Ephoron

Indeed.

Four step process to uncontested neoliberal corporate bliss...

1. Set up a folk-devil who must be stopped at all costs.
2. Promote the idea that anyone even vaguely progressive must vote for you even if they disagree with you, in order to keep the folk-devil out.
3. Promise to support literal genocide, and watch as your scheme has self-identified leftists falling over themselves spending the majority of their energy in-fighting with other leftists to ensure you have the power to make good on that promise.
4. Enjoy your retirement on million dollar public speaking engagements and corporate executive positions.

Local politicians > work way into DNC primary machine

Sounds very cloak-and-dagger. Aren't these systems largely democratic? If so, why aren't they caught in the same trap, they have to give their votes to the least worst candidate?

There's not enough of us yet.

"Yet"? From when? The beginning of the socialist movement? Is there a point in time you begin to question this slow-and-steady policy? 100 years? 1000?

Is there some threshold at which you might begin to look at the utter failure of such a process, it's total and utter net support for the status quo and start to question who really benefits?

Because if that day ever comes, you might take a glance at the media promoting such a view and the degree to which their owners and sources of revenue benefit from exactly the outcome this policy results in.

But I'm not holding my breath. Experience has taught me that people these days seems quite happy to believe that when powerful forces get exactly the results which benefit them most, it's most likely to be a completely fortuitous coincide and anything else is just conspiracy theory.

I got the point. Just not the mechanism. It's all very well to hand-waive vaguely toward 'grassroots work', but its far from clear how, under the voting policy in question, this will affect anything.

Let us say our grassroots campaign went really well and we get some great local politicians. Now what?

They advise Kamala (or her replacement) to drop support for genocide? Why would she listen? They're going to be in no different a position to us, they have to vote in her favour no matter what all the while there's a worse person on the ballot.

And why would anyone even advise it in the first place when leftist votes are guaranteed anyway? It'd be political insanity to risk loosing the centrist vote for no gain.

So, explain the mechanism. We get a great local politician and she does what....?

Well, if you consider your conclusions to be facts, not theories then what are you doing here? This is a forum for discussing the item in the OP. You can't discuss facts, they're merely presented. I fear you have this place confused with a schoolroom. If you want to present facts, write a textbook.

But this discussion isn't about grassroots or local politicians. Following the logic espoused in the OP you'd turn out in droves to vote for a local politician who offers policies you agree with.

This discussion is about the presidential election and what to do about two candidates who both actively support genocide.

One could conceivably not vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians, or... You could vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians.

Talking about whether or not to vote for Kamala has no bearing on what you then do at a local level.

And if that local-level politician doesn't offer policies you like, same logic. Why would they ever do so if they're guaranteed your vote anyway?

What's at stake here is people actively arguing that we should just guarantee one political party our votes, no matter what their policies are, out of blind faith.

That's not a democracy, it's a theocracy.

Your post seems to be attached as a response to mine. Since it addresses nothing in my post, I can only assume this was a mistake?

That's a reasonable argument, but it leads to some pretty uncomfortable conclusions for democracy.

During our next "leftist organizing for the next several years.", why would the Democrats budge an inch given that they know all they need to do is hold fast until the last 90 days and we'll all fall into line and vote for them anyway?

We end up like the boy who cries wolf. All our protest and campaigns mean nothing because our votes are, in the end, absolutely guaranteed. The Democrats can have whatever policy positions they like.

I don't see how 4 years or 4 days makes any difference. If they are guaranteed your vote come election day, they have no reason to shift policy in order to obtain it.

when I am confronted with new information, I add that into my belief system and my belief system changes accordingly

You've misunderstood the paper

It's not about information. The argument is about disagreement among epistemic peers. We all have the same information. You've not provided any information I didn't already know. I've not provided any information you didn't already know. We've been exchanging theories, not information.

The paper is about the status of disagreement in conclusions based on the same information.

As I said in my other comment, if you really can't tell the difference between a theory and the facts on which it is based, then we can't possibly have a rational discussion since rational discussion is premised entirely on that distinction.

We don't discuss facts, we demonstrate them by the presentation of evidence. We discuss theories drawn from those facts.

you have no reason not to vote for Harris except that you want people to pay attention to you.

Yes. I want the Democrats to pay attention to me and change their policy. I'm asking why that is not the normal function of democracy.

you are still not understanding that the US does not have the power over the Palestinian genocide you believe they have.

Still at it then? This is why I gave you the paper. Me disagreeing with you about a conclusion is not equivalent to me not understanding. Whether America can influence Israel in this matter is not an established fact like the shape of the earth or 2+2=4. It's an opinion. People disagreeing with you haven't failed to understand something, they disagree.

protests. letters to senators and other politicians. political parties and go talk to people in the real world.

And why would politicians take any notice if we're going to vote for them anyway?

politicians are often influenced by popular actions.

Yes, because they think they'll lose/gain votes. But your advice has us eliminate that motive. They now can be assured of our votes no matter what policies they propose or implement.

would you rather have Harris in the White House or Trump?

False dichotomy. I'd rather have Harris with a stricter policy on arms sales to Israel. I believe that's achievable. That you don't is not a fact, it's an opinion, I disagree with it, I don't fail to understand it. Really, if you can't grasp the basic distinction between theories and the facts on which they're based then I don't know how we can proceed.

which one do you need more clarification on?

Same ones as before.

Why is denying Kamala our vote a "toddler terror tactic" and not just the normal democratic process of exchanging votes for policy changes?

In what way do we democratically influence parties to shift policy other than ransoming our votes?

If we vote anyway, then ask them to change policy, what incentive do they have to do so, since they already have our vote?

If we vote anyway, how do they know we've not voted because we agree with their genocide and so consider more arms?

(And, not a question, but a clarification - the ICC have a case against Israel for genocide. Are you seriously suggesting that an active arrest warrant for genocide doesn't change anything about this situation to any meaningful extent?)

Have a read of this paper by David Christensen (Chair of Epistemology at Brown University). https://philarchive.org/archive/CHRDQA

It's s good overview of the issue we're stuck on here. You're taking a strict 'Steadfast' position that since you've reasoned P, anyone reasoning not-P must be either of lower epistemic status, or have reasoned poorly. But as Christensen shows, most epistemologists recognise that this position is flawed (p.2).

Anyway, have a read, if you feel so inclined. See if any of it makes sense to you, or maybe opens up some epistemological issues you perhaps hadn't considered.