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.
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.