quote:

Shapiro -- Will lose all those unhappy with Biden's handling of the war in Gaza.

Walz's position on the war is the same as Shapiro's. But Shapiro is Jewish. Therefore, opposing his candidacy on this basis alone is anti-semitism.

I don't hear anyone worried about losing those unhappy about the rise of anti-semitism in America.

I like everything I've seen about Walz. He seems like a truly compassionate human being. And he has some great zingers against Trump/Vance that will surely help the campaign. And I know virtually nothing about Shapiro and certainly wouldn't back him just because he's Jewish. So why is ok to nix him just because he's Jewish?

I'm sure there are better reasons Walz was chosen over Shapiro--for one, he's not a rising star, as I've heard Shapiro is, and so perhaps better suited to playing second fiddle.

Just pointing out the blatant anti-semitism on the rise among certain Leftists. Rejecting Shapiro on this basis alone is just further proof of it.

Oh, and the Christmas video is really cute.

pique--trying to imagine how a hannukah video would go over with the electorate.

No compassionate human being approves of genocide. FFS.

Right. And they don't. And FYI, Daniel, based on your recent posts, I am putting you on ignore. Don't bother addressing me here again.

Israel is committing genocide. Put me in ignore. It will change nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
Political theater, Bernard. The potential voters Biden lost because of the genocide will not vote for his VP. You'll see.

Anyone who Biden lost over this issue was irretrievably lost ... unless the Democrats nominated a candidate who would lose by a landslide in November over that and other issues.

The far more important point: there are two choices in November. Harris and Trump. There are no other choices. And Trump is worse on the Palestinian issue. So, if the Palestinian issue is the only issue someone thinks matters, and if someone thinks Harris is bad on that issue, the choices are bad and worse. It's a comparative choice. The ideal candidate on the Palestinian issue, from the pro-Palestinian side, isn't on the ballot.

And there are many other important issues ... women's rights, health care, taxes, Ukraine, the environment ... where Harris is right and Trump is wrong.

Not to choose is to imagine that they are equivalent, and that's so far from the case, it's comical. They're not even equivalent on the Palestinian issue, let alone everything else.

The polling suggests that at least some people who disliked Biden's position on Palestine are coming around on Harris. Biden was behind in Michigan, where there is a proportionately larger Muslim population ... Harris seems to be making inroads there.

I know I'm repeating myself, but for Harris to lose a potential voter over the Palestine issue requires a few things: (1) they have to believe that Palestine is the most important issue, indeed perhaps the only important issue, and that a candidate's position on Palestine will swing their vote, regardless of their position on every other issue; (2) they have to believe that Harris's position on Palestine is wrong; (3) they have to believe one of two other things: either (A) she's just as bad as Trump on that issue, or (B) she's so bad on the Palestine issue that they will sit the election out (or vote for a third party, which is the equivalent of not voting, for purposes of deciding this election) and let the rest of the country decide who will be President. That potential voter is saying, I defer to everyone else, and almost all of you ... the people who are voting ... don't care as much about Palestine as I do. So you people make the decision. That makes no sense to me.

I've picked up this analogy from someone else, but it works. (The you in the following could be anyone.) Your house is on fire. If someone shows up with a hose and is ready to help you put out the fire, you don't quiz them about their positions and then tell them to go away, you'll wait for someone you like better. You put out the damn fire.

Or you watch your house burn down and revel in the purity of your moral position that you don't accept help from someone whose views don't align entirely with yours. You're left with a pile of ashes, and maybe the whole neighborhood burned down when the fire raged out of control, but you stayed 100% consistent by refusing to accept help from someone who disagrees with you on something you thought important, so you have that going for you. Which is nice.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
Political theater, Bernard. The potential voters Biden lost because of the genocide will not vote for his VP. You'll see.

Maybe Kalama will sway them. I have faith. She has already messaged in ways that Biden did not. IMO, one of Biden's big problems was being too sheltered. I think we now know why that was so.

[I'm using 'you' in the following to stand in for 'those who can't morally vote for [whomever], not you, personally]

It might help to remember that 3/4th of the Israeli population want Netanyahu gone. Trump will only bolster Netanyahu's position. You could cast your vote for those Israeli citizens. Think of the people, not the "leaders"; the innocent people on all sides. You'll still be free after the election to have your voices heard. Your right to protest will not be taken away because you voted. But if you don't vote, what will you have done to earn the right to protest? You will have contributed to making things worse, and that is hard to reconcile with a moral stance.

quote:

Anyone who Biden lost over this issue was irretrievably lost ...

quote:

The polling suggests that at least some people who disliked Biden's position on Palestine are coming around on Harris.

QuirtEvans, can you help me understand the seeming contradiction in these two statements? I don't agree with the first. I tend to agree with the second.

Put against each other, they do look inconsistent. Let me try to clarify.

I think there are people who disliked Biden's position on Palestine, and were registering that dislike in polling. I believe that some of them would have come around by Election Day to realize that one candidate was better than the other, regardless of how they felt about the Palestine issue.

And then I think there is a segment of the left that has lost all perspective and has concluded that, if a candidate doesn't meet their Palestine litmus test, they won't vote for them, regardless of other issues.

I think the first group is coming around now, in polling. And I think that, given the mob mentality, when some of their compatriots see part of the left moving toward Harris, others will lose their fervor and come around, too.

But, there's another group that is, as I say, irretrievably lost. It's the group that will never vote for anyone who isn't with them on Palestine. It's part of the group that cost us the 2016 election. I also think that, if it wasn't Palestine, it would be something else (defund the police! Cancel student debt! Reparations for native Americans!). It's the group that cannot understand that half a loaf is better than decades of no loaves.

love your house-on-fire analogy, Quirt. Spot on.

I would say yes definitely genocide is a litmus test. You can dress it up in nicer language but the ICJ and every human rights organization and expert on international law on the planet will tell you and has told you it is genocide.

It might have been any US president who was complicit in the genocide by selling the weapons time after time, feigning ignorance of the genocide, providing diplomatic cover, etc.

But it was Biden who did it.

Of course Harris supported Biden's policy.

I will find the link about Harris I mentioned in another post.

But let's put me, what I think, and how I feel aside.

The point I want to make is that people who have been willing to identify the genocide as such and to speak against it, to protest it, and the human rights organizations, doctors, and journalists who have done the same have their own viewpoint.

None of them will make themselves complicit in genocide by voting for Harris.

It's not going to happen no matter what the corporate media might tell us.

Then you take the risk of getting another Trump Administration and all that entails.

Because those are the only choices ... Trump or Harris.

Not to decide is to decide.

It would be one thing if Trump were better on Palestine. But he's not. So all you're getting is righteous moral indignation while potentially making the country a worse place for women, for people of color, for poor people, for people who need medical care and cannot pay out of pocket, for people who are non-binary, for children who need decent public schools, for anyone whose child has to attend a public school with another child who doesn't get the POLIO vaccination ... the list goes on and on and on.

I have never and will never forgive the people who did not vote for Clinton in 2016 because "I can't bring myself to vote for her". Those people gave us the current Supreme Court and decades of terrible court decisions.

The people who will not vote for Harris are far more culpable. At least the people who didn't vote for Clinton can say, hopefully with a straight face, "we didn't really appreciate how bad he'd be." Now we all know.

+1 Quirt

Quirt speaks sooth

What Quirt said, exactly.

Do you honestly think a Trump administration is going to be better for Palestine? He's already come out and said he has no issue turning Ukraine over to Russia, and after watching him for the last 8 years do you really think he's going to do a better job protecting (gasp) brown people? Not only brown but Muslim??? I certainly agree that Biden has not done a great job with Israel but we've all seen Trump's playbook by now....if you don't think Palestine will be 10x more horrific under a second Trump administration you're deluding yourself.