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.
Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election.
On what evidence do you believe this. All the evidence provided thus far shows the opposite to be the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats want to end arms sales to Israel. By what twisted mathematics does gaining a majority of supporters risk losing the vote?
The evidence in question, to save trawling through posts
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.
I don't agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that.
What makes you think that, given the evidence to the contrary?
At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump.
Again, why are thousand of voters responsible for keeping Trump out, but not the Democrats?
Or, a slightly different question, why do you pin your hopes on these thousands and not on the Democrats? Do you think they're more likely to change their minds? Do you think people are actually going to vote in favour of a party committed to facilitating genocide, often of their distant relations, than the Democrats are to change policy.
Don't you think that's an absolutely devastating indictment of democracy? That no amount of voting block pressure can actually get a party to change policy.
work from the inside on changing policy.
I don't understand what this means. Voters vote. They don't control party policy "from the inside", they just vote on stuff.
If they don't, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.
And again, blaming the electorate for being moral, not blaming the Democrats for refusing to listen.
The clarity of your plan was not in question.
I asked a very simple question about that plan. Why do you think you can change the minds of all these people who currently are not going to vote, but you don't think you can change the minds of the Democrat strategists?
You seem to be implying that getting Democrats to actually change policy to help them win is a lost cause, but then have this tremendous optimism toward changing the minds of thousands of people, many of whom are withholding their vote in protest against genocide. I asked why.
I did not ask "could you repeat your plan". This is a discussion forum, it should have been obvious you might expect some scrunity of an argument put forth on it. If your intention is to ignore "naysayers" then might I suggest a discussion forum is not the best place for you to be posting. Maybe a blog, or Substack?
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?
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'.
So. Out of interest. Which alternative to presenting a dissenting opinion and sourcing it, would you prefer?
-
Not presenting any dissent at all - the only opinions posted should be ones that agree with the mainstream view?
-
Present a dissenting opinion, but don't provide any evidence for it?
-
Present a dissenting opinion but then provide evidence supporting the mainstream opinion instead?
Dissenting opinion, by it's very nature, has fewer sources, that's the whole point of it being 'dissenting', as such the character of any set of resources supporting it will be one of having "trawled through" a load of sources presenting the opposing, mainstream view.
By suggesting that any argument whose sources display that character is to be ignored, you're arguing that we should live in a society with no dissent from mainstream opinion.
Is that the sort of society you think Ukraine are fighting for?
It’s explained nearly every time this comes up.
It's so disheartening to see society descend into this monolithic, unthinking, blob.
An argument doesn't become an 'explanation' just because you agree with it.
People have made their case. I've disagreed with it and given reasons. That's how rational debate works (or at least it used to in better times).
What's happening here is people are disagreeing about a matter and exchanging reason why they reached their differing conclusion.
It's not one party 'explaining' some fact to another. It's not maths, people disagree. Experts disagree. It's an open question still.