• Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m sorry, but progressives are a wing, not a core. If you want us to become the core, we need to convince people of the importance of simple progressive policies, and how they can benefit people out in their day-to-day life. Not just assume we already are something we’re not.

    This is especially important these days, when so many independents are fleeing Trump, and applying pressure to the dem party to move closer to the center to court them. We need to convince some of them to become more of us, increasing our numbers.

    Then we actually will be core. We can’t just lie about the dem voters not leaning more neo-lib than progressive, though, that accomplishes nothing.

    What is the top issue among dem voters this cycle? It isn’t Gaza or the climate, it’s the economy. Again. 63% of dem voters said it’s the top priority as of Feb. That’s a majority, a core, and not a particularly progressive position.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/

    They’re just people, though, they can be convinced of the primary importance of sustainability.

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    On Wednesday, he continued his sentiment noting that protesting is a right that should be protected, but that a Jewish-owned business should not be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

    That’s from their linked article about how he tried to stifle free speech by condemning protestors. Yet the article says he said they should protest elsewhere and not attack Jewish businesses.

    These articles critiquing him on Israel always seem to omit that Shapiro has called Netanyahu the “biggest barrier” to peace in the Middle East. They also omit that his college editorial focuses on his personal views on Arafat. Even though he opines that both sides should set aside their differences for peace, the point of that article is that he doesn’t think it’ll happen.

    The article goes on to say he made “a false equivalence between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.” Again, he literally said they should protest not in front of businesses, as well as one other comment where he said the encampments were unsafe.

    I also think it’s laughable that these same people continue to hold up Walz as some sort of example of perfection. He has refused to engage with the BDS movement and actively engaged with AIPAC (more than Shapiro has, from my understanding). He even stated “Israel is our truest and closest ally in the region, with a commitment to values of personal freedoms and liberties, surrounded by a pretty tough neighborhood.” The only thing he’s done that is remotely in support of Palestine is to say that Democrats shouldn’t ignore the uncommitted activists if they want to win. That’s a logical statement about the math behind winning an election, not a support of Palestine.

    • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I gotta say, I didn’t know much about Shapiro before this so started, and frankly I still don’t.

      But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly, 0 to 100 like I’ve seen with Shapiro.

      • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly

        I think that’s a pretty natural consequence of:

        1. Reports that he is the front-runner to be Harris’s vice-presidential pick (which pretty naturally takes someone from “who?” to the topic of national discussion); and

        2. The Philadelphia Inquirer digging up an old op-ed where he says that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves.

        I’m going to skip over everything else that has been reported about that op-ed and focus on that one line. Because that is bonkers.

        I do believe people’s political opinions can change, and that’s why I’ll forgive most of the op-ed (my opinions have certainly changed since I was 20, and I’m not much younger than Shapiro). But that one line speaks to a bigoted, colonialist mindset that would have been more at home in the 1860s than the 1990s.

        I honestly think it’s disqualifying. For someone to think like that at age 20 points to such a lack of empathy, it’s probably the sign of a sociopathic personality.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The more folks on Lemmy complain about this guy, the more I am convinced he might be the right choice. It worked for Harris, after all.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ok. do whatever stupid shit you want. Keep thinking that enthusiasm doesn’t matter and that second worst is always a winner.

          You’ll blame anyone but yourself when you’re wrong, like you did in 2016.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Enthusiasm is fine. Fanaticism is a problem. Know the difference.

            Second worst has always been the winner throughout American history. Much the rest of the world too. Apart from that one time a Republican invented his own party to run on and won on his name recognition. Because the Republican party abandoned him. But hey if you got the stats to prove otherwise. We’d all like to see them.

            Name calling and casting baseless aspersions won’t make your points anymore reasonable or sound. Honestly it just makes people see you as a cringy obsessed weirdo. Which isn’t helping any of the people you and I both want to see helped.

    • Wiz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s a weird position to have.

      Things would become only worse for Palestinians under an administration of TFG.

      • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        And what guarantee is there that the Palestinians wouldn’t have it worse under Kamala Harris and Josh “Peace is not Possible” Shapiro?

          • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes. Absolutely.

            Unfortunately, Israel doesn’t want peace as much as it wants all of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

            Peace will happen when the international community forces Israel to return the West Bank and most of East Jerusalem (including the Al-Aqsa mosque) to the Palestinians and recognize Palestinian statehood.