That was also part of Trump’s platform. You can generally take whatever bad thing is happening at the moment and blame it on whoever is in charge in the moment. The only time that doesn’t work is when most people agree that things are going well.
I sincerely hope that Democrats do care.
Like it or not, MAGA can currently take that attitude. They control the SC, both chambers of Congress, and the White House. If they decide to say, “Fsck it. We’ll ignore the Demorcrats,” they’ll still have all the process in place to enact their agenda.
MAGA doesn’t need to analyze what went wrong during the election. They got everything they wanted.
For at least the next 2 years, Democrats will be able to do nothing that Republicans don’t approve of. The law says that they get to set the standards.
If Democrats want any chance of checking that power or reversing it at the next election, we are the ones who need to adapt.
There’s an “ancient Chinese saying”, “卧 薪 尝 胆”. You don’t do it because it’s fun or because you obliged to, you do it so you can win next time.
That would be true if every one of those answers didn’t also strongly support AOC, Democrats, or Bernie.
That’s the whole point of this exercise. A bunch of deep red voters citing Fox is expected and doesn’t tell us anything new. When a bunch of deep vlue voters do that, something is going on.
We normally expect AOC and Bernie supporters to be very Blue. If Fox is resonating with those voters we should really be asking ourselves, “Why?”
Why is it that some Democrats hear Fox News and immediately judge them as naked propaganda while other Democrats give them consideration?
edit: grammar
Laws constantly need to catch up.
I’m not sure what law would be an improvement though. The courts tend to frown on laws that are directed at specific groups of people so you probably couldn’t have something as specific as, “When a man says YBMC to a woman she’s allowed to consider it a rape threat and knee him in the nuts.” It also wouldn’t be terribly effective since those people would likely find some variation that skirts the law but carries exactly the same message. That’s so common a tactic we even have a name for it, “dogwhistles”.
The most general form is a “stand your ground” law. Ie we don’t question the motives of the “defender”, we just assume they were right. That has some obvious issues too.
There might be something between those two that would work, but I don’t know what it would be.
People are confusing moral and legal rights.
Women absolutely have the moral right to nut-knee someone who says that to them. I wouldn’t stop them or testify against them.
People generally don’t have the legal right to do that. If someone tries that and gets sued, it will be up to them to prove that there was an imminent credible threat. If the guy is still alive, they’ll be able to claim that YBMC is just a joke and it would be up to the victim to prove that it wasn’t.
Women’s Suffrage (and additional rights) and the Civil Rights movement both had many successes. They also used many tactics and strategies besides protests and that makes it hard to attribute their success to protests. That’s why I looked at the 10 largest protests in the US on Wikipedia. There’s obviously some subjectivity to which protests are the most salient but it’s fair to assume that a large number of those should actually be the most important protests. The fact that we didn’t see progress as a response to any of the biggest protests suggests that they don’t have much of an impact.
I view the Firefly situation a bit differently too. We actually wanted them to bring Firefly back as a show. As near as I can tell Joss made the movie (which I agree was and still is awesome) because he loved the story and wanted to finish it. He may have been uplifted by the support of the fans but he didn’t give in to anyone’s demands. Fans kept badgering him to pick the series up after the movie and argued that the success of the movie proved that the series would make money but he told us that wasn’t possible because too many of the actors where on other projects. I have to admit that Summer Glau made a pretty good terminator.
Ghandi is an interesting case. He also used many tactics and strategies beyond protest and he was dealing with a very different situation. Their oppressor was thousands of miles away and got a bit tied up with bigger problems. There is also a strong academic consensus that he likely delayed Indian independence.
It’s cute that you can call me names.
Can you also articulate positive changes that have resulted from the 10 biggest protest?
The sexual revolution was the product of many changes. Cheap and effective ontraception was one of them, legal abortion was not. Roe v Wade wasn’t until after the sexual revolution had already happened. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
Maybe the point of the protest is to bring awareness to the public?
Maybe. How useful is “awareness”?
When I look at the biggest protests in the US there’s plenty of awareness about around all the biggest protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_and_demonstrations_in_the_United_States_by_size
Going down that list, it’s hard to find evidence that the awareness got us anywhere.
I could go on, but the track record for the 10 biggest protests isn’t great.
When we swap out sex ed for abstinence only we don’t get less sex. We get a surge in teen pregnancies.
I’m sure that a few, very dedicated, women are doing this.
It’s unlikely to be widespread. Sex is one of the most powerful drives humans have. We generally have a terrible track record of trying to convince people to avoid or even delay sex. Even when people believe that their eternal soul is on the line they keep having sex. That’s exactly why all the “abstinence only” policies fails so spectacularly.
There are cases where voluntarily giving up something important has led to change. Hunger strikes are the prime example of this. They can have the affect of drawing attention to a matter and raising sympathy.
I have zero sympathy.
Exactly.
I just read that law and it’s far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.
Section 1 just defines the title.
Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don’t bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in “should”. That has a specific legal definition that includes, “but it’s not required.”
Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
Section 6 mandates some reports.
Section 7 defines terms.
The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter…”
Fun fact, there’s a 2008
What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can’t find that law.
I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.
Not rude at all. The original question is why certain people behave in a certain way.
The first point addresses the direct reason why some voters would refuse to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel. When people believe they are being harmed they tend to focus all their attention on the immediate harm. It’s not a logical choice but people don’t act logically in these circumstances.
As an example of this, I’d offer our response to 9/11. The entire nation came together to pass the PATRIOT act and start a war in Afghanistan. There’s no logic in passing a bill that was so long that no one in congress could have read it before voting on it. It’s hard to argue for the logic of invading Afghanistan. There wasn’t really an objective (besides “get OBL”, who we later ended up assassinating in an other country) and in retrospect it’s certainly clear that it caused far more harm than good. But we were in an emotional state. The people watching their relatives getting bombed in Gaza are in a similarly emotional state.
The second point addresses why Democrats attempts to convince them are failing so spectacularly. Getting someone to vote for your preferred candidate is an exercise in persuasion. Much has been written about the art of persuasion and “insult your audience,” isn’t generally a recommended technique. One counterexample is “pickup artists”. They theorize that by insulting or “negging” women they can motivate the woman to counter the insult by seeking the mans approval. While this does work on some small percentage of women, the vast majority are more motivated to find their mace.
2 reasons jump to mind.
When I listen to people who personally identify with the people of Gaza, it goes way beyond logic. They have a completely emotional reaction. Their choices are almost completely driven by the question of, “Who is doing what, right now?” Questions of, “Who will do what 6 months from now?” take a distant back seat.
Every time the topic comes up, Democrats dogpile on them and call them morons. People will often respond with something like, “Yeah but that’s OK because they ARE morons.” I won’t argue if that’s true or not but it’s pretty obvious that line of reasoning won’t win a lot of converts.
Were you thinking of the “fairness doctrine”?
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine
It happens regularly.
I’d also add that I find everyday stories from real people to be vastly more engaging that the completely unbelievable stories I see on TV.
I’m not arguing that Russia is trustworthy. I’m saying that nuclear retaliation is a standard policy for any nuclear power.
We’d be relying on an other Stanislav Petrov to save us. I don’t like those odds.
I think a lot of this is that Republicans used to follow what used to be the recommendations of the most prominent main-stream economists. We can judge that as foolish in hindsight, but, “let the economics experts handle the economy” is a fairly reasonable policy.
2 big things changed. Republicans push more and more policies that economists consider dumb and economists have updated their models and recommendations based on new research. Even those old free market economists were not fans of tariffs and trade wars. It’s pretty hard to find an actual economist (like with a PhD from a respected econ school) who thinks wanton deregulation is a good idea.
At the same time, Democrats still hold on to a few ideas that economists all agree are dumb. There’s tons of evidence that things like rent control and home purchase credits make housing problems worse.
Democrats tend to support better economic policies than Republicans do but they support enough bad ones that it’s easy for Republicans to argue that the old status quo is correct.