I actually wasn’t considering Harris on this really at all but of course she’s the go to example usually, even though she’s now forever unelectable. I guess in my head she lost for many other reasons altogether greater in sum than Gaza.
But really I was referring to the much greater problem we’re facing right this moment not in the past. Would-be Dem politicians are right now facing battles with AIPAC supremacy.
I’ll just use Mamdani since we’re just getting things off the ground here. That took record breaking grassroots activism and was still use one upset in a long history of utter domination. AIPAC’s batting average is still ferocious.
Any blue candidate is liable to face them in some way. With Mamdani it simply wasn’t relevant to the job he was applying for and he stuck to that, bless him, and NYers believed him. Mazel. But dammit if they didn’t try to make his stance on Israel THE deciding factor of the election.
You could say Mamdani was a coward for not taking on the genocide in Gaza more fully. It’s true. But my question was specifically “is that really what we need from candidates this year?”
Because right now are tons of candidates right now being similarly put in these weird gotcha tribunals interviews and debates about allegiance to a foreign nation, albeit an ally, when IR and diplomacy is 100% irrelevant to the job they’re even running for. Is it really every candidate’s job to take a stance?
i would say that the gaza situation is a litmus test on the morals of any candidate. any candidate who would defend what we have done to others for israel can not be trusted in matters of morality, a trait that can not ever be permitted access to power in any means, and any power they currently have must be stripped from them.
sorry, but defense of continued genocide is a total non starter.
as for needing to appeal to Aipac money? if that is what is needed to win elections, then the cause is long ago lost at reforming the US via non violent means. but i dont think it is.
i think the argument is the available candidates think it is true more so then accusing you of believing it. and after today i have to admit i was lying about thinking violence would not be necessary, mainly told to not have to spend forever arguing over accelerationism. but after today…. i don’t think i care for the charade any longer
I actually wasn’t considering Harris on this really at all but of course she’s the go to example usually, even though she’s now forever unelectable. I guess in my head she lost for many other reasons altogether greater in sum than Gaza.
But really I was referring to the much greater problem we’re facing right this moment not in the past. Would-be Dem politicians are right now facing battles with AIPAC supremacy.
I’ll just use Mamdani since we’re just getting things off the ground here. That took record breaking grassroots activism and was still use one upset in a long history of utter domination. AIPAC’s batting average is still ferocious.
Any blue candidate is liable to face them in some way. With Mamdani it simply wasn’t relevant to the job he was applying for and he stuck to that, bless him, and NYers believed him. Mazel. But dammit if they didn’t try to make his stance on Israel THE deciding factor of the election.
You could say Mamdani was a coward for not taking on the genocide in Gaza more fully. It’s true. But my question was specifically “is that really what we need from candidates this year?”
Because right now are tons of candidates right now being similarly put in these weird gotcha tribunals interviews and debates about allegiance to a foreign nation, albeit an ally, when IR and diplomacy is 100% irrelevant to the job they’re even running for. Is it really every candidate’s job to take a stance?
i would say that the gaza situation is a litmus test on the morals of any candidate. any candidate who would defend what we have done to others for israel can not be trusted in matters of morality, a trait that can not ever be permitted access to power in any means, and any power they currently have must be stripped from them.
sorry, but defense of continued genocide is a total non starter.
as for needing to appeal to Aipac money? if that is what is needed to win elections, then the cause is long ago lost at reforming the US via non violent means. but i dont think it is.
100% on all counts. But to clarify I definitely wasn’t saying appeal to AIPAC, and I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to know that.
Edit: which is an unsubtle way of saying “that last bit was bad faith must-win-internet-argument behavior. you know it. feel bad.”
i think the argument is the available candidates think it is true more so then accusing you of believing it. and after today i have to admit i was lying about thinking violence would not be necessary, mainly told to not have to spend forever arguing over accelerationism. but after today…. i don’t think i care for the charade any longer
That’s already begun. Rope-a-dope is effective. We will win.