine, that's the reality"...
"Oh! So you want Ukrainian soldiers to die!"
Being prepared to risk something is not the same as actively promoting that thing. This is not up for debate, it's a basic fact.
You're putting up a false-equivalency. It may well be that a bunch Ukrainian soldiers die and Russia takes over anyway. It might be that they don't put up a fight and others step in. (Highly unlikely, but not a forgone conclusion.) There are other scenarios that might play out.
On the other hand, either Trump or Harris absolutely will be the next POTUS. Which one do you want it to be? Answer the question this time... no explanations required for your choice. Which one do you choose?
It's not a false equivalency. If I don't vote - the matter in question here - it's not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. Harris might still win but only by a very very narrow margin.That would be a great outcome as far as I'm concerned. A Harris presidency, but clear message that votes cannot be relied on and if they want a safer win next time, they'd better drop the genocide support. Harris might also change policy. Very.much like the examples you gave, other options exist.
It remains a risk not a consequence. And very much like soldiers dying. Have you ever heard of a war in which no soldiers died? No. Yet we still don't say "you want soldiers to die" when describing someone who thinks it's a necessary risk to defend one's country. The likelihood of the risk coming about clearly doesn't make any difference to the way we talk about it. It's about intent. I'm not aiming for a Trump presidency. If I was, I'd vote for him. I'm aiming to avoid normalising genocide. A collateral risk in that aim is a Trump presidency. A risk I think is worth it for the objective.
What is utterly false is suggesting that because there are two options I must "want" one of them. That's just garbage. My preferences are not determined by the options offered. I could want neither options, or genuinely not care which, or like both equally. In this case I "want" neither. I am prepared to accept either. I will accept the risk of a Trump presidency.
I know you think you've set up some clever 'gothca', but it's just nonsense to say that because there are two options I must actually "want" one of them. Anyone can see that.
Or we could look at it this way.
Either Harris gets fewer votes, or the Democrats get the message that supporting genocide is OK with the electorate, that it's a choice they can make without electoral repercussions.
One of those two things will happen.
Do you "want" to give the message to the Democrats that genocide is OK by you?
Or is it rather that you'd be prepared to risk that to avoid a Trump presidency?
Well a vice president can't just change policy against the wishes of the president. Nor do they regularly deviate in public opinion. That's not something that needs to be looked up.
As to weather she would actually do that, well, only the future knows that.
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was using 'Harris' as shorthand for 'the Harris campaign'. I mean to ask why they wouldn't change policy... The campaign team.