Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Sommerswerd]

That's because Kamala's position has remained the same as it was with Biden as the candidate. That's 100% on her.

I get what you are saying. I also see a little tension between that position, ie., what you seem to be wanting/requiring from Harris and this:

Tempering the message for the venue is acceptable to me. It's obviously silly to expect direct criticism of the nominee or the sitting President at the convention.

You may not agree, but do you at least see where I'm coming from?

 

[Lexicus]

I get what you are saying. I also see a little tension between that position, ie., what you seem to be wanting/requiring from Harris and this:

You may not agree, but do you at least see where I'm coming from?

Yes, but my beef is frankly less with what she said on the stage and more what she said combined with the absolute refusal to allow a Palestinian speaker and indeed the refusal to allow the Uncommitted delegates to even enter the venue.

The speech that would have been delivered has been made available...it endorsed Harris and attacked Trump. It was entirely unobjectionable from the PoV of normie Democrats. This raises obvious questions. Was it perhaps AIPAC donors who insisted that no Palestinian be allowed to address the convention? That would be bad enough, but I actually just think the majority of Democrats literally do not see Palestinians as human and if that's the case, then there is no point in supporting them over the GOP, as they will have no scruples about throwing anyone they l
want under the bus (including the trans community, who also didn't get any convention speakers) but also African Americans, immigrants, anyone it might be politically convenient to drop into a wood chipper at any point in the future.

The end of a story that starts with "first they came for the Palestinians, but I said nothing because I was not a Palestinian and Trump was really bad" is just not something I want to have any part in. To me, saying something in this context means not voting for the Democrats.

 

[soundjata]

^ To lead is to sacrifice (others) indeed.
Excellent

 

[Gorbles]

Can I ask what you think that would look like?

"woke is bad"

I typed this somewhat tongue-in-cheek before Voidwalkin replied. Alas:

Which is fine, ethically, but it does have the practical consequence of adopting social views almost certain to be decidedly in the minority

It looks like I was correct, despite the effort Voidwalkin took to make everything read as extremely high-level.

 

[EnglishEdward]

How many speakers were there in total at the DNC ?

 

[Smellincoffee]

Stories out that RFK is expected to be dropping out.

Harris' speech made few waves positively or negatively imo. Status quo of the state of her campaign is unchanged.

Those made were mostly activists disappointed. I continue to hope for a divorce between economic and social left. Same's the same.

Supposedly he's going to make a big cross-platform speech at some point today. I think it's happening now (they said 2 PM EDT), but I'm at work so can't check.

 

[Voidwalkin]

It looks like I was correct, despite the effort Voidwalkin took to make everything read as extremely high-level.

Not much effort required. All kinda obvious observations. Only one that I'm sorta pleased with myself on is noticing that changes in social structure kinda makes labor unions kinda... difficult.

I kinda doubt Marx woulda recommended them as a practical vehicle given changes in how people communicate.

 

[Angst]

There's some truth to that. Abortion has undermined their position substantially.

I guarantee that somewhere, one of the ultra-wealthy donors to the Republican party is furious at their focus on social issues undermining their electoral chances.

it's actually how nuts how they decided to preempt shooting themselves in the food with this. although we'll naturally see how much it actually moves the needle by november. it's potentially very much one of those playing your hand too early things. really stressing potentially here.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Supposedly he's going to make a big cross-platform speech at some point today. I think it's happening now (they said 2 PM EDT), but I'm at work so can't check.

Yes

RFK Jr suspends campaign to 'throw support' behind Trump

He said he would remove his name from 10 states where his presence would be a "spoiler"
to Trump's effort. He has already withdrawn from the battleground states of Arizona and Pennsylvania.

RFK Jr suspends campaign to 'throw support' behind Trump

The third-party candidate said he no longer has "a realistic path to victory in the face of systematic censorship".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Voidwalkin]

Might be the last major shake up.

it's actually how nuts how they decided to preempt shooting themselves in the food with this. although we'll naturally see how much it actually moves the needle by november. it's potentially very much one of those playing your hand too early things. really stressing potentially here.

You can accurately say that without it, Trump probably wins.

Trump really has been able to expand MAGA. Abortion doesn't solely win Harris the election, but it keeps her coalition sizable enough that she has a good chance to.

 

[Lexicus]

Not much effort required. All kinda obvious observations. Only one that I'm sorta pleased with myself on is noticing that changes in social structure kinda makes labor unions kinda... difficult.

I kinda doubt Marx woulda recommended them as a practical vehicle given changes in how people communicate.

As someone who works in the labor movement the big problem in the US is the establishment*-level focus of US labor law and the fact that union elections are all held under conditions of "fairness" similar to those in the most recent Russian Presidential election. Marx would say pass the damn PRO act and sectoral bargaining


*as in a business location

 

[Cutlass]

Sure. It's well known that American organized labor isn't what it once was. Because of changes in how people socialize, there's far less meaningful interaction on the local level. Coworkers aren't really socially interlinked in a way that I think could be fairly compared to say, 1978. I conclude organized labor to be unlikely to return to that state, then, even if legislation were passed to remove some of the current handicaps.

What I'd like is for the state to act, where possible, in a way comparable to organized labor, if less local. Fundamentally, act more staunchly on behalf of workers interest. I think there's broad support for this, and unless people revert to past patterns of socialization, the state is really the only effective avenue available.

So why doesn't it happen?

You kinda touch upon it here, IMO. At the organic, base level, the people most interested in using the state in the manner described above are simultaneously those most focused on matters of social injustice, most interested in pushing that needle forward. Which is fine, ethically, but it does have the practical consequence of adopting social views almost certain to be decidedly in the minority, as the first to arrive at a conclusion almost always faces a hostile consensus against it.

In effect, this is where the battles are, and remain, while comparably, far less effort is put into workers interests, simultaneously to turning many favorable towards those against you.

What it would effectively look like is a reorientation of priorities within the Dems. Less social focus, more economic focus, and critically, an understanding that the economics are presently imperative amongst the base and rightly chief focus, rather than pursuing both simultaneously. I think Harris may hold similar views as I do, honestly. Her focus lately on economics, and hesitancy to embrace demands of advocates on matters like Israel, is honestly pretty wise, IMO. If politics is the art of the possible, economic progress is really where the present focus should be.

My view is that a lot of this comes down to the Supreme Court wrecking campaign finance laws. Members of Congress of both parties now have to spend far more time raising money, as do candidates to challenge them. And the most money comes with the most strings attached. The elected officials end up spending most of their time listening to the lobbyists and donners, rather than the general public. And to have an out of touch view.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

My view is that a lot of this comes down to the Supreme Court wrecking campaign finance laws. Members of Congress of both parties now have to spend far more time raising money, as do candidates to challenge them. And the most money comes with the most strings attached. The elected officials end up spending most of their time listening to the lobbyists and donners, rather than the general public. And to have an out of touch view.

A good example of this is the guy AOC replaced. He wanted to schmooze up to donors instead of a debate with AOC and that angered the people under his jurisdiction enough to vote AOC in.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Marx would say pass the damn PRO act and sectoral bargaining

I sorta agree, but I also sorta doubt he'd look at the current social and political environments and say yep that'll happen.

Political environment captured by the rich. Reasons mentioned directly above.

Social environment is disconnected. At my last job, I knew guys workin there 15 years that didn't have any friends. Wasn't anything wrong with them. Just didn't occur organically. Interests too varied, and pursued in online groups. Without real cohesion, it's difficult to find a group that can summon the will to struggle against the dirty tricks.

I think if you had that cohesion, locally, you'd see a will of the people pretty irresistible. So many writing congressmen is a chorus eventually heard. The will isn't there. Local consciousness is basically done. People don't talk enough to care enough about the group. Just clock in, quiet quit, see how much shuffling you can get away with, only worry about yourself, clock out. I have trouble envisioning that population passionate enough about something like sectional bargaining to overcome political capture, especially when that trusted local voice doesn't exist to inform them of it.. because there aren't any of those left out there. They're lost online too.

Directly moving most of what unions do directly to politics makes a ton of sense to me. It would hypothetically bypass a lot of the blocks caused by how socialization is occurring, by moving the ideas into the larger online consciousness imo.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I would suggest the compounding growth of labor laws demanded by progressives themselves make unions less and less relevant as time goes on.
What else is there to do after OSHA, fundamentally?
Besides, if someone doesn't like their workplace, it's been far easier to just leave, in recent years...Not so much in past decades where only a few (if not one) industries provided a majority of jobs in any one town.

 

[Cutlass]

I would suggest the compounding growth of labor laws demanded by progressives themselves make unions less and less relevant as time goes on.
What else is there to do after OSHA, fundamentally?
Besides, if someone doesn't like their workplace, it's been far easier to just leave, in recent years...Not so much in past decades where only a few (if not one) industries provided a majority of jobs in any one town.

Labor laws have been going backwards in the US for over 40 years now...

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Got it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, but my beef is frankly less with what she said on the stage and more what she said combined with the absolute refusal to allow a Palestinian speaker and indeed the refusal to allow the Uncommitted delegates to even enter the venue.

The speech that would have been delivered has been made available...it endorsed Harris and attacked Trump. It was entirely unobjectionable from the PoV of normie Democrats. This raises obvious questions. Was it perhaps AIPAC donors who insisted that no Palestinian be allowed to address the convention?

There was no way the Palestinian speaker was going to stick to the prepared/disclosed remarks and the DNC would have been fools to believe that they would stick to it. Obviously they were going to give some spicy shots and use the platform to take either Israel or the administration to task, or both. My hot take on that is that they didn't trust the speakers to stay on message, as opposed to saying something off-script and controversial and they didn't want to take the risk, because once the person was up there speaking, if they started condemning the US or calling for an embargo of Israel, or something like that, it was going to be a disastrous lose-lose situation... they could take the egg-on-face, and let the person give their off-script taking to task of the US, Biden, Harris, etc., which would almost certainly been met with a chorus of boos and jeers, thus ruining the good vibes of the convention they were trying so hard to establish and protect... or they could have rushed the person off the stage, cut their mic etc., which would of course be criticized as silencing the Palestinian voices.

I actually just think the majority of Democrats literally do not see Palestinians as human

That's pretty... I don't know... I'll just say its not reasonable and leave it at that. Since the rest of what you say is premised on that, I add that I disagree with that as well.

I get that your perspective is that the Democrats are not doing enough to respect and protect the human rights of the Palestinians. The people of Gaza are being mistreated, killed, bombed and oppressed and the US continues to supply arms to its ally, who is perpetrating this killing and oppression. I think the US efforts to broker a ceasefire are genuine. I think that they are lacking a partner in Israeli leadership, because Netanyahu is hoping Trump wins, so he can continue the War with no more US pressure, arms stoppages, sanctions, etc., that he has had to endure under the current administration. Once Trump wins, Netanyahu can just remove the Palestinians at will, then go after the next Arab neighbor, with full throated US support and no whiff of truces, ceasefires, or any other such impediments.

 

[Lexicus]

That's pretty... I don't know... I'll just say its not reasonable and leave it at that.

The irony of saying this after you started your post by saying Palestinians cannot be trusted to stay on-script is not lost on me.

Imagine if someone said the DNC would be fools to have a black speaker on the stage because they couldn't be trusted not to try to start a "defund the police" chant. Just an incredibly disgusting and disappointing thing to say.

Anyway I think this reflected general opinion on the floor in that arena:

I think the US efforts to broker a ceasefire are genuine.

The US has been telling the same lies about "peace" for about as long as I've been alive. This is how we got Hamas and to October 7th in the first place.

You should reflect on your own evident prejudice against the Palestinians and how refusal to give people a damn thing even when they play by all the rules results in outbreaks of violence.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

There was no way the Palestinian speaker was going to stick to the prepared/disclosed remarks and the DNC would have been fools to believe that they would stick to it. Obviously they were going to give some spicy shots and use the platform to take either Israel or the administration to task, or both. My hot take on that is that they didn't trust the speakers to stay on message, as opposed to saying something off-script and controversial and they didn't want to take the risk, because once the person was up there speaking, if they started condemning the US or calling for an embargo of Israel, or something like that, it was going to be a disastrous lose-lose situation... they could take the egg-on-face, and let the person give their off-script taking to task of the US, Biden, Harris, etc., which would almost certainly been met with a chorus of boos and jeers, thus ruining the good vibes of the convention they were trying so hard to establish and protect... or they could have rushed the person off the stage, cut their mic etc., which would of course be criticized as silencing the Palestinian voices.

That's pretty... I don't know... I'll just say its not reasonable and leave it at that. Since the rest of what you say is premised on that, I add that I disagree with that as well.

I get that your perspective is that the Democrats are not doing enough to respect and protect the human rights of the Palestinians. The people of Gaza are being mistreated, killed, bombed and oppressed and the US continues to supply arms to its ally, who is perpetrating this killing and oppression. I think the US efforts to broker a ceasefire are genuine. I think that they are lacking a partner in Israeli leadership, because Netanyahu is hoping Trump wins, so he can continue the War with no more US pressure, arms stoppages, sanctions, etc., that he has had to endure under the current administration. Once Trump wins, Netanyahu can just remove the Palestinians at will, then go after the next Arab neighbor, with full throated US support and no whiff of truces, ceasefires, or any other such impediments.

You telling me the DNC cannot find one Palestinian-born person who could oppose both Israel's actions and the existence of Hamas?
Perhaps there are some, though perhaps not too many...