I've been a fan since Keeping it 1600, mostly of the main show with the bros. Still think they've done wonderful work and may continue to listen once the shell-shock of yesterday wears off. However I have to say, if the mission of Crooked was to launch a media company in opposition to Right Wing Infotainment, we need to admit they may have failed. It seems to me now that they've just made MSNBC for a younger, podcast listening audience. While they've done a lot to activate many of us to be politically engaged, it's not enough to simply speak to people who were going to vote for Democrats anyway.

Trump just won the fucking popular vote and Harris completely failed to get turnout. This is after raising 1 BILLION dollars and having an apparently amazing ground game. This is not working. We cannot continue to have just PSA in the top 10, surrounded by multiple pods from the likes of Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk.

I think maybe being based largely in LA was a mistake. The pods feel like dispatches from hip young people, who live in cities, and always vote blue. "Keep It" may be popular among certain PSA listeners, but is it doing anything to get your average Rogan listener to engage with liberal policies? Maybe you have an impulse to say 'well fuck those bros!' But guess what, they just kicked our asses.

To go along with the other big thread today, we need a massive re-organization of the Democratic party, and I think Crooked needs to evaluate its message and messengers.

Listening to the latest ep on YouTube. Does anyone else find it kind of gross the way Jon gleefully talks about each latest Twitter beef with Stephen Miller? Like, omg he said this and so then I said this but then he came back with this other thing but that's when I really nailed him with this line. To me there is something gross about the way some left wing podcasters and pundits engage online with the Trump admin. I think it is 99% just self serving, just like it is for Stephen Miller on the other side of it. And I don't disagree with anything Jon said. I think his heart is in the right place. But don't pretend like this is a part of some larger midterm strategy or something. These twitter fights are for no one except himself and a bunch of people who already agree with him.

Just another rich white dem guy. He doesn’t actually care about anything and certainly can’t read the room. With figureheads like him, the Dems will never get out of the garbage pit we’re in

I’m sorry, Jon got steamrolled. He let Hasan ramble on for over an hour sliding disinformation into the convo and only tepidly push back before Hasan dances onto the following equally disingenuous point he’s going to make.

I know he wanted to have this convo to “bring leftists into the tent” but I think this convo may have done more harm than good. This is a conversation that should have happened after the election when Jon could have been more than a vehicle for Hasan’s B.S. without being afraid of scaring them away.

The pod boys are borderline mainstream. His presence on the pod gave Hasan access to a new audience to radicalize by hiding his power level.

Was at Lovett or Leave It in DC last night and was surprised that Al Franken was a guest. I don’t follow things super closely, so my gut reaction was “wasn’t this guy kicked out of the Senate for sexual misconduct?” I guess his reputation has been repaired enough for Lovett to have him on? Not trying to pass judgement on whether he should or shouldn’t have, just found it pretty interesting.

Now on the other hand, he definitely shouldn’t have, because Franken was a surprisingly awful guest. Barely answered Jon’s questions, had to ask for Jon to keep repeating things, and couldn’t keep up with the conversation when all the guest were out there together. It was kind of painful to watch.

it fucking terrifies me.

Listening to the pod from yesterday, I’m kind of disappointed with the lack of introspection. To me, it seems obvious that the neoliberal order that the Democrats are clinging to like a piece of ship wreckage is what cost us this election. It is no longer the party of working people, and that’s not an accident. They try to be, sure, but first and foremost they are beholden to the ruling class and capital owners, and the guys have become flaccid shills for that order. I get that they didn’t want to be out here telling everyone that Biden/Harris sucked, but capitulating to the glaring failings of the party is NOT how you build it long-term strength. I’m really hoping to see a bit more acknowledgment of that as the analyses of exactly what happened becomes more cohesive, but, we’ll see.

I don't want to shit on the guys because i know were all pretty upset right now, but I feel like they keep getting it wrong. Lots of people (excluding myself) thought Clinton was going to win in 2016, so I'll cut them some slack there. But I do remebet them saying that Trump wasn't going to try to stay in office in 2020 when he lost, then January 6 happened and they were shocked. Why? All the signs were there!

And now this. While they kept saying on all their pods how optimistic they were, I kept thinking to myself: do we live in the same country? Americans hate women! That's actually something that unites most voters. They got this waaay wrong. This country is never going to vote for a woman, even if most people will (and it looks like Harris actually might lose the popular vote, unlike Clinton), the seven swing states that actually get to decide for the entire country would never vote for a woman at the top of the ticket. Never.

I just don't know where to go from here.

A like minded friend suggested the pod as a way to keep up on current events and I’m really enjoying.

I know I could do my homework on these questions via the back catalogue but don’t currently have the time.

What is the pods stance on Gaza?

Were episodes during the Biden term as critical?

Thanks

What I heard was a real unwillingness to engage in the idea that Democrats are culturally alienated from a majority of voters and how that contributed to voters' unwillingness to listen to Democratic ideas about the economy. Two examples:

Tommy: we can't control what people say on the Internet.

True, but it seems clear that voters associate the excesses they read online with Democrats, in large part because so few Democrats loudly and assertively denounces these ideas. This is a huge problem for Democrats going forward and throwing up your hands and saying "not my problem" isn't likely to help.

Lovett: we need to engage with broader audiences, but we can't change our values.

Sorry, but it's these values that voters do not like, and are voting against, and we need to have this discussion. If your values include supporting men boys/men competing against women in organized sports, allowing access to invasive medical interventions for children suffering gender dysphoria, or supporting ineffective workplace diversity training, then you're going to alienate a clear majority of voters across all demographics ( as we just saw) and you're starting out in an elecoral deficit.

I could be wrong, and open to counter arguments, but to me this is the bleeding obvious problem Democrats face, and PSA guys seem like they want desperately to avoid this discussion.

America voted for a white nationalist fascist regime, they should experience that.

Does Harris at the top of the ticket win over any voters that were not already unquestioningly voting for Biden? We know there are very few "undecided" (sway-able) voters left ... the guys on PSA keep talking about the Republicans blatant targeting of (for example) 18 - 30 year old men, specifically POC. Bernie appealed to blue collar white men in the rust belt ... we know the election is going to boil down to a few thousand votes in a few purple / "swing" states, does Harris help win over any of these voters? Why does our team not think like this? Or is it just "at this stage there is no better alternative"?

Any thoughts?

Edit: Great insights everyone, seems like appeal to young voters (GOTV); maintaining any slipping POC vote; winning (back) "Joe's too old / mentally not there" voters; seem to be the consensus. All good thoughts

Things are not good in the Friends of the Pod sub. In recent years, many progressive circles have adopted an "us versus them" narrative, with slogans like "If white men were going to help anything, they would have done it already," and "Support the Matriarchy." It is not just white men; I have heard Hispanic women feel totally left out too, and others. While these expressions stem from genuine frustration with systemic issues, it is wrong and politically a disaster.

This rhetoric often overlooks the struggles faced by various groups, experiencing homelessness just as example. The assumption that all white individuals inherently possess privilege fails to acknowledge the complexities of socioeconomic disparities. Homelessness is a profound issue affecting people across all demographics, including people in my neighborhood, and attributing privilege solely based on race ignores the lived experiences of those suffering from poverty and lack of resources. It's pretty messed up when my white neighbor is sleeping out in the cold and doesn't have access to water or a bathroom to say that they have even a little bit of privilege. Additionally, men face significant mental health challenges. According to the CDC, men die by suicide at disproportionate rates. Additionally, men are reporting higher rates of loneliness and isolation than ever before recorded, and the damage this does is unbelievable.

As someone who works with kids, I’m constantly seeing how much they want to make a difference, including white boys who genuinely care and want to help. It’s heartbreaking to think of what happens when these kids grow up only to be told that, because they’re men, they’re part of the problem—that their voices or opinions aren’t as valuable. Imagine a kid who grows up wanting to help, and then hears that simply because he’s an adult man, his perspective is less valid. We’re shutting down good people before they even have a chance to contribute, and this kind of messaging is pushing young people away from movements that could otherwise inspire them.

Furthermore, it's not just men who feel marginalized. Other minority groups, such as Hispanic women, have expressed frustration that their issues aren't receiving adequate attention. For instance, some have noted that media outlets like NPR seem to focus more on certain racial issues while overlooking others. This highlights the importance of recognizing the diverse experiences within all communities and ensuring that no group feels sidelined. And, mostly focusing on working class vs the rich.

All this hatred is doing so much harm. Yes, but being SO anti-white and anti-man, and generally playing the identity game, real tangible things are happening to destroy racial progress, and economic progress for ALL. There is no chance the legacy of slavery can be overtaken by telling people they are bad for being born into white skin or they are so privileged no matter what, or they need to be quiet because of their race. It only pisses the masses off. We could address real racial inequities by focusing on economic progress for all, and of course racial minorities have less wealth due to this nation's racist history, so it is a win-win.

A tangible example of this problematic rhetoric is the "Matriarchy or Bust" T-shirt sold by Crooked Media. You can find it here

https://store.crooked.com/collections/sale/products/matriarchy-or-bust-t-shirt?_pos=2&_fid=bbb286d47&_ss=c

This shirt perfectly encapsulates the issue at hand. This shirt does NO good for actual change but makes a joke about sexism pushing people away. We need to treat people the same and if a man said “Patriarchy or Bust” it would rightfully not be seen as a joke. And real talk, the rhetoric is CRAZY, with some people actually saying things on this sub like “fuck everyone except Black women and Black queers.” That is absolute racism and needs to be shut down if you want people to stay. Are you kidding me???? That is just racism. And we all need to call it out, and mods need to ban it.

The frustration is not exclusive to men or white individuals. Other minority groups have expressed concern that their issues aren't receiving adequate attention. It’s not just white men…

Discrimination cannot be a tool for achieving equality.

This path of hatred and acceptable discrimination against some groups will be the death to the left. So so so many of us held our tongues to help the cause of progressivism and women's reproductive rights and the environment and democracy and more, but if this sub, and the left generally, wishes to implode over the right to discriminate against certain groups under the guise of progressivism then they will lose and many of us will leave. I don't want this to happen so I am speaking truthfully here because we need to speak together to win politically and actually achieve progressive things.

I am not saying "pander" to white men, but telling certain groups they are more valuable than others has to stop. I don't want pandering, I just don't want open hatred against me and my family for my characteristics we were born with.

Making hatred against certain groups okay cannot be a tool for achieving equality or progress.

With no consensus on nomenclature, the media and policymakers have filled the gap – referring to variants by the regions in which they were discovered. But viruses do not respect geographical borders, and scientists stress that countries have different levels of genomic surveillance; discovery in a particular area is no guarantee the variant developed there.

“These terms risk creating stigma, disincentivise honest reporting on new viral variants, and encourage an overemphasis on travel sanctions as a means of pandemic management … New viruses, variants, or pathogens present a global challenge, not a local one; naming must reflect that,” said Dr Katie Baca, a historian of science and medicine at Harvard University.

From Nelly to Doug: nicknames emerge for growing list of Covid variants | Coronavirus | The Guardian

It isn't that different to call Covid the china virus or the UK variant ect. It's bigoted to say "UK variant" and "Brazilian variant", just the same as it is bigoted to say "china virus". They have scientific names. It's wrong to tie different strains to a demographic and inadvertently assign blame or ailment to an entire group of people. The crew is ignorant and wrong on this.

Academic literature already recognizes this and is very careful to avoid it. In Europe people are aware of this. In research labs that are working seriously with these variants, they're careful to avoid using location monikers.

This is a shit take from the pod save people.

Brazilian people are a very distinct ethnic group in parts of Europe, including where I am in Switzerland. Constantly using the term "Brazilian variant" associates being Brazilian with a troubling new strain of a deadly virus. People notice Brazilians and have prejudicial reactions. People see this ethnic group and actively avoid or distain them for fear of catching "the Brazilian strain". The Pod save crew is in the wrong here. Location naming with ethnic ties is prejudicial.

Don’t label pathogens or diseases as if they have nationalities (or sexualities, in the case of HIV). Naming viruses and variants according to their alleged country or demography of origin has historically proven effective at generating misinformation and prejudice, not medically meaningful interventions.

Katie Baca is a historian of science and medicine and preceptor in expository writing at Harvard University. Susana Bejar is an internal medicine physician in New York City.

Don't call it the 'British variant.' Use the correct name: B.1.1.7 - STAT (statnews.com)

“In recent years, several new human infectious diseases have emerged. The use of names such as ‘swine flu’ and ‘Middle East Respiratory Syndrome’ has had unintended negative impacts by stigmatizing certain communities or economic sectors,” says Dr Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General for Health Security, WHO. “This may seem like a trivial issue to some, but disease names really do matter to the people who are directly affected. We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals. This can have serious consequences for peoples’ lives and livelihoods.”

WHO issues best practices for naming new human infectious diseases

Literally every episode since the election the guys have suggested that it would be a good idea for Biden to pardon Trump’s “enemies” on his way out the door. People like Dr. Fauchi, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, etc.

This is a uniquely bad idea. And it’s amazing that the only person I have heard on their show (any of their shows) say so was Melissa Murray (the only actual lawyer, btw).

First, it’s rank hypocrisy. Four years ago when Trump was considering pardoning himself, and a bunch of other people not yet charged with crimes, PSA and the media went all in on saying doing that is against all logic of pardons. Now because it’s the Dems it’s okay?

Secondly, by giving these pardons, and these people accepting them, it gives the unmistakable impression that they actually broke the law. Which is exactly what Trump wants. Why would you need a pardon if you didn’t break the law? Giving people on the J6 committee pardons just allows Trump to say “look they knew what they did was illegal, and Biden is just as corrupt as I am since he allowed them to get away with it.” Furthermore it allows Trump to say “well I would have prosecuted them because what they did was illegal but the corrupt democrats won’t let me.”

Third, it’s tantamount to surrender! If Trump really wants to prosecute Cheney, Schiff, etc. then they should fight it. It would bring back major coverage of J6 and all the rest of the crimes Trump committed that he was, rightly and legally, investigated and charged for. Again, by accepting the pardon, it’s a tacit admission that they did something they need to be pardoned for. And shame on the Democrats who say they would accept one. As far as I know, Schiff is the only one who said he would reject such a pardon.

So what do Democrats actually think? Should Biden actually do this? I think it would taint him and his administration’s “commitment to the rule of law” even more than it’s already been tainted. But maybe I’m wrong? Trump is going to go after his “enemies” no matter what. Why should the Democrats play into his game? A preemptive pardon has only been given once in US history (to Richard Nixon) and it’s probably the most controversial pardon of the last century.

I know I have. What’s fascinating is, after that horrid debate and the not-so-good ABC interview and the flood of polling signaling a Trump landslide (and Joe doing comparatively very little summer campaigning for a general election cycle), you’d think a large faction of the anti-MAGA coalition and many ppl who fundamentally care about the health and survival of American democracy would be (at least) quite anxious. That’s intuitive, right? Naturally, under in these circumstances, you’d think it fairly rational to evaluate our prospects and potentially explore alternatives in furtherance of stopping another Trump presidency…but no. Instead, legions of pro-Biden ppl on Twitter and Threads and Facebook and elsewhere will label you a Trump supporter and a traitor and a grifter and a loser insufficiently supportive of our Dear Leader. The thing is…guess what? The American ppl don’t “owe” Biden and it’s ultimately his job to persuade and motivate voters, not the other way around. You know…a political candidate earning votes. Joe works for us.

Anyway, I’ve been appalled by the multitude Biden carnival barkers online (like Chris Jackson and the Brooklyn dad guy and the Jo person from Jersey and Aaron Rupar and Fetterman and Don Winslow and so many more). According to these obnoxious ppl, Crooked and Clooney and David Axelrod and a multitude of Democratic elected officials are those handing Trump the election and ushering in American fascism…not the reactionary mega-fans of the historically unpopular 81 year-old incumbent who very much struggles to verbally communicate. The incumbent who the vast majority of the American ppl, and a plurality of Dems across countless demographics, think is too old to serve as President. Why empathize with concerned voters or disagree with your ideological peers in good faith, when you can instead yell and scream and deny reality?

Btw: if Joe is the nominee come November, I’d crawl over rusty nails and shattered glass to cast my ballot. We all will, at least I hope. Also, there’s absolutely nothing (and I mean nothing) inherently wrong with believing that Biden is our best candidate and the age stuff doesn’t matter as much as polling/public opinion indicates (I disagree, but I’d respect those views if you genuinely hold them). That said, I’m worried about what much of my party and our coalition has morphed into…and tbh this stuff resembles MAGA more than I’m comfortable with. We absolutely cannot acknowledge reality and current public opinion, so as to not wound Biden’s ego? Do you think calling us “bedwetters” and “elites” is helping things? We’re “racist” for maybe wanting Kamala over Joe? Gtfo.

As the likelihood of Biden dropping out and being replaced by Harris has grown significantly this past week. With that, republicans have been testing out attacks with one of the top concerning ones being that she’s just a DEI hire. That essentially she brings nothing to the table except that she’s black and a woman.

When she was selected as VP, it was on the heels of George Floyd. Racial inequality was a significant issue during 2020. However, one of the largest political shifts in the past 4 years has been away from the movements during the the George Floyd protests. White male resentment has bubbled up again. The public has turned to favor tough on crime policies. The overturning of affirmative action was generally supported by the public. There have been large movements against both “wokeness” and DEI initiatives.

And to make it worse, democrats are partially admitting that Harris’ race is playing a role for why she is there and why she should be the nominee if Biden drops out. It’s no secret that it was asked of Biden to choose a black woman as his VP. Also one of the defenses of keeping Harris at the top of the ticket is “well look of the optics if we were to step over a black woman as the nominee”.

Another big concern is that she doesnt have very many wins under her belt. Most of her experience is as a prosecutor and AG. She only spent 4 years as a senator and 4 years as a VP, both of which have mild success.

Racism and sexism in the US remains a major concern and it’s commonly brought up when discussed about Harris. Will the attacks that Harris is just a DEI hire land and what can Harris do to combat it?

I know we all really like Crooked Media, and they’ve been involved in many controversies this past week including Tim Miller and SimpliSafe. What would you all like from them to fix things? For me, I’d like an apology on the pod for the SimpliSafe support at the least. I’m glad they’ve already temporarily severed ties with Tim, but what else would you guys like to see? Another public apology and an official permanent separation? Is there something else you’d like to hear from them?

Hello there, I like listening to the morning wire and what a day. I only agree with about half the opinions that either of these outlets present with the news but it's interesting to see what either political side is focusing on for the same news day. Is there any recommendations you guys would have to balance out the rest of my day currently I listen to Ben Shapiro and Abe Lincolns top hat and PSA but they put out content so infrequently I was wondering if you guys had a recommendation for news/ current event political podcasts. Also I'm just curious on how many other people try and balance content this way. Call it just hearing out all sides or spying on the enemy, for whatever reason just didn't know how many other people consume other political orientation opinion podcasts.

Thanks

I’m surprised there’s not more talk of it here.

Welp, I understand this is going to be downvoted to hell.

But I am making this post for three reasons:

1. Because Tommy (and the rest of the PSA guys) are both extremely smart, and extremely analytical — in a way that many listeners of the Pod are (and are in this Subreddit).

2. Because he has demonstrated a very high level of care about this issue

3. The analyses he offers are consistently below the standard he is capable of.

There is an issue on the mainstream Left about Israel that is different than the issue among the far-left about Israel. On the far-left, the issue about Israel is that they keep falling into anti-Semitic tropes, outright historical reductionism, and a hostility to find common ground. That is not the issue here, and I know the Guys don’t fall into that category.

The issue with how center-Left people discuss Israel in political circles is that they pride themselves on being super knowledgeable about issues, and enjoy getting into the weeds on a variety of things — but, then, when it comes to the war in Gaza (something they’re very invested in), they exhibit some massive blind-spots on what the actual obstacles and dynamics are at play, even after 9-10 months. It ends up making them look a little clueless because they keep offering solutions to things that don’t go anywhere or can’t be done —- because they fundamentally have misdiagnosed some things.

I don’t think they need to agree with everything, but I think for such smart, analytical, empathetic guys (especially Tommy), I would love to have him be able to approach talking about this conflict in a little more of a deeper way, confronting the actual reality of things on the ground.

1. On What America “Can Do”:

• There is this weird friction of that those in the Center-Left (I am one of them) that think there is something the US can “do” to make Israel “stop” the war in Gaza. (This got brought up in his conversation with Ali Velshi this episode.) This is not the framing that is really going on; it’s a construct, and that’s why it’s been ineffective.

Fundamentally, Israel does not believe they can lose this war to Hamas. Hamas defines a win as surviving a direct confrontation with Israel. It doesn’t matter to them how much of Gaza is destroyed, or how many Palestinian civilians die — if Hamas can get Israel out of the Strip, and say “We’re still here!”, what it does is it signals to all the Iranian proxies in the region — Houthis, Hezbollah, militias in Iraq, Syria, etc. — that you can attack Israel, and if you just wait long enough, international pressure will let you win. These groups have exactly one thing that is their massive advantage: nothing to lose, and no fucks to give about the civilians in harms way. (“Some of you may die, but that’s a price I am willing to pay” is an excellent metaphor for their mentality.) So, while I understand that people do not wish for this to be an excuse for a “forever” war or occupation, Israel does not fundamentally believe it can let itself lose this war to Hamas. The whole reason Hamas and Hezbollah have attacked over the last 10 months as they did, is because they believe Israel’s deterrence has faded. If Hamas can say to Palestinians “we won!”, it would be catastrophic to Israel’s security in the region. People aren’t just “saying” that — it is incredibly true.

So when people like Tommy advocate for America “doing something” to “affect the war”, it acts like there IS something America could do to fundamentally sway Israel from its choice. It can’t. America can exact pressure on Israel’s methods, it can say “we’re gonna watch your conduct like a hawk”, and it can tie its hands to how it uses American weapons, but it’s not going to cause it to let Hamas achieve (their definition of) victory. It’s not negotiable. That’s one of the reasons this hasn’t gone anywhere.

2) Hostages

This is why Tommy’s criticizing Netanyahu for not prioritizing getting the hostages home, and not stepping down because of his legal trouble is just way too simplistic. Yes, Netanyahu has incentives to not resign from office, and that is a horrific conflict of interest that should never be there in the first place. But even if you replaced Netanyahu right now, most plausible Israeli leaders would continue the war in the same fashion, for the reasons above. So, without examining the deeper causes of why Israel is doing what its doing, it acts like Netanyahu is the ultimate “bogeyman to peace”, when that’s not really the case.

When it comes to the hostages, of course the families of the hostages are rightfully doing and saying whatever they need to bring their loved ones home. But the tactic of taking hostages is deliberately designed to put Israel in a bind. It is not as simple as Tommy framing it as “Bibi is not even working to bring the hostages home!” He IS working to bring the hostages home. But he’s not willing to lose the war to do it, because it would put even more of Israel’s security at risk for massive terror attacks.

There is plenty of validity to the criticisms of the course of actions taken by Netanyahu in prosecuting this war. Absolutely. But there is a little bit of head-in-the-sand about acting like there is an “obvious” course of action here. For many reasons, that I think someone like Tommy should be understanding of, it’s not THAT clear of a dynamic. Hamas saying “You can either get your hostages and lose the war, which will signal all the surrounding hostile actors that they can keep attacking you”, versus “You can continue the war, and look horrific around the world to people who don’t wish to look at your struggle in good faith” is more like a Sophie’s Choice, not an easy one.

3) On The Evolving Nature of Terrorism

Most of the PSAs are about how Trump is an existential threat to democracy, and how fascism creeps its way into American societies by exploiting existing norms and systems.

The kind of terrorism that Hamas employs does a similar thing, it just seeks to do it with international norms and systems.

Look, terrorism evolves. Tactics evolve.

When Netanyahu talks about how actions of the ICC can make it difficult for any sovereign country to defend itself against terrorism, he’s not being hyperbolic.

There’s a lot to unpack on what is “terrorism”. That’s not my desire here. But right now, the current tactic employed by Hamas, is to say, “If we attack a group, and then camouflage ourselves within the civilian population, we can attack people and they cannot attack back, because they will be delegitimized from responding due to international norms and standards meant to deem any response a kind of war crime.” There are real, atrocious war crimes that happen, and indeed some may have happened in Gaza. But at some point, what are intended to be safeguards will instead be weaponized and turned into a corset, constraining nations from being able to prosecute this kind of situation.

If you let this become a new standard, it will be adopted more. It will. Because terrorists and terrorist groups are trying to win.

I’m nearing the edge of what I feel comfortable speaking about, but do you guys know that every so often, Iran likes to take an American hostage, because they know they’ll get like hundreds of millions of dollars (plus) for a single American?

Americans will be in danger if this becomes normalized.

4) Death Toll

The core of the argument from Tommy and other center-Left Dems on why something is needed to “be done” is the civilian death toll.

40,000 people is way, way too many people to be killed in a war.

You know what was also way, way too many people?

30,000.

And 10,000.

And 3,000 before that.

It is always too many people to die in a war. That’s the whole core of why we do everything possible to avoid it happening. Ultimately, none of these guys are trying to say that “OK, it’s acceptable to kill about 5,000 Palestinians in response to October 7th” — as if there is some “number” that is “acceptable”, that one you cross it it becomes unacceptable.

All you can do is look at the underlying dynamics:

• Are there military objectives being achieved?

• Is the ratio of combatant to civilian death something akin to what is considered “normal”?

• Are various precautions being taken to warn and evacuate civilians from harm’s way?

If the answer is yes, then, how much more is exactly expected to be done, in the broad scheme of things?

There are certain truths here:

• Egypt refused to let Palestinian refugees in en masse (at least not without massive bribes…); this has nothing to do with Israel.

• Hamas has seen the entire city destroyed, and tens of thousands of fellow Palestinian deaths, and this is still not enough for them to surrender.

This doesn’t mean that Israel’s conduct has always been acceptable, or immune from criticism, or something “becoming” of a Western democracy. But it is also not irrational.

Another issue worth mentioning is that, for people like the PSA America guys who are very interested in the “Truth”, and getting proper sources…

Look, you will find some Gaza Death Toll Abject Denialism from certain pro-Israel segments. They will say it’s all made up. I’m not one of those people. It is definitely likely higher than reported.

The problem is, the credibility of the numbers we get from Hamas suffers from a thousand little cuts, that, when compounded over 9-10 months, can paint a totally different picture of what’s going on. Hamas is almost constantly releasing death toll figures for even larger-scale attacks — they immediately throw out a number there, attach a male/female/kid ratio to it, and everyone runs with it.

The issue is not that “Palestinians are dying!” — they clearly are. It’s that by running with unverified figures, it’s an erosion of a commitment to the truth from people who profess to care about it. There may not be truth about the death toll for a long time. And it is right to want civilian death toll to be as minimal as possible.

But Hamas is genuinely interested in trying to paint a picture that says:

• There are no military objectives happening in Gaza

• Israel is a genocidal enemy

• They are entirely responsible for every Palestinian death

• They seek to eliminate every woman and child in Gaza.

• They are both the reason we committed 10/07, took hostages, and continue to endanger their hostages that we took.

• You cannot eliminate us, and we are what the Palestinian people legitimately represent.

If anyone read that Wall Street Journal expose on Sinwar the other month knows, Sinwar understands that Palestinian causes don’t receive any recognition unless people get killed. They are quite literally on the record about their incentives to maximize the death toll. There is lot of recorded evidence of how, when the IDF tries to tell civilians to evacuate, Hamas tries to get them to stay.

5) Choice of War

Lastly, I think this is probably the hardest issue for Center-Left Democrats to wrap their head around.

There is a looking at the destruction, the death, and one concludes: “This can’t have been the way.”

The issue is that, almost literally everything else has been tried. Palestinians kept being offered peace, economic help, incentives, initiatives, treaties, two-state solutions — everything has been tried to bring peace and self-determination to both groups of people, and every offer of peace has been rejected, rebuffed, and generally turned into an opportunity to entrench systemic, violent resistance.

On today’s episode, Tommy was talking about how every civilian death likely spawns ten more future militants, as to why the war needs to stop.

The issue is:

How much lower could things have gotten, than October 7th?

From the perspective of Israeli society, what exactly is supposed to be more barbaric and terroristic and inhumane than the October 7th attacks, so that the response needed to be somehow delicate and ginger as to “not radicalize further generations”?

Huh?

Look, there were absolutely massive problems with the US response to 9/11. But an incorrect one would be, “We shouldn’t go after Al-Qaeda, because it may radicalize more people to fly planes into our buildings.” The worst happened. The thing everyone was doing to try and prevent such an attack, failed. The bottom was reached.

There is only so much that Israeli society can do — good faith it can give, policies it can pass, leniency it can show, economic incentives it can provide, resources it can share — to try and engender good will amongst a population that refuses to extend it back no matter how much it is offered. No one “wanted” a border wall. The IDF would rather do a million things than spend its resources and soldiers to be forced to occupy the West Bank. The whole concept of needing conscription in the first place — what the hell modern society would want that? Israel keeps feeling like it has no choice. That the only way to deal with a population, constantly fostering a segment of its population that would rather keep their own society in poverty rather than co-exist and build itself back up, was through more and more extreme security measures. That doesn’t mean that Israel deserves a pass for its policies, or its lack of action towards violent settlers, or its inhumane treatment of Palestinians (and the prisoners it takes).

It means that when you decry a war that Hamas started, it’s not acting like Israel losing a war is the only way to achieve peace. As history has shown, that’s not necessarily true.

If people don’t care much about this issue, great. But it pains me to see such a smart, analytical, and intelligent guy like Tommy care so much and be so invested in this issue, and just constantly fall prey to blind spots and then analyze it based on that. (The analysis on Hezbollah was pretty bad, too.) So, even if this never reaches him, and even though this community will probably downvote me to hell and call me names, I thought I’d at least offer the perspective that has been really lacking on the Pod.

I’m shocked by how they refuse to mention any criticism of Hamas, going so far as ignoring that Hamas has denied two US brokered ceasefires? It really makes me question everything else they talk about on the pod, are they blatantly ignoring aspects that don’t fit into their viewpoints? They refuse to criticize Hamas other than fleeting “oh yes Hamas is obviously bad…but Israel and Bebe are the wooorrrsst”. It’s unlistenable.

Edit- there is a ton of fair points on either side in this post, which kind of proves my point that it’s at-least worthy of discussion on the pod. Thanks for the down votes too, all that “civil debate” progressiveness must be a reserved commodity.

Edit 2- logging off now. Thanks for the mostly interesting discussion.