That's exactly right.
Overall, the article just reflects the long standing situation - China's never really been in control of or comfortable with North Korea. Rather, it was always just seen as the "least bad" option out of a bunch of seemingly bad ones..
I'd add that I disagree with the premise of the article. I don't see a contradiction between wanting the suffering happening to innocent Gazans to end on the one hand, while generally being supporting of Israel's right to defend itself as a country on the other hand (e.g. from Russia, if they were to go even crazier and decide that nuking Israel to distract the West from supporting Ukraine was a good idea).
And nuance is tough to do in a campaign ad, so emphasis the part of the message that resonates with the target voters is not hypocrisy at all, not if both messages are indeed consistent with your underlying platform.
As far as I know, this is indeed the case - Harris supports an immediate ceasefire in Gaza in exchange for the return of the remaining hostages, along with an eventual two state solution. I don't see how that contradicts either message above, if it were possible to implement. (It's not because Israel under Netanyahu won't go along with it, but, I mean, if it were.)
Remember, there are Israelis who live in Israel, who want an immediate ceasefire, as per https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/24/israel-immediate-ceasefire-open-letter and https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/some-300-left-wing-activists-protests-genocide-in-gaza-at-tel-avivs-habima-square/ - and Harris's position on this appears to be the same as, or at least very similar to, theirs.
Hey, thanks for the long and thorough reply. I’m a bit overwhelmed :)
Yeah, I think we all are at this point. It's been a tough election year for everyone.
This is exactly where my doubts come from. The whole piece has the air of “conventional politics“
I can see how someone would see that. For me, the first thing that stood was how unconventional the candidate really is, even compared to his own, presumably super MAGA, team.
but at the same time, from an outside perspective, it looks like the whole party has been thoroughly streamlined towards their leader in the past 8 years.
It really does, doesn't it? Of course there's a major contingent that isn't still - ranging from those who are endorsing Harris to folks like Mitt Romney who believe in a post-MAGA GOP.
And a cult of MAGA would probably not resemble much of traditional politics.
So, we already know what it would look like. The guy is running for re-election, not for first-time election. The simple answer is that this guy went with folks like Rex Tillerson and John Kelly and H.R. McMaster in the first place because the pro-MAGA crowd, while enthusiastic, didn't have members who could fill in and do these jobs.
True, but who is Trump going to convince to switch sides a week before the election?
Well, certainly not me. SHHHHH, you don't tell him either!!!
You might as well turn up the rhetoric to 11 and say the quiet part out loud, in order to convince your own base to vote for you.
Except they were already going to turn out for him no matter what happened. So he didn't need to do that to convince them to get on board - he would have been better off listening to his more traditional advisors and keeping himself restrained to maintain the broadest possible coalition.
This is a slippery slope of course, and the outcome could either be losing people with this radicalisation or making sure even more radical people who did not plan to vote show up at the booth
.. and vote for the other candidate (Harris).
Yep, fortunately, he couldn't do he couldn't restraint himself, and hopefully not only the US but the whole world benefits when he loses - exactly for the reasons you state above.
It will be interesting to see if they can put a lid on it and return to politics that at the very least appears less crazy and unhinged in case Trump loses the election.
Spoiler alert: This won't happen. At least not right away. This isn't the first time - what we saw back in Jan 2021, we have every reason to expect again, and zero reasons not to.
And to deter people from voting for someone else, out of fear.
Sadly, I am seeing on the news that this may already be happening this election, regardless.
Also, even if it was possible for Trump to extend a hand and suddenly appear reasonable who would believe him after all that happened?
So the point of the article, or at least the claim they are trying to make, is to state that the MAGA candidate was doing really well prior to these dog whistles, and at least some folks on his campaign along with some senior traditional Republican strategists attributed it to him having appeared reasonable and not crazy. Then afterwards, the dog whistles ruined things moments before reaching the finish line.
I guess he doesn’t have a choice but take the route of last-minute radicalisation.
Again, the article is claiming he did have a choice - and that he would have been better off not taking this late-minute route. As I wrote earlier this also seems to be backed up somewhat by the polling.
Of course, just because the article claims something doesn't mean they're right. A healthy dose of skepticism is reasonable and in this case, warranted. But at least parts of it seem plausible, based on what we know from living under him after he took office in 2017, along with the recent changes happening in the polls for 2024.
We’ll see how this turns out. Personally I am so sick of seeing the orange conman dominate public discourse worldwide for eight years in a row. It is time to move on and I can only hope the majority of Americans has had enough too.
Same here. Remember he lost the popular vote in 2016? So yes, the majority was likely already sick of him back them. And then he lost it by a larger margin in 2020.
I doubt he'd be running in 2028. He'd be older than Biden is now (who is already the oldest US President ever I think), and he'll likely be incarcerated then too if he's lost. (Remember, he's already been convicted of federal crimes, he is just awaiting sentencing - I think November 26 was one expected date).
Otherwise agreed. I guess the news part is that it's done "in response to" what NK did recently - like this is an extra joint air drill that otherwise wouldn't have taken place if NK hadn't done anything.
That said, I recall reading the same kind of articles back in 2012, and in 2016, and 2018, and ... so, agreed in full.
So glad to be on pyfedi ( see piefed.social ) - which does support SVG
I could of course be completely wrong on this and I would be more than happy to be proven wrong
Actually, that feeling of being rubbed the wrong way (even in the metaphorical sense) is inherently subjective. So, it's not something I or anyone else can disprove to you or "prove wrong".
As a non-american, somehow this article rubs me the wrong way.
I guess, it seems like a whitewashing here, that the folks on the campaign aren't as evil as we'd otherwise assume (e.g. all of them being racist Nazis)?
You're correct that we shouldn't assume otherwise - it'd be dangerous to bend over backwards and assume they aren't Nazis if they really are - but at the same time, it's plausible that there are still some "adults in the room" in the campaign, along the lines of https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/14/17114444/rex-tillerson-fired-rexit-trump-adults
I have a suspicion that all the talk about public relation disasters and staffers worried about their candidate‘s reputation does not accurately portrait what is really going on there.
I think the reason this sounds reasonable is because a lot of the folks on the GOP campaign are longtime GOP folks, who know - or at least have certain long-held beliefs about - how this conventionally works.
The other aspect at play here is that they jumped onto MAGA for entirely self serving purposes even though this doesn't reflect what they really thing.
Or is it, Mr. Vance?
Interesting you bring him up. In some ways he's the perfect example of this.
Vance in 2012,
Republicans ... their policy proposals are ... or openly hostile to non-whites.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140305032241/http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html via https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/politics/jd-vance-delete-2012-blog-post-attacking-gop-anti-immigrant-rhetoric/index.html
Vance in 2024,
J.D. Vance tripled down on his debunked claims that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating local pets in Springfield, Ohio, while also admitting, 'If I Have to Create Stories... That's What I'm Going to Do'
To me it looks like everything that happened including the MSG shitshow was absolutely the way they wanted it to go. It’s a page out of the fascist playbook and it uses the same tactics that have been proven successful since Germany 1933.
I think this best describes the candidate. But not everyone on the campaign is going to share these views, as it were.
The explicit goal is to strengthen the collective bonds with voters who already made their decision and to kick it up a notch at the same time.
But this is not really how one wins. You need a broad coalition backing you to win - playing to a smaller base may make them feel good, but it's not going to bring enough folks backing you to the polls on election day. And again a lot of the folks on the GOP campaign are longtime GOP folks, who know how this conventionally works, so this mean they'd have the understanding (correct or not) that this not the direction a winning GOP campaign should take.
They don’t give a shit about angering Puerto Rican voters or even maintaining a modicum of decency in general. They are trying to provoke a mania in their own base that spirals out of control
and so far it works pretty well for them.
Citation needed. In fact there's some evidence that (after a delay in the polling to reflect the latest updates and information) this really hurt them. See for example, https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/ or https://www.axios.com/2024/11/03/harris-iowa-poll-trump-women or even https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/election_2024_harris_49_trump_48_in_michigan
This is an endgame strategy.
I'd argue that part of the strategy is for the candidate to campaign with the "principles of restraint and competence" to ensure his re-election. Only then can he do his damage.
Expose this too early and they have the issues I noted above.
The only thing that is not going according to plan is that their candidate is falling apart mentally
Hmm .. perhaps he's failing to restrain himself and exposing this ugly side early, specifically because he's falling apart mentally? Thus screwing up his own campaign's endgame?
I'm probably going to leave after the election results are known for sure (note that if it's very close, we might not be sure until all the votes are counted, which could take more than just a single day) - just too much traffic on here and world to keep up.
The other point is that, as the latest from Nate Silver,
At this point, there’s enough new polling that it’s hard to know exactly what’s influencing the model, but Harris is gaining in our forecast,
Reversing the past week's polling showing the GOP and MAGA gaining. So even if you didn't believe the previous polls about this, the fact that the polls themselves are starting to now trend blue is interesting in and of itself.
This. Pretty much everyone with a legal degree thinks this case is junk and should be mocked (as per the CNBC article). Alas, it's filled in the one court that would say otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping at it's lowest...
I don't oppose third parties, but will answer anyways
(1) How will you get the US to stop funding Israeli genocide?;
We already have the Leahy Laws for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy_Law
So it's just a matter of drawing up support after the election is over to push to get this properly enforced. I'm optimistic that a final ruling from the ICJ on this case in favor of South Africa would help shift public opinion in the US on this matter as well - making the push easier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel
(2), what are the chances of your proposal(s) succeeding before, say, 2075?
I don't like betting on court cases or the odds of future public opinion swaying. That said, I remain optimistic.
I am also hopeful for a plan B here - https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review - which would make it practical for third parties to win the Presidency in the future, making it easier to push for less moderate policy agendas.
I'd add that, while not strictly required, one of those total car snow covers really does come in handy: https://www.amazon.ca/kayme-Waterproof-Protection-Automobiles-Universal/dp/B09FLKGLCW
The archive.today link just points to the original article - it's not an archive