Yes, obviously.
If you are proposing a political policy, especially as a tradeoff for support, you need to provide some specifics about what you would find acceptable.
I need the US to abide by its own laws and not sell/gift weapons to countries committing war crimes.
You seem to be trying to figure out how much genocide support is acceptable.
Like, is it ok if Harris just sends drones and smart bombs, can we send those knivey missiles, is it ok if we just block the 2,000 lb bombs they use on tents?
Why are you trying to figure out how much genocide is ok?
Because you've specified no support for Harris while there is support for genocide.
That means you have made "how much support is ok"
explicitly part of your negotiation.
You are offering a specific trade for voting, so you presumably you have a specific price you are making part of the negotiation.
So this sounds like a total arms embargo is what you need?
Is that no transfers shipped by the US government?
Is that no sales by independent business entities in the United States
approved by the US government?
Is that sanctions on anyone selling arms to Israel?
Is that the US running a blockade preventing shipments from reaching Israel and turning back anything that has weapons?
That's it?
Nothing else?
And again, does this policy have to be declared and implemented before the election or not?
I read it and responded, you posted as if there were only one option, I called you out on it.
Now you're trying to argue that's not what you meant.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
Ideally that's the electoral nuclear option. Ideally Harris, unlike Biden, listens to protesters, her party and the rest of the world and stops the US from aiding genocide. Otherwise you are expecting people to just support genocide because you don't like rump. If Harris loses Uncommitted that's her choice and her problem. If rump is elected because she doesn't listen that's her bad tactics, not mine.
But you refuse to say what "stops the US from aiding genocide" means.
If you are making a threat - which is how you have phrased this - then you need to make demands if you want someone to meet your demands.
But this depends on you believing that the loss will teach the Democrats a lesson and eventually change their position.
Your entire proposed tactic is based on that assumption.
(Your renunciation of all moral responsibility for the result is noted, though, since I was trying to get that confirmed earlier. Thanks for that.)
Or you've been misunderstanding and misrepresenting my views here for months.
Your views have been clear that you don't support uncommitted or pressuring Biden/Harris in any form that might risk rump winning. That you consider it pragmatic to accept voting for genocide to keep rump out of office.
Not once in any of these threads have you suggested you support any action to end the genocide. From street protests, to university protests to uncommitted to third party votes.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
Have I not been posting since Harris became the candidate that I was waiting for her to make her position clear? Have I not said that now is the time to pressure her to change her position so she can regain Uncommitted votes?
Biden was another issue, people tried to pressure him, the party pushed, protesters pushed, international pressure pushed. Biden didn't respond. Now the fact that a large enough sections made it clear to Biden that the polls said he would lose have lead to him resigning. You're going to argue that it was his senility or some other issue, I'm going to argue that the genocide was one of the issues where people stating they wouldn't vote for him aided in him resigning as a candidate. That's a win for uncommitted and the arguments I've been making here.
So far my tactics looks smarter than yours on this issue.
LOL!
You still think
this is what made him step down?
But yes, you've said you were "waiting for Harris to make her position clear" despite the fact that this contradicted your previous arguments about not voting for Biden.
If the change from Biden was enough to change your mind about being a pragmatic voter, I'd have been happy to accept it.
We've been over this before.
Excusing Biden for aiding genocide is a clear example of you excusing backing your definition of conservatism by refusing to act on international law applying to Palestinians and Israelis. If you refuse to hold dems and Biden to the same laws you claim to support, your position becomes very much like MAGA supporters.
"There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Either you back the law and the law protects Palestinians as well or you back the dems regardless of aiding genocide because the other tribe might win.
That's not how that works, but nice try.
www.theguardian.com
www.timesofisrael.com
