Kamala! Fuck Yeah!

[jfish26]

Again, if you want to quibble with “frivolous,” quibble away.

if we can share opinions, I think the more frivolous approach to voting is your own, apparently cast with regard for little if anything more than partisan allegiance.

I mean, talk about a single-issue voter!

The "apparently cast with regard for little if anything more than partisan allegiance" behavior you want to attribute to me is, like other things you say, simply inconsistent with my posting history.

As I've said over and over and over, I have many issue and policy-level conservative preferences (and used to vote predominantly if not exclusively Republican).

However, in the pecking order, those preferences are blotted out, like a distant star behind the Sun, by what the Republican party has come to represent vis a vis democracy, the rule of law, the First Amendment, science and the environment.

On each of those things, roughly in that order (but of course the issues are quite related), it would be accurate to describe me, presently, as something like a single-issue voter.

It happens to be the case, right now, that only one of our two political parties has even the right principles, in my view, on those issues.

[pdub]

Didn’t vote for her because she was the weaker candidate. Thank God and Greyhound she’s gone.

Dolomite thinks CJ Giles had a better KU career than Brady Morningstar.

?

Your words not mine.

[Overlander]

My comment was based on your assessment that a Vote for Harris must be a party-line allegiance vote.

That is a ridiculous statement, and discounts completely that many of us would have voted for a Yugo 55 if it was running against Trump.

[dolomite]

Didn’t vote for her because she was the weaker candidate. Thank God and Greyhound she’s gone.

Dolomite thinks CJ Giles had a better KU career than Brady Morningstar.

?
Where/When did I say that?

Bump

[BiggDick]

Yea, that’s a horrible analogy.


As weak as Kamala was, she’s still light years better than Brady Morningstar.

[Overlander]

Yea, that’s a horrible analogy.


As weak as Kamala was, she’s still light years better than Brady Morningstar.

ok

[BiggDick]

My comment was based on your assessment that a Vote for Harris must be a party-line allegiance vote.

That is a ridiculous statement, and discounts completely that many of us would have voted for a Yugo 55 if it was running against Trump.

Since you’ve commented on this particular issue before, and since this particular issue is center to this most recent discussion, and since you would have even voted for a Yugo 55…let’s try another one of them Election Day hypotheticals!

If, in the vacuum of this hypothetical, Kamala beats Trump if she campaigns on a ceasefire in Gaza, do you wish Kamala would have campaigned on a ceasefire in Gaza?

I’d be curious to hear fish and others answer this as well

[jfish26]

Is this a trick question? Of course the answer is yes.

[BiggDick]

Trick question.

The answer is actually FUCK YES!

But, despite so much evidence she could have gained votes by campaigning on a ceasefire in Gaza, she didn’t.

Not more than insincere lip service, at least.

Instead we got one weapons package after another, even as recently as two weeks ago!

We got generally lectured about how it’s just too risky to campaign to progressive ideals, instead stubbornly stressing the importance of campaigning to “the middle,” and doing things like trying to appeal to Republican voters instead.

[Shirley]

Trick question.

The answer is actually FUCK YES!

But, despite so much evidence she could have gained votes by campaigning on a ceasefire in Gaza, she didn’t.

Not more than insincere lip service, at least.

Instead we got one weapons package after another, even as recently as two weeks ago!

We got generally lectured about how it’s just too risky to campaign to progressive ideals, instead stubbornly stressing the importance of campaigning to “the middle,” and doing things like trying to appeal to Republican voters instead.

If your take home message from the election is that Democrats should move to the left in order to win national elections, sad tho it may be, a reasonable person might wonder where your brain lesion is.

[BiggDick]

Sigh.

OK so take all the progressive left stuff out of it and keep this as simple as possible.

Same question for you, Shirley.

Which would you rather have?

Ceasefire in Gaza and one less Trump term, or not?

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

"Ceasefire in Gaza" - and Israel? Or not in Israel? Just Gaza?
I'm sorry, I don't believe for one second that if Harris said she would demand and broker a ceasefire deal - that she would have been elected President because of it.
You never answered my questions from earlier today. It's not too late. I am seriously interested to read your responses.

[BiggDick]

hey gutter, sorry I didn't answer these the first time around. I dunno if it was cuz they struck me as rhetorical, or cuz it was tldr, or cuz I just happened to read them first thing before coffee and they kinda escape my mind since. My bad! But, since you asked again, and since I wanna be a sport...

good catch, Shirley.

I too have been wondering just how objective the poll, and the organization, really is.

I'm concerned tho that at least part of what you say might be backwards, and that actually, it's Democrats who fucked "pro-Palestinian" Americans in the ass.

I dunno if voters owe something to a political party. I kinda feel like it should be the other way around.

I can't help but wonder what you think would have been any different in regards to Israel/Gaza if we had Trump or any other Republican President over the past 15 months.

3 questions in that regard and 2 questions that are somewhat related.
One might surprise you - that I am asking it.

I am asking these questions for Ousy and/or anyone else to answer....

I don't need you to answer them but I am curious as to how YOU would answer them - AND how you feel the majority of Americans would answer them. I will provide my answers later.

1. If October 6th/7th 2023 never happened, do you think Kamala Harris would be inaugurated on Monday?

2. Trump is contradiction to me. He believes in freedom of speech. That being said, do you think Trump would have supported the "Pro-Palestinian" "protests" escalating to the degree/s they did or would he have demanded the Democratic Governors and Mayors, as well as law enforcement, take harsh action against them?

3. Two part question and I am purposely phrasing/wording it the way I am so put that in to consideration when answering.
3a. On November 5th 2024, do you think a higher percentage of elected Democrats who held political offices were "pro Israel" more than "pro Palestine" or a higher percentage of elected Republicans who held political offices were "pro Israel" more than "pro Palestine"?
3b. On November 5th 2024, do you think a higher percentage of Democratic voters were "pro Israel" more than "pro Palestine" or a higher percentage of Republicans voters were "pro Israel" more than "pro Palestine"?

1B. Again, I am purposely wording this the way I am so put that in to consideration when answering.
It's 100% horrific to me the amount of Gazans who were anti-Hamas that have been killed by Israeli forces. The destruction of their homes and "infrastructure" too.
Do you feel it would be 100% horrific if it was that many Israeli people that were killed by Hamas and the same amount of destruction to their homes and "infrastructure" - or would you lean towards thinking/believing they got what they deserved because of the "crimes" they have committed against "Palestine" and the "Palestinian" people?

2B. Do you believe Israel was/is committing Genocide against Gaza?



* My answers......
1. MY answer - NO
Most people's answer - NO

2. MY answer - I do not think he would have supported them and I do think he would have been harsh on Democratic Governors/mayors/ and demanded law enforcement "enforce" to a greater extent.
Most people's answer - See my answer.

3a. MY answer - Pubs
Most people's answer - Tie

3b. My answer - Pubs
Most people's answer - Dems

1B. My answer - Yes, I feel it would be horrific. No, I don't think they would have gotten what they deserved.
Most people's answer - I like to think it would be similar to mine but I believe way too many people would answer the opposite.

2B. My answer - No
Most people's answer - Yes. "Most" being around 66.6%.

1. I'd say Kamala would have had a much better chance. If October 7th had never happened, then the Israel/Hamas conflict as we know it would have almost certainly not been so high-profile, so costly, or so controversial. But, if you want me to say yes or no, I'll say yes, I do think Kamala would have been inaugurated. I personally know and have heard from too many otherwise/once liberal voters who were too put off by it, instead choosing to cast that dreaded PrOtEsT vOtE!!!!

2. No, I do not think Trump would have supported pro-Palestinian protests. There is a strong correlation and many parallels between pro-Palestinian protests and BLM protests, and Trump didn't support those either.

3a. Tie? Dems and Pubs are both, as a whole, pro-imperial. As one of the U.S.'s closest imperial allies, dems and pubs are both overwhelmingly pro-Israel too.

3b. "pro-Israel" purposefully phrased that way is tough. I think, sure, most U.S. voters are "pro-Israel" in itself. Now, if one were to phrase it as, "pro-what Israel is doing to Gaza, well, there are fewer and fewer voters who support that ever since the latest conflict.

(wait, are there more questions here?)

1B. yes, I think it would be just as horrific if Hamas did to "Israeli people" what Israel did to the people of Gaza...particularly if you mean to phrase "people" as referring to ordinary civilians, and women, and children.

2B. Yes.

I'd be curious to see your sources, particularly for this one, that says 2/3 of folks think Israel is committing genocide against Gaza.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I'll spare you and others my quoting the multiple too long posts above.
Thanks for taking the time to respond/answer the questions!
Here are my respectful responses to your's.
1. I don't know if it would have been a "much better" chance but I can/will give you it would have probably been a "better" chance. That being said, as I said in my own answer to the question, I don't think she would have won. Maybe/possibly/probably(?). I don't know - but I don't think so.

2. Absolutely he would not have "supported" Pro Palestinian protestERS. I have mixed feelings how he would have responded when asked about people's right/s to free speech in regards to the protests.

3a. YOU answered how I feel/think most people would answer (tie). I think a few particular Dems I have in mind kind of sway my feeling that the answer is Pubs but no doubt there are a lot more very "pro Israel" Democratic politicians than there are "anti Israel" Dems.
I feel EVERY politician should not have "supported" the killing of innocent civilians - on either "side".
3b. I like your answer better than mine.

1B. I appreciate your answer. I asked it in the manner in which I did (adding the last sentence) because you have rightfully "voiced" your feelings about Israel's "control" over Gaza - pre October of 2023.

2B. All depends on how someone wants to define the word Genocide.
The way I define it, my answer is NO. The way many people define it, THEIR answer is probably yes.
What I do know is that I met with. spoke with, and listened to many people in Israel. Notice I used the word "people" and not Jews. Yes, most but not all were Jews.
Not a single one was in favor of the "annihilation" of the Palestinian people and of Gaza. Now Bibi? That very well MAY be a different story but I don't believe that to be true either. So if someone were to say "Israel's Genocide against Gaza", I have a big problem with that.
I know you are fully aware there are many people of all religions form many different countries living "freely" in Israel. Let that sit for a moment while I move on here....
Here is a crazy thought. A large percentage (most?) of the wait staff at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem are people who come from Arab countries. Nice as can be. I can say that I felt I got to become "friends" with some of them. Had very interesting conversations about everything ranging from sports, to politics, to their families, to our interests and hobbies (including photography). I would by lying if I didn't say at first I was somewhat leery of them serving me food but I am leery of people of all races and religions who work in restaurants in the USA so maybe I was overthinking it?
Anyways, that being said, as ALL the people who I spoke with in regards to "freedom/s" said, everyone's goal and greatest desire is to live in peace and freedom. Except the terrorists. So.....
Yeah, well, some people consider the IDF to be "terrorists". I don't. I will give you and others that their response to early October of 2023 was "terroristic" but then to me, every country has been terroristic in RESPONSE to an attack on their people. That's the unfortunate consequence of "war" - "fucking around and finding out".
Again, YOU can (and are free to) believe Israel was committing Genocide against Gaza - before October of 2023 and after October of 2023. I and many people I know, would completely disagree with you.

As far as my source of the 2/3 of people I claim believe Israel was/is committing Genocide against Gaza. I don't have one. It's a guesstimate. I am going to do a quick Google search before I finish this post.

Ok, pretty much what I thought. I can't get a definitive answer.