I think the hypocrisy is yours.
Hamas no more "initiated" Israel's genocide than Russia were "provoked" into invading Ukraine.
You don't have to commit genocide to deal with an act of terrorism. You don't have to commit genocide to deal with security concerns in your perceived sphere of influence. Neither act had justification, neither act was "initiated" by anyone but the accused governments.
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.
Trump's voters want Gaza gone
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.
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.
No. Again, there's no evidence from polling of a significant group who would do this.
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
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.
To do this Harris needs to take away voters from Trump
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.
Harris coming out against Israel will give voters to Trump, not take them away from Trump
Again. No evidence, and all the available evidence is to the contrary.
Harris must not come out against Israel before elected or she won't get elected
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.
a vice president can't just change policy against the wishes of the president. Nor do they regularly deviate in public opinion.
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.
I'm not arguing that she will or won't... only that she can't right now regardless of her actual stance.
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.
a ideal world GOP eats itself when Trump loses again and the DNC is now effectively replacing the GOP as the conservative party.
Best answer I've had yet. I'm not convinced, but at least it's a plan with an actual mechanism that isn't contrary to reality.
The reason I'm not convinced is that it would require politics to be far less Machiavellian than it is. All the while it's in their best interests to have Trump-the-devil as their opponent, they'll push that narrative, true or not. I think the Democrats will be too scared to push too far to the centre for the very reasons you've given, they might loose support to an actual left-wing and their donors simply won't risk that. The Democrat's job is to suck energy from actual left-wing campaigns. To do they they need to stay left, but not too left.
And, of course, they need to convince millions of people more progressive than they are, to vote for them regardless because "the other guy...".
But still, I respect your plan. Hope I'm wrong, and it works.
Vote the gop out to the void and turn on the DNC next.
The question I keep asking and get no reply to is, how?
How do we "turn on the DNC next". In your scenario, we've just given them the unequivocal message that they can be assured of our votes no matter what their policies are, even supporting genocide doesn't loose them votes, so long as the Republicans are worse.
So, by what mechanism do we "turn on the DNC"?
Why would they listen to a single protest, campaign, or speech knowing that their votes are secure no matter what?
I can never tell if you people are in bad faith or just legitimately so detached from a realistic view of politics that that sounds profound to you.
I have to limp my ass and beg people door to door just to fucking vote against fascism.
Rather than beg your party to adopt the policies all the data shows would actually win then this election?
What on earth makes you think the best 'evelenth hour' strategy is to try and persuade thousands of people to vote, but that it's apparently "too late" to persuade a single executive to change one policy?
What kind of fucking moron tells themselves they're going to vote for Trump because Harris might continue to support Israel?
What kind of fucking moron tells themselves that the quickest way to keep Trump out of power is to try and persuade thousands of "fucking morons" not to be morons anymore, rather than persuade one rational and intelligent strategy team to change policy?
It's sickening how you sycophants will hold nothing back in abuse toward you fellow citizens (whose vote you'd presumably like), but defend to the hilt every decision of your cult leaders.
And you wonder why America gets Trump?
they should go back to centrists because they only win in the swing States when they do.
So the plan is to just completely igmore the evidence and repeat the same baseless and unsupported claim. You might as well be reading prophesies from the bible. I don't think you personally have anything to fear from a Trump presidency, it sounds like you and he would get on just fine.
No more than Kamala can single handedly bring about a ceasefire in Gaza in a fortnight.
Bollocks.
“The Americans insisted and we are not in a place where we can refuse them. We rely on them for planes and military equipment. What are we supposed to do? Tell them no?” Yoav Gallant, Isreali defense minister
All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US,...The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability … Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period" Maj Gen Yitzhak Brick, Israeli general.
But by all I've read so far, you'll ignore this evidence too in favour of your blind faith. It's like talking to a Scientologist. Pointless.
No. The Democrat approval rating among Arab-Americans used to be 74%. It's now 14%.
They have actively moved away from electoral strategies which have worked in the past. They've done so because their wealthy donors told them to. Against the bulk of the electorate, against previously supportive demographics, against key groups in swing states...
The Democrats are taking the very risk you're accusing us of taking (risking losing to Trump). They're doing so because they think they can just expect your vote. The way to stop them is to make it clear they cannot.
Where we disagree is...
That's my understating too. What I'm arguing with these statistics is against your view that the Democrats will change policy (to the right) to chase votes.
I'm presenting evidence to the contrary. Democrats do not change policy to chase votes. If they did, they would be chasing the anti-genocide vote. It's easy to capture and it's even probably required by international law.
They clearly do not set policy to chase votes.
They set policy to satisfy their donors, then they just expect votes.
The only way to end that is to make it clear they cannot "expect votes, they must earn them.
And yes, I'm well aware of the costs of making that statement, 4 years of hell. But if we let fear intimidate us, we never achieve anything. No one suggested we shouldn't fight the Nazis because 4 years of war would be nasty. We did it because it was the right thing to do.
Nice story, but none of it is true.
I've already provided the data proving that there is a massive pool of voters ready to vote Democrat if they renounce genocide, but further to that data, here is more data specifically about the swing state Michigan which is a key state of the exact type you describe. The 'uncommitted' campaign specifically promises thousands of votes specifically on an anti-genocide ticket and the potentially election-deciding Arab-American demographic have dropped in Democrat support specifically on this issue.
Your argument is just post hoc storytelling to provide a reasonable sounding justification for the position you've nailed your flag to, but it's wrong. You've provided no data to support it and the data that is available shows the opposite.
Edit: forgot the 'uncommitted' link https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68427304
Well, no, it doesn't mean that either, but I get the point anyway. You're not here to defend your position, that's fine. It's not obligatory.
It's a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.
It's not, though. That's the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it's not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It's the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It's normal to check one's opinion is reasonable, we don't all arrive at an issue with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you're lying to yourself.
Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it's not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.
So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn't matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.
If he does "do his research" and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it's someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are
So damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
You're familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?
dissent with bad information is just poor form
It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is 'bad', in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was 'bad', so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it's bad when that's the very point of disagreement is begging the question.
"despite increasingly popular opinion" is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what?
I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.
Addendum:
Basically, some people's initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They're lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won't have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.
Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.
Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US's many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.
Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they're spouting.
But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.
Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim
Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.
Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Propaganda isn't just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don't just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they'll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).
Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view.
That's true it isn't. But you've no evidence at all that this is what's happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.
If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.
It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).
Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action.
No, it isn't. Because whether a cause is a 'real' cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider 'real' into a discussion about which causes are 'real'. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.
To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this
As before, you've no evidence this hasn't been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.
You want to get all script-flippy about "sPeAkiG diSsEnT" when the people "dissenting" don't know what the actual fuck they are posting with.
Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn't make it go away.
Look up 'empirical'. It doesn't mean 'point of view I agree with'.