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.”
Correction, that’s not how reality works in terms of voting systems, you’d be surprised just how few people actually understand how voting systems work and why different voting systems break down in various ways and the greatest mathematicians for the last 150+ years have not devised a perfect voting system.
But at this point, you took my conclusion about how the reality of voting systems break down and strawmanned it implying people already know government is corrupt.
That’s not a straw man. You left your response open-ended for someone else to draw conclusions and inferences from. In no way was that response out of context or a mischaracterization of the initial idea you layed out. stop trying to straw man the concept of a straw man.
“Refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction” is exactly what the other poster did. My “that’s not how reality works” was the next step after “if people spontaneously see how I see voting they’d vote third party too” my argument referring to how people don’t just spontaneously change their mind and vote third party en masse.
Instead they retorted with some vague nebulous “people know how reality works” implying that people know The System™ is corrupt and flawed, which sure they get the instinct it is but don’t actually know why or how it is corrupt and flawed. Which is not what I was talking about. It doesn’t actually refute my point or the description of the exact conversation I’ve had dozens of times. It pretty much always goes the same way, as I described it.
First Past the Post always leads to 2 dominant parties, the last time in us history there was a 3rd party that won one party died and another party split itself in 2. Those conditions are what is most likely to get a third party in the US, and any amount of wishful thinking about the populace suddenly wishing up and just voting 3rd party is delusional magical thinking at best.
There isn’t much more textbook of an example of a strawman you can get in the wild.
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.”
Your talking point scores your underlying view on the discussion. When it was presented it became open as an allowed point of discussion. As a result, refuting it does not, a straw man make. -It would make for a straw man if you had not presented the previously quoted argument in the first place and you had still gotten the same response of “people know how reality works”, but that’s not what happened.
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?
Not an apples to apples comparison of primary elections and general election. Regardless that isn’t an argument against my point that an 11% undecided vote is hardly a “fairly significant public statement”. The point you’re addressing is if I said 11% hardly made a difference. Which I didn’t.
Well apparently it is significant enough, isn’t it? How close was Michigan? You’re just arguing semantics in order to ignore the fact that Kamala shot herself, and all of us, in the foot by ignoring the uncommitted movement.
Hmmm perhaps I wasn’t totally clear. I have never claimed Kamala ran a great campaign. Or that her and the Dems did a great job engaging a very vocal part of the party concerned with what’s happening in Gaza or the US’s policy in Gaza.
I have however been attempting to consistently argue that 1) they had a LOT of other constituencies to court so it was never as simple as “Gaza policy bad = lost election; Gaza policy good = win election”, 2) the general election protest vote (or abstention) is going to find out here fairly soon if their protest was worth it once Trump takes office and 3) That so far, Trumps rhetoric SINCE THE ELECTION, and his appointment choices are not giving great indications that he intends to do anything to stop the dying of innocents.
But we might just find out that the most recent developments concerning a cease fire agreement preempts us all Finding Out just what Trump might do in Gaza.
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.
Sure I wish we had those votes, though I don’t think “the gaza protest vote” would have won the election for Kamala if it went the other way. Way too many other reasons she lost.
I also hope you don’t find yourself wishing you had those votes go to Kamala as well. Which is to say, I hope you don’t realize the leopard has eaten your face, because that would mean the incoming administration actually enacting policy that moves the needle in the direction of less violence in Gaza.
We’ll both find out the answer in the coming months if it was really worth it or not.
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.
Correction, that’s not how reality works in terms of voting systems, you’d be surprised just how few people actually understand how voting systems work and why different voting systems break down in various ways and the greatest mathematicians for the last 150+ years have not devised a perfect voting system.
But at this point, you took my conclusion about how the reality of voting systems break down and strawmanned it implying people already know government is corrupt.
That’s not a straw man. You left your response open-ended for someone else to draw conclusions and inferences from. In no way was that response out of context or a mischaracterization of the initial idea you layed out. stop trying to straw man the concept of a straw man.
“Refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction” is exactly what the other poster did. My “that’s not how reality works” was the next step after “if people spontaneously see how I see voting they’d vote third party too” my argument referring to how people don’t just spontaneously change their mind and vote third party en masse.
Instead they retorted with some vague nebulous “people know how reality works” implying that people know The System™ is corrupt and flawed, which sure they get the instinct it is but don’t actually know why or how it is corrupt and flawed. Which is not what I was talking about. It doesn’t actually refute my point or the description of the exact conversation I’ve had dozens of times. It pretty much always goes the same way, as I described it.
First Past the Post always leads to 2 dominant parties, the last time in us history there was a 3rd party that won one party died and another party split itself in 2. Those conditions are what is most likely to get a third party in the US, and any amount of wishful thinking about the populace suddenly wishing up and just voting 3rd party is delusional magical thinking at best.
There isn’t much more textbook of an example of a strawman you can get in the wild.
Your talking point scores your underlying view on the discussion. When it was presented it became open as an allowed point of discussion. As a result, refuting it does not, a straw man make. -It would make for a straw man if you had not presented the previously quoted argument in the first place and you had still gotten the same response of “people know how reality works”, but that’s not what happened.
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
How many swing states lost by 11%?
Not an apples to apples comparison of primary elections and general election. Regardless that isn’t an argument against my point that an 11% undecided vote is hardly a “fairly significant public statement”. The point you’re addressing is if I said 11% hardly made a difference. Which I didn’t.
Well apparently it is significant enough, isn’t it? How close was Michigan? You’re just arguing semantics in order to ignore the fact that Kamala shot herself, and all of us, in the foot by ignoring the uncommitted movement.
Hmmm perhaps I wasn’t totally clear. I have never claimed Kamala ran a great campaign. Or that her and the Dems did a great job engaging a very vocal part of the party concerned with what’s happening in Gaza or the US’s policy in Gaza.
I have however been attempting to consistently argue that 1) they had a LOT of other constituencies to court so it was never as simple as “Gaza policy bad = lost election; Gaza policy good = win election”, 2) the general election protest vote (or abstention) is going to find out here fairly soon if their protest was worth it once Trump takes office and 3) That so far, Trumps rhetoric SINCE THE ELECTION, and his appointment choices are not giving great indications that he intends to do anything to stop the dying of innocents.
But we might just find out that the most recent developments concerning a cease fire agreement preempts us all Finding Out just what Trump might do in Gaza.
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.
Sure I wish we had those votes, though I don’t think “the gaza protest vote” would have won the election for Kamala if it went the other way. Way too many other reasons she lost.
I also hope you don’t find yourself wishing you had those votes go to Kamala as well. Which is to say, I hope you don’t realize the leopard has eaten your face, because that would mean the incoming administration actually enacting policy that moves the needle in the direction of less violence in Gaza.
We’ll both find out the answer in the coming months if it was really worth it or not.