Couldn’t you say the same for the Republicans, or any party for that matter? ie, “Join them and if enough people like you join them they’ll change.”

Realistically, some new political operator isn’t going to get any relevant positions. And nobody with the relevant positions will listen to a new political operator.

That may work in theory but it’s basically saying to create a new Demcratic party from within.

What would joining consist of?

Register as Democrats? Vote whoever they tell you to vote for?

What would “in” consist of?

Democrats had both houses and the Oval Office in 2021. The Democrats were as “in” as they can reasonably expect to get unless we want to go back to 2011 when the Democrats had all that and a supermajority.

What was stopping him from doing something now? Who forced him to send more arms to Israel?

And how is the Democrats ability to do the right thing inhibited in any way by people complaining about a CEO supporting genocide?

These arguments sound a lot like when my 10 year old tells me that they’ll stop watching video games and do their homework as soon as I stop nagging them. That’s nonsense. They do their homework when I take the laptop away and tell them they can’t have it back until the homework is done.

In what way are the “Democrats and liberals” changing the situation from the inside?

Biden just approved another $680m arms package. That should be condemned, not celebrated. Acts that support this genocide should also be condemned, rather than celebrated.

It’s completely disingenuous to refer to it as just “visiting family.”

He was the one who decided to post a photo op in Tel Aviv. His previous posts make it clear that he knew he was doing so right next to an active genocide. According to the article, pro-Israelis interpreted it as an endorsement of Israeli policy.

Reasonable people still have boundaries. Reasonable people don’t “hold their nose” at genocide. Reasonable people stop believing in empty promises when every Israeli atrocity is rewarded with praise and unwavering support.

If any part of the left is OK with genocide the right is already winning and the only hope is to split with them.

It’s the timing.

Israel is currently engaged in a genocide. Some guy talking about how much they love all the beautiful things about Germany in 1942 would get down voted to hell too.

Your post completely ignore my first and main sentence.

It’s the timing that makes you an asshole, not your sentiment.

Israel is currently engaging in genocide. I know it. The UN knows it. Dogs know it.

Timing matters. I have family in Austria. I like a lot of things about Austria and I also don’t approve of a lot of things the government does and did.

If someone were to have voiced that sentiment loudly in 1942, they’d probably be an asshole.

As near as I can tell, he has a lot of money but he’s several orders of magnitude away from billionaire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Net_worth

I don’t need to guess. I know from having been to China and having talked to people.

It’s mostly a combination of 3 things:

1. Tons of infrastructure. If you decide to start manufacturing some random thing you can easily get all the stuff you need to get started.
2. Regulations are generally very favorable to small startups and businesses. This is partly why so much of the stuff on Temu is crap.
3. A huge population. That’s the main source of ultra cheap labor. Farmers in rural China can still make as little as $1.90 per day. All a factory owner needs to offer is more than that and they’ll have a line of applicants.

The thing is that it’s not PURE crap.

It’s kind of like going to a flea market. Most of it is crap and you can still find some decent and good stuff that’s way cheaper than it should be.

In other news, exponents make things big.

Any time you have an X>1 and a big n, X^n gets huge.

X=26 (if we ignore punctuation, spaces, and capitalization).
N=130,000

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

I just read that list. As near as I can tell they put a lot of words in that don’t actually promise anything helpful. Maybe I’m wrong.

Let’s make it as easy as possible to show this plan in a good light. Instead of finding one bad bullet point in that list and tearing it up, let’s see if we can find one good one.

Out of that entire list, which bullet point do you think has the best chance to actually “counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate?”

edit: grammar

I’m also offended by Israeli war crimes but I don’t think that’s an accurate assessment.

As far as I can tell, the Israeli military is very good at violence. They’re extremely well equipped, they have superb training, and their military personnel tend to be dedicated to their cause.

The main problem isn’t their ability to kill and destroy, it’s their indiscriminate use of that ability.

It’s a valid question and I’m sure the Harris campaign has spent considerable resources trying to get a good estimate of that number.

It’s pretty insane that the Democratic party officials have to say, “We’d love to stop funding a genocide but our members won’t vote for us if we do that.”

Charity is about who benefits, not about who decides how to provide that benefit.

The idea of choosing a charity based on the donor’s will of how it will get spent describes almost all types of charity. If someone donates to any charity at all, they have made a choice on how to allocate their resources and they just take it on faith that that’s the people who need it the most.

Furthermore, any given dollar of his can only be spent once. The money he spent on himself enriches himself. It’s a considerable amount of money but it’s a tiny fraction of the money he controls. Any dollar he gives away can’t be spent to enrich himself.

Finally, Buffet has donated over $57 billion. How is he supposed to distribute that? Fly a plane around the country and dump cash out the window? Send a huge check to the IRS? Give it all to your favorite charity? The obvious answer is that he sets up an organization that will analyze existing charities for need and effectiveness and then distributes his assets accordingly.

That would be true if he were secretly using those charities to enrich himself but there’s no evidence of that at all.