How do you know it’s not happening to Republicans? Genuine question? You have some evidence to back that up?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Oglemi
- Start date
- Status
The problem here is this is a false equivalency.
I can guarantee that 99% of pro-Palestinian people care about all of those things, and as someone who is now reconsidering my vote because of this, who is a trans autistic disabled person for the record, I am hoping that pro-Palestinian movements get Kamala to actually change her policy so that I can vote for her in full confidence.
The point isn't to just not vote for Kamala. It is to say you won't vote as to maintain your leverage as a voter. The second you commit is the second that you lose your leverage as an individual, albeit of course, that matters little- it is the group that makes it matter. We want Kamala to change her policy so that we can vote for her. There are 90 days for her to change course and it would take less than an hour for Kamala to announce a policy and explain her position (that we agree with) for people to vote for her.
I want to vote for Kamala because I want to vote for Walz. But I don't want to vote if Kamala will not reconsider our relationship with Israel. We are the only country on the entire planet besides Israel (who has little leverage without us) that is stopping Netanyahu from being prosecuted and probably found guilty for genocide.
While there are probably some people who are just genuinely non-voters or whatever, and they don't understand the point of being uncommitted if they are, the majority of people who seem like "single issue voters" on Gaza want to vote for the Democratic Party. They want to vote for Kamala Walz, they hate Trump. They want to squeeze out what we can on the issue because once the presidency is locked in, nothing needs to be promised. By the time it will matter again for the federal election on people's minds in a few years, Gaza will be a golf course.
What you just described is acceptance. Acceptance is not just saying "you like it", it can be the opposite: "This has faults but it is acceptable overall." You are saying that it is acceptable.
If you can vote for a candidate, you find it acceptable regardless of their faults. You can tolerate the faults.
You find it acceptable to vote for Kamala Harris regardless of her stance on the genocide in Gaza because of the other benefits in her candidacy.
No, I find Harris more acceptable than Trump. Being "acceptable overall" is not part of the equation. There is no third option.
Yes, the “uncommitted” protests never show up to Trump rallies. They only protest Democrats. If this issue is truly a primary factor in vote preference, logic dictates pressure will be applied to both campaigns. Why are none of these protestors confronting the Trump campaign?
Because Donald Trump isn't the administration in power and Donald Trump will not change his mind because he sees Middle Easterners as subhuman.
They're protesting to push the Democrats left. Why would you protest the fascists and tell them to respect people across the world.
I said it earlier this morning but: Protesting is not just saying your opinions against people to show you disagree with them. It's an attempt to show leverage. What leverage do mainly Democrat voters in mainly Democrat states have against a Republican that isn't in power who is approximately 20 paces to the right of their policy. The Democrats have to at minimum pretend they care about civilians, so that's at least something to start with.
This is poor strategy and frankly an unacceptable answer. If this is about Presidential vote preference, the movement needs to confront both candidates and both parties.
Why are they not also protesting to push Republicans left? Why do they not have any of the same smoke for the fascists? Should they not have more smoke?
Agree with DR, 3rd Party voting is sooooo dead on arrival in the U.S.
Also you cannot compare the incompetent/chaotic mess of the US left 3rd party sphere warped by weird individual egoisms to the disciplined, direct, issue-centered and incredibly effective push of the Uncommitted Movement executed primarily by registered Democrats.
These things are night and day in terms of efficacy.
As DR said there is no reality where the American left could revolutionize the Democrats by threatening to back 3rd party—
But the Uncommitted movement WILL win real progress on Kamala’s weakness so long as they are disciplined, negotiate hard but in good faith, Stick AND Carrot laid on the table, give her chance to save face/brand herself for victory, and be clear eyed about the fact they won’t get everything they want.
We’re not going to get a 1 state Democratic equal rights race-blind liberal democracy, but arm twisting Israel into a peace process that can lead to some semi-autonomous Palestinian state, some reparations, and an end to the invasion probably are in the cards if Uncommitted leaders play it right.
Inversely, the RaikouLover Democrats of the world, the politicians and donors all have to recognize that we live in a fundamentally low turnout country, the threat of the couch is real— if you DON’T play ball with Uncommitted in good faith, you are ALSO working in a way that dramatically increases the odds of a Trump win, you are working FOR Fascism.
Last edited:
1. Left leaning protests have had the smoke for Republicans for domestic issues. It happens all the time. Almost every Fascist rally is surrounded by anti-fascist counter-protesters.
2. Because Republicans aren't a party that is trying to move left or appeal to left leaning people at all. Why would that even make sense. What is the leverage. Democratic voters will not vote for the Republicans if they don't decide to become a left leaning party?
Before you say, "earn votes", no- 99% of people protesting about Gaza would not vote for Donald Trump if he said he would be good on Gaza because he is still a genocidal person who would just bring it home for other minorities. Any votes the Republicans would get for leaning left or something, they'd lose tenfold from the alt-right base that they built up with Trump that also hate the left.
Also, it's not just "strategy", a lot of the establishment conservatives are just actually that type of person. I mean my guy, Project 2025 literally exists. The party that spent decades to get rid of Roe v Wade is not becoming a progressive party because Democratic voters don't like them LOL
3. The Democratic administration is in power. Protests on foreign policy have traditionally been brought specifically to the administration in power because they are the people who are literally doing it right now.
If you want a change in Gaza policy, you have to force the hand of both parties. If the Republicans are made to reckon with campaign disruptions on this issue, at worst it draws additional media attention to the conflict. Right now the mainstream considers the movement nothing more than a “far left-wing” nuisance. If you piss off both campaigns equally, they both have reckon with the heat and draw policy contrasts with one another.
Even your assumption on Republicans is wrong. They are singular focused on transactional politics to win power. You don’t think the Trump campaign would appeal / lie / bring publicity to the issue to win 150,000 votes in Michigan?
My guy Donald Trump won't lie because everything he talks about that is blatantly evil nets him another 150k votes. He is literally the Presidential Candidate of the I Hate Minorities And I love American Conquest Party, who is campaigning off of racism and convincing people that racism will fix the middle class!
Why would Trump lie to gain in Michigan when him saying we should nuke Gaza plays into all of his Republican base who he has spent over 8 years dehumanizing non-white people lol
It is a "left wing nuisance", it is left wing. It is a left wing take. We should push the "Center" party Left instead of wasting energy pushing the Alt Right Party to try to change its ways LOL
Also again, the left wing is not voting for Trump just because he said something positive on Gaza, that is not happening, that is not how it would work
3+ party voting is effectively dead even in many countries with multiple strong parties/coalitions: see how recent elections in UK and France required tactical voting and moreover how the failure to do so between the right and the farther right in the UK resulted in the left's tactical voting succeeding and them finally taking power.
The cardinal sin here is the combination of local representation + first past the post (especially when further amped up by explosive amounts of money in politics and gerrymandering, but these are fundamentally secondary factors), which isn't meaningfully changed by ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting is just one of the the better things that's available within the framework the US, and most countries, have and that doesn't require major constitutional overhauls to change to a more balanced and proportional method of representation to begin with.
All ranked choice voting allows people to do is slightly more visibly render an objection to the two party system, which in my eyes is not a meaningful outcome. I'm still planning to vote for it in DC's referendum this November, but I don't harbor any illusions that it's a major solution to the extreme levels of negative partisanship in the US.
The cardinal sin here is the combination of local representation + first past the post (especially when further amped up by explosive amounts of money in politics and gerrymandering, but these are fundamentally secondary factors), which isn't meaningfully changed by ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting is just one of the the better things that's available within the framework the US, and most countries, have and that doesn't require major constitutional overhauls to change to a more balanced and proportional method of representation to begin with.
All ranked choice voting allows people to do is slightly more visibly render an objection to the two party system, which in my eyes is not a meaningful outcome. I'm still planning to vote for it in DC's referendum this November, but I don't harbor any illusions that it's a major solution to the extreme levels of negative partisanship in the US.
Wrong. You push both parties left. This is how people can tell how unserious these “movements” are. There was an entire Republican primary cycle. Not one of the umpteen GOP candidates were confronted on the issue. They had dozens of opportunities to bring the conversation to the forefront.
Right, for clarity for you and other posters who’ve misinterpreted me…
I was not being specific to uncommitted. I was asking about protests generally.
Also - why uncommitted not going to Republican rallies? That seems obvious, they don’t think it’s a good use of their time to argue with what they perceive as pro Zionist, pro Israel, racist idiots.
Far better to get on side those you can, than to waste energy on those you absolutely cannot get to change their mind.
I mean, nearly 40,000 Palestinians are dead, 2.3 million are homeless and starving or dying of disease, well documented through satellite imagery, photographs, video, even IDF reports, etc etc, and you still get people on the Republican side of the debate demanding more bombs and suffering.
Why would you bother to argue with that?
I feel like you can't really have leverage against the democrats because of "Vote Blue no matter who"
This is observably false. Until supporters of the 'lesser evilism' strategy confront this fact, you will forever remain confused.
There are many people in the United States who rhetorically oppose the genocide against Palestinians that the United States is overseeing. There is only one voting strategy which has lead to these very same people cheering in crowds, posting silly memes, or doing whatever this is in support of the vice president of the administration responsible for these crimes. There is only one voting strategy that has lead to people in this thread, which we can physically read, to write worried defensive posts in response to any legitimate criticism of the democrats we are supposed to be voting for. It is the lesser-evilism strategy.
You can say until you're blue in the face that "oh but it doesn't mean we find the democrats acceptable," but all it takes is looking at the crowds and looking at the posts. It is readily apparent that this is a strategy which draws people in to the democratic party on an emotional level.
Does the "fuck this, I'm voting third party" strategy lead people down the path where they're reflexively worried about anyone publicly declaring any criticism of Kamala Harris or Tim Walz (which has happened many times in this thread)? Does it lead to them excitedly posting memes about genocidal politicians being their mom or dad? Does it lead to them, in other words, down a path of emotional investment in the very party which holds enormous responsibility for a genocide? Obviously not. This is the key strength of third party movements in the united states right now. If you are talking about "oh but they can't win this election," you are missing the point of what they do accomplish in this moment. People who vote for third party are making the decision to totally break off their emotional relationship with the democratic party. Not easy to do, as many in this thread are experiencing firsthand!
If I continue I'll just be restating points I've already made so I will just leave it there.
Agreed that American 3rd parties inspire no emotional investment or genuine hope.
It’s bizarre that your argument above is kind of like a right wing one— you’re saying in a lot of words “I wouldn’t want to support Democrats because it’s deplorable and Cringe.”
Not exactly dry emotionless logic here. It’s just a disgust reaction.
People who won't vote for a candidate/party unless they have an "emotional relationship" with said candidate/party are in a cult.
This applies across the board to be clear, as seen by people who never turned out for mainline republicans but now turn out for Trump.
Adults grapple with reality.
This applies across the board to be clear, as seen by people who never turned out for mainline republicans but now turn out for Trump.
Adults grapple with reality.
If you're a voting-age adult with US citizenship then you have three choices: you can vote for Kamala Harris, you can vote for Donald Trump, or you can (effectively) abstain.
Kamala Harris is the closest real candidate to your ideals in this election (i.e. stands a chance of appealing to a majority of US adults). If you want candidates that are further left, then you will need to persuade a significant portion of the population that that is a better path. It isn't the Democratic Party's responsibility to persuade people for you, it is their responsibility to appeal to the electorate that actually exists.
Your complaint lies not with the Democratic party or with Kamala Harris but rather with the fact that the vast, vast majority of people in this country simply do not agree with most of what you are saying.
It doesn't seem you've understood my post. The reason I don't support the democrats is because they are ruling class murderers who are currently overseeing a genocide. I don't know how to make that any clearer.Chou Toshio said:
Me commenting about how people are being pulled into being emotionally invested in the democratic party is significant because of the fact that the democrats are ruling class murderers who are currently overseeing a genocide. Which is bad.
So in my mind you have two options. Either you can say "no, they actually aren't ruling class murderers overseeing a genocide," which would be a flagrant lie. Or you can say, "no, it's actually good for people to be excitedly dancing in parties on an emotional high in support of a party which I agree is in fact overseeing a genocide."
Okay. So in your mind, who are the children in this situation, and who are the adults grappling with reality?Bughouse said:
Sounds good, and in that spirit I have a proposal. Would you be in favor, or would you be opposed to third party candidates such as Jill Stein being included in nationally-televised political debates with the democrats and republicans?UncleSam said:
Also one quick point I want to add. The argument I'm making is one that is actually directed towards DR and people who might be more likeminded to DR. I am pretty sure DR in fact agrees with me that the Democrats are an enemy and should not actually be supported (I think DR's position is something along the lines of, we're only voting for them in order to avoid things getting worse). So my argument is directed at them, and is intended to demonstrate why the lesser-evilism strategy does lead to emotional investment in the democratic party, something I think DR would agree is bad.
Of course for Chou or other users who hold a different view of the democratic party as a flawed force for good, my argument may make a lot less sense, because it's not really "for you," and so your responses will miss my point.
edit: yeah like your post below kind of demonstrates this. for DR, or other people who consider anti imperialist/labor organizing/etc to be preeminent, I don't think they could ever agree that it's good for people to be emotionally giddy about the imperialist democratic party which is currently murdering palestinians. from your perspective this is just fine, from their perspective i'm trying to make the point that it should be considered a cost that must be paid if one is committed to lesser evilism strategy
Of course for Chou or other users who hold a different view of the democratic party as a flawed force for good, my argument may make a lot less sense, because it's not really "for you," and so your responses will miss my point.
edit: yeah like your post below kind of demonstrates this. for DR, or other people who consider anti imperialist/labor organizing/etc to be preeminent, I don't think they could ever agree that it's good for people to be emotionally giddy about the imperialist democratic party which is currently murdering palestinians. from your perspective this is just fine, from their perspective i'm trying to make the point that it should be considered a cost that must be paid if one is committed to lesser evilism strategy
Last edited:
“It’s actually good for people to be excitedly dancing in parties on an emotional high in support of a party which I agree is in fact overseeing a genocide. And it’s good in part because the new ticket can be pressured to do better.”
I’d just like to point out;
Who have and will exercise more power to change the situation— the Green Party, or the registered Democrat Uncommitted Movement leaders? Only the later will have audience with people who may be in charge of foreign policy.
Who has more to push the situation in a good direction, Jill Stein or Rashida Tlaib? Easily Rashida Tlaib.
Edit: I didn’t see Lily’s second post. I don’t see the Democrats as a flawed force for good— just as a set of humans for which there was almost inevitably going to be their niche and their behavior given material conditions. A group which is committing evils, but also can be used in certain ways and that’s that.
Last edited:
Lets move on to something else since this seems to be a repetitive topic.
I dunno if linking a video like this is allowed, but it's political and I thoroughly enjoyed it - I think as a thread we tend to focus hard on what is, and not what we believe in as a total.
This video is long so I'll give some sort of, bullet points on things it talks about.
It's not just bashing Liberals, but it starts off about how Lin Manuel Miranda, Barack Obama and Alexander Hamilton were all people who had an idea: People who used words and speech to rise above their circumstances as minorities. How Obama was touched by the story deeply, and how the play touches on ideas of Liberalism.
It talks about critiques of the play: Generally, the reframing of a real event of slave owners to a play is criticized. The next part of the video is about how Hamilton does something important in American politics: It was an attempt to modernize a white myth into a multicultural myth.
The next part of the video is my favorite, and it touches upon one of my favorite parts of Marxist philosophy: The End of History. If you don't know (somehow), the concept is that people in the present tend to believe that how it is now, is just how it will be, or that some core truths will never change. This is mainly used by Marx in the concept of free market capitalism, with the concept that status quos outlive their usefulness, and after time they must be changed to a new understanding- ie. Socialism.
The video then talks about "The Event", a concept about specific events that spell the end or are the turning points of understandings, using Stonewall as an example for gay rights in America. While there were protests before, one thing that made Stonewall different was that, unlike prior protests that seeked for acceptance into the society, Stonewall and the following era of LGBTQ+ protest and political progress was more positioned around tearing the political order down for LGBTQ+ people to have their place.
The video goes on to talk about how Hamilton tied into Liberal themes and how this sort of monomyth about the culture of America died, and how Hamilton attempted to rectify it inadvertently; and how perfectly Hamilton encapsulated the Obama era with it starting scripting 7 years before 2016. It goes into the concept of "the end of politics" or "post politics", the idea that in our modern political system, people subscribe to institutions that are supposed to decide for the people what the best course of action is, people losing their individual power politically and ability to effect the results, as their only option is to attempt to get the right people who will decide the solution to fix their problems, and the populism that follows- the populism from those who believed they were disenfranchised by a "no-sum game" of minority representation. In this world, Liberals only really offered "Hope" and small change, rather than an actual clear vision of change, making for feelings of being alienated from politics as a whole.
The end of the video is mainly talking to the Leftist audience about how we may be too hasty in order to give up the potential of the national message, how these myths can help push progress, and hope.
I know it's "Just a Video Essay", but I think it's really good and worth a listen in the background of something, and I hope my recap of it did justice. This is not nearly in-depth as the video, and I'm not sure if I explained everything right- apologies if so.
This video is long so I'll give some sort of, bullet points on things it talks about.
It's not just bashing Liberals, but it starts off about how Lin Manuel Miranda, Barack Obama and Alexander Hamilton were all people who had an idea: People who used words and speech to rise above their circumstances as minorities. How Obama was touched by the story deeply, and how the play touches on ideas of Liberalism.
It talks about critiques of the play: Generally, the reframing of a real event of slave owners to a play is criticized. The next part of the video is about how Hamilton does something important in American politics: It was an attempt to modernize a white myth into a multicultural myth.
The next part of the video is my favorite, and it touches upon one of my favorite parts of Marxist philosophy: The End of History. If you don't know (somehow), the concept is that people in the present tend to believe that how it is now, is just how it will be, or that some core truths will never change. This is mainly used by Marx in the concept of free market capitalism, with the concept that status quos outlive their usefulness, and after time they must be changed to a new understanding- ie. Socialism.
The video then talks about "The Event", a concept about specific events that spell the end or are the turning points of understandings, using Stonewall as an example for gay rights in America. While there were protests before, one thing that made Stonewall different was that, unlike prior protests that seeked for acceptance into the society, Stonewall and the following era of LGBTQ+ protest and political progress was more positioned around tearing the political order down for LGBTQ+ people to have their place.
The video goes on to talk about how Hamilton tied into Liberal themes and how this sort of monomyth about the culture of America died, and how Hamilton attempted to rectify it inadvertently; and how perfectly Hamilton encapsulated the Obama era with it starting scripting 7 years before 2016. It goes into the concept of "the end of politics" or "post politics", the idea that in our modern political system, people subscribe to institutions that are supposed to decide for the people what the best course of action is, people losing their individual power politically and ability to effect the results, as their only option is to attempt to get the right people who will decide the solution to fix their problems, and the populism that follows- the populism from those who believed they were disenfranchised by a "no-sum game" of minority representation. In this world, Liberals only really offered "Hope" and small change, rather than an actual clear vision of change, making for feelings of being alienated from politics as a whole.
The end of the video is mainly talking to the Leftist audience about how we may be too hasty in order to give up the potential of the national message, how these myths can help push progress, and hope.
I know it's "Just a Video Essay", but I think it's really good and worth a listen in the background of something, and I hope my recap of it did justice. This is not nearly in-depth as the video, and I'm not sure if I explained everything right- apologies if so.
- Status