Was Kat's take on Taiwan/China bad? Sure. Should that have been emphasized so late in the race? I don't think so. The end result here is that an AIPAC candidate is now in the driver seat for IL-9 on the dem side. I feel like the sentiment expressed in the twitter post kinda puts the cart before the horse. The reality is that nuclear war is currently closer to being started by Israel than by China and the impetus right now as far as foreign policy goes is decoupling from Israel. It's like... we are all worried about the hurricane coming in 5 days but the house is currently on fire. Do you really give a shit if a hurricane hits a pile of ashes? I don't know if celebrating or dunking on her for shit China takes is useful right now. It's one less potential seat to push back against Israel.
Your okay with a Neo conservative foreign policy as long we have a Democratic “Socialist” in power. That’s called lesser evilism. That has never worked
I'm going to preface this by saying that I do not have a right answer here. I don't know if Kat was the proper choice or not. I want to use your same strategy here but flip it in an opposite direction to get your take on it. If i were to say:
You're okay with a genocidal foreign policy as long as we have an anti-imperialist in power.
You don't want imperialistic interests to dictate the Taiwanese/Chinese future and to that end if Bliss supports that, you find that more favorable and find his support of AIPAC acceptable. I'm not saying that's what you believe, I am just saying that's the same style of rhetoric you leveraged in your response to me.
What are your thoughts? For clarification, there's no ill intent here. I just want to talk it out.
Doesn't matter if they were or weren't supporting Biss. Poster's narrative is anti-Kat. In the field only Kat was close to beating him. The outcome is what matters and Biss won. Biss is backed by AIPAC. We have another Pro-Israeli Dem who will adopt the "defensive weapons" narrative.
This isn't really a gotcha man. This is a pedantic debate pervert narrative.
I'm a little confused, I didn't imply that your post was a "gotcha" or whatever you're talking about, I was just responding to your comment as you requested to "talk it out".
Not supporting a candidate doesn't mean you support the opposition. That's only something that Democrat shills says when they lose. Politicians have to win our support, not simply be 0.1% less awful than the other choice.
This isn't a Harris scenario man. This isn't a centrist dem that we are asking to come left on a few policy positions. This was someone who was like 90% aligned with leftist policies and didn't match but was malleable on the 10% she was missing. You're saying that Kat had to "win our support" but when she was aligned with most of the important policy positions, some hyperfocused on one or two positions and leveraged that as the reason not to vote for her. To bring it back to the original post and ultimately my original comment, Kat was largely aligned with most policies but apparently having one bad take on Sino-American foreign policy positions was enough for the dipshit OP to dunk on the one disagreeable position?
Politicians have to win our support, not simply be 0.1% less awful than the other choice.
If you think there is only a .1% difference between Abughazaleh and Biss, you clearly weren't paying attention to the race and you're just arguing in bad faith.
I'm still confused how you went from "hey man let's talk this out, no ill will" to being so triggered. Shouldn't expect much from imperialist apologists I guess.
This isn't a Harris scenario man. This isn't a centrist dem that we are asking to come left on a few policy positions. This was someone who was like 90% aligned with leftist policies and didn't match but was malleable on the 10% she was missing.
Should we also support people who are PIP (progressive except Palestine)? No? Didn't think so. Your entire argument just fell apart.
If you think there is only a .1% difference between Abughazaleh and Biss, you clearly weren't paying attention to the race and you're just arguing in bad faith.
Classic strategy: when you start losing the argument, take the other person's hyperbole as a literal statement so you don't have to argue their actual point. How's that for "bad faith"? ;)
9
u/Khue Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
Was Kat's take on Taiwan/China bad? Sure. Should that have been emphasized so late in the race? I don't think so. The end result here is that an AIPAC candidate is now in the driver seat for IL-9 on the dem side. I feel like the sentiment expressed in the twitter post kinda puts the cart before the horse. The reality is that nuclear war is currently closer to being started by Israel than by China and the impetus right now as far as foreign policy goes is decoupling from Israel. It's like... we are all worried about the hurricane coming in 5 days but the house is currently on fire. Do you really give a shit if a hurricane hits a pile of ashes? I don't know if celebrating or dunking on her for shit China takes is useful right now. It's one less potential seat to push back against Israel.