Red Mosquito

There are issues I disagree with the Democratic party platform on, but none of them is sufficient for me to commit to the absolute self-immolation of voting to empower at any level of government a political party that rejects the reality of climate change.

Develop a tolerance for self immolation.

BurtReynolds wrote:Develop a tolerance for self immolation.

And 1,001 Other Things Beto Says Into a Mirror Before Bed Every Night

tragabigzanda wrote:I’ll be voting for moderate Republicans in the primary, then Dems in the general

Dscans wrote:Anyway, it made me think: If you believe in federalism, is voting at the national level for extreme, uncompromising candidates a more effective strategy than voting for a libertarian candidate? It seems that the outgrowth of this strategy is that it pushes power downward to the local level.

The thing about federalism is that hardly anyone believes in it when it conflicts with their ideological priors. Most people have differing opinions on what should be handled on the federal, state, or local levels, or not at all. And that's as true as libertarianism as it is with any other ideology--for example, many libertarians enjoy that the Bill Rights bar governments from doing some things on a federal level.

tragabigzanda wrote:I don't see my thinking here as *quite* the same as GH's support of legislative gridlock, but I think it stems from the same root: Find the middle.

Eh, some times (not always) the middle can be worse than either extreme or inaction. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that split control of government will lead to my preferred policies. I mainly want things to not go off the rails with unchecked power.

The lack of candidates demanding to move the Israel embassy back to Tel Aviv is very surprising.

Green Habit wrote:The lack of candidates demanding to move the Israel embassy back to Tel Aviv is very surprising.

I mean...is it, though?

It would be surprising if Bernie hadn't signed on for that. But Warren has always been overly sympathetic to Israel relative to her other policy stances and half of these centrist fuckers stand with John Bolton on Venezuela, so while they might not have supported the embassy move in the first place, the idea that they're not going to undertake a project clearly antagonistic to Bibi and AIPAC is, for me, not particularly strange.

Mickey wrote:I mean...is it, though?

Since the existence of Israel, all administrations, both Republican and Democratic until Trump, made it clear that the status of Jerusalem would not be declared unless as part of a peace agreement. The Zivitofsky Supreme Court case related to this issue spanned both the GWB and Obama administrations. Netanyahu has always been good at establishing facts on the ground, and this may be another instance of that.

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:I mean...is it, though?

Since the existence of Israel, all administrations, both Republican and Democratic until Trump, made it clear that the status of Jerusalem would not be declared unless as part of a peace agreement. The Zivitofsky Supreme Court case related to this issue spanned both the GWB and Obama administrations. Netanyahu has always been good at establishing facts on the ground, and this may be another instance of that.

I don't disagree that accepting this move would be in effect caving to Netanyahu and moving the goalposts on the Palestine question. I just think the "facts on the ground" are clearly established--I can already hear the calls of anti-semitism for any candidate who proposes moving the embassy back, and I don't have faith that any of the Dems outside of Sanders are game for that fight.

Simple Torture wrote:I'm getting a rush of nostalgia for when Lincoln Chafee was in the first Democratic debate in 2015 and was a total laughing stock. Rhode Island forever.

Guys, it's happening:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Okay but one time in Nevada a Bernie staffer may or may not have thrown a chair

Oh dear