Or we could look at it this way.

Either Harris gets fewer votes, or the Democrats get the message that supporting genocide is OK with the electorate, that it’s a choice they can make without electoral repercussions.

One of those two things will happen.

Do you “want” to give the message to the Democrats that genocide is OK by you?

Or is it rather that you’d be prepared to risk that to avoid a Trump presidency?

It’s not a false equivalency. If I don’t vote - the matter in question here - it’s not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. Harris might still win but only by a very very narrow margin.That would be a great outcome as far as I’m concerned. A Harris presidency, but clear message that votes cannot be relied on and if they want a safer win next time, they’d better drop the genocide support. Harris might also change policy. Very.much like the examples you gave, other options exist.

It remains a risk not a consequence. And very much like soldiers dying. Have you ever heard of a war in which no soldiers died? No. Yet we still don’t say “you want soldiers to die” when describing someone who thinks it’s a necessary risk to defend one’s country. The likelihood of the risk coming about clearly doesn’t make any difference to the way we talk about it. It’s about intent. I’m not aiming for a Trump presidency. If I was, I’d vote for him. I’m aiming to avoid normalising genocide. A collateral risk in that aim is a Trump presidency. A risk I think is worth it for the objective.

What is utterly false is suggesting that because there are two options I must “want” one of them. That’s just garbage. My preferences are not determined by the options offered. I could want neither options, or genuinely not care which, or like both equally. In this case I “want” neither. I am prepared to accept either. I will accept the risk of a Trump presidency.

I know you think you’ve set up some clever ‘gothca’, but it’s just nonsense to say that because there are two options I must actually “want” one of them. Anyone can see that.

So still no actual counter-argument then? You realise that just saying option 1 is bad doesn’t constitute an argument for choosing it over option 2?

I’ve argued thay voting for a party supporting genocide will create a norm that supporting genocide is OK, that it doesn’t risk loss of support. That’s a dangerous precedent to set because if politicians find it expedient to support another genocide they will know they can do so without risking their power. Withholding a vote is the only way of ensuring politicians know they will lose support if they are complicit in genocide. Therefore it is the only option to ensure genocide is not normalised.

I’ve also argued that if we follow a principle of voting Democrat no matter what their policies are, this will set another dangerous precedent that a) politicians do not have to adjust policy to meet the will of the electorate, and b) that we’re effectively thereby creating a one party state.

Note the uses of phrases like “because…” and “therefore…” These are how you construct an argument. Take some agreed premise and draw conclusions with rational steps.

Your counter-argument can’t just be “but Trump’s goimg to do bad things to minorities” because that doesn’t counter any of the points in the argument I made. You’d have to disagree with some premise or one of the conclusions therefrom, or argue why you think minority rights are more import than the consequences I’ve reasoned toward.

And it may alarm you to discover that putting something in alternating capitals doesn’t really persuade anyone of even moderate intelligence of anything. It’s not really a stand in for justificatory reasoning.

Well, the AP there doing an amazing job of promoting Russia’s interests.

Instead of ten bullet points showing how and why Swann is factually wrong about Zelenskyy and the Ukraine war, they go off on a rant with barely concealed nationalist overtones about how his work was “funded” and people were “paid to promote it”. Well, stop the fucking press. Journalists influenced by governments and money! Headline fucking news.

If he’s wrong he’s wrong. Doesn’t matter who paid him, who he paid, who else agrees, who else those who agree also agree with… It matters if he’s wrong. If he is, just say it.

Trying to play cold-war era patriotism just plays directly into the hands of the conspiracy theorists who will, as we speak be saying “notice how they couldn’t actually deny any of his claims…”

what you’re doing by “risking” a Trump presidency is potentially going to hurt a lot of people

This is beyond the pale. You must have checked off on all of your entitlements before you came to this realization. Because what you’re doing by “risking” genocide being normalised is potentially going to hurt a lot of people. Get over yourself and pay attention to what’s going here.

See how pointless conversation becomes if you just assume your interlocutor is mistaken without a case.

We might as well be in a school-yard yelling “no you are…”

If you think a Trump presidency risks more harm than normalising genocide and undermining democracy, then make the fucking case. This is a discussion forum. Discuss. What is your evidence, how have you weighed it, what critique can you offer of the case I’ve made… Give us something beyond childish bleating.

I’m not required to want either.

“Either some Ukrainian soldiers die, or Putin takes over Ukraine, that’s the reality”…

“Oh! So you want Ukrainian soldiers to die!”

Being prepared to risk something is not the same as actively promoting that thing. This is not up for debate, it’s a basic fact.

you’ll have to live with the consequences.

That’s true of all decisions. You’re advocating a single party autocracy. One whose opening policy is to support genocide. You’ll have to live with the consequences of that decision too.

I want it to be whichever results from us attempting to preserve democracy.

Our nation has taken far, far bigger risks than 4 years of Trump to preserve democracy.

Determining something to be an acceptable risk is not the same as wanting it. Casualties are an acceptable risk of a just war. No one says people want soldiers to die.

I’m prepared to risk a Trump presidency to preserve some semblance of democracy and make it clear that genocide is never an acceptable option. That doesn’t mean I want a Trump presidency any more than being prepared to risk soldier’s lives during war means you want soldiers to die.

That’s the same thing.

Your claim is that, come election time, we should always vote for the least worst party which has a chance of getting in. That’s always the Democrats and always will be if we follow your system.

So the corollary of your system is that one party runs America for ever.

So why bother with elections at all?

And let’s be clear here what you’re advocating.

In the case that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, people should vote Democrat and no other party.

The Republicans will always be worse than the Democrats.

Therefore, people should always vote Democrat in all cases and no other party.

That’s exactly the Chinese totalitarian system. One party which you must vote for regardless of what you think of their policies.

Anyone who wants a different candidate in 2028 that supports their views needed to get really involved in 2020, at the latest.

They did.

Again, your blind faith that the system will work if only the people just tried harder is sycophantic at best, if not downright insulting.

And besides, you’re the one imploring them to just vote without any regard to policy, so what exactly is “getting involved”?

Why would the Democrats listen to anything anyone says if they’re guaranteed your vote come election day anyway?

What? A group of scientists can be pressured by government agencies to make a chemical sound safer than it is?

But, but, but… It’s The Science™…

Thank goodness there was never anything shady going on at the NIH, or CDC during Covid, like them covering up funding for the lab that might have been responsible for the entire pandemic…

Thank goodness any question of The Science™ being influenced by government was tinfoil-hatwearing conspiracy theory, just at that specific moment.

The evidence is that if they don’t vote for her then they’re going to get Trump

Yes. That’s right. And it’s entirely Harris’s fault. No one else’s. She could change policy and earn their vote. She doesn’t, and so hands the election to Trump.

Yet you’re such a sycophant that instead of outrage at her, you’re outraged at the voters whom you think somehow owe her a vote. You’re outraged at the people practising democracy for not falling into line with the authoritarians trying to undermine it.

Harris will win more votes than she will lose if she changes policy on arms sales to Israel. That is what the evidence shows - overwhelming support for such a policy among previously Democrat voters and abstainers in key states.

Candidates changing policy to meet voter’s expectations is exactly how democracy functions, even flawed ones like the US normally vaguely track voter preferences.

So if Harris changed policy she would not worsen her support, nor would she be doing anything other than her job.

The fact that she isn’t will be the single fact responsible for a Trump win, if he wins. Nothing else. Every other person involved would have been acting accordingly, only the Harris team are out of line.

They are acting undemocratically, and probably illegally, backing a genocide. And you’re defending them, and attacking the people supporting democracy and peace…

That group already endorsed her weeks ago

You mean with the statement…

Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing U.S. and international human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/19/uncommitted-no-endorsement-harris-third-party-trump-00180002

Is that the one in which they endorsed her, the one ending “impossible for us to endorse her”?

I think that not really feeling it viscerally about it is part of the problem, yeah.

But my take, for what it’s worh, is that ever since Covid people have just got a good feeling of righteousness by simply repeating the standard mainstream messaging. There was a very strong narrative that the mainstream was right and questioning it amounted to dangerous conspiracy theory (which, to be fair, it often did). So now a certain class of people (slightly left of centre, middle class urbanites) have this Pavlovian response to any questioning of the mainstream narrative, that they simply must repeat it because of that good feeling they got supporting it during Covid.

Unfortunately, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a couple of coincidental conspiracy-bashings doesn’t change the fact that the mainstream media are fundamentally bought and paid for by their corporate advertisers and CEOs of their hedge-fund owners on the board.

The American press’s reporting on Gaza has been nothing short of actively complicit. And that’s not even a rhetorical flourish, it’s the view of no small number of international human rights lawyers.

Courtesy of Mr Fish

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

https://cepr.net/press-release/poll-majority-of-americans-say-biden-should-halt-weapons-shipments-to-israel/

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.