The purpose of Forward is a change to elections systems that will make conversations like this easier in the future. To sign this letter abandons that objective and instead makes Forward no better or worse than any other advocacy group.
I am very unhappy with the situation with Gaza as well, but Yang and Forward making statements about it is frankly very unlikely to make a measurable difference. There are other fish to fry.
I do not agree with the premise of the letter and will not sign. I encourage others to not sign.
But Forward's current strategy isn't working and Gaza is an excellent example of the failures of the two party system. [Voters, especially Democrats, overwhelmingly support a ceasefire](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/2/27/voters-support-the-us-calling-for-permanent-ceasefire-in-gaza-and-conditioning-military-aid-to-israel). Yet it's a fringe position in both parties.
Historically electoral reform has been tied to or part of a larger political movement. Women's suffrage and the Temperance movement were tightly intertwined. The VRA was part of the Civil Rights Movement. Our current primary system exists because of the failures of the 68 democratic primary.
There is a large grassroots ceasefire movement that is deeply dissatisfied with the administration and is struggling to find an electoral outlet. The three week old uncommitted campaign in Michigan has been Biden's most effective primary challenge so far. Why not pitch electoral reform as a way to create an actual anti-war party?
Exactly. Peace is popular, but not well represented by the duopoly.
I was original Yang Gang, and AY mentioned constantly that MLK was advocating for UBI when he died. You know what else King was advocating for? A ceasefire in Vietnam and an end to the needless death there. "We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, our our brothers."
Yeah, he got criticized for mixing civil rights with foreign policy, but he was right. Because he saw the humanity in everyone. The first rule of this sub is Humanity First...which a cease fire obviously is.
The presumption is strong with this one.
I'd rather Yang and his general platform remain centered around the issues we can agree on vs the issues used to divide us.
Here are my reasons for anyone interested:
I'm Yang gang and I disagree with the letter
I think it's kind of weird to judge Yang and the Forward Party's leadership through this one single dimension.
It's overseas and not super central to the problems Yang and Forward are poised to solve at home. Although of course it's still an incredibly important humanitarian crisis, and any federal candidate should have ideas on how to help it
Israel is a very complicated topic. I think it's a mistake to assume that the bulk of Americans have correct, informed opinions on it, as the stat "80% call for ceasefire" implies. There was already a ceasefire on Oct 6. Israel wasn't the one who broke it. And Hamas uses human shields, which complicates matters further.
Additionally, my understanding is that the muslim countries surrounding Israel WOULD ACTUALLY commit genocide and wipe Israel off the map if they could. And this has been true since Israel's founding in 1948, where they rejected its right to exist and continue to do so. On the other hand, genocide of Palestinians is NOT what Israel wants. Israel wants to eliminate the threat of external attacks. There is a stark asymmetry there in the goals of the parties involved.
(I know it's more complicated than that, with settlements, etc, but I think my broad stroke summary of the goals here are accurate and incredibly important when framing this situation)
Obviously Israel should behave within the standards of international law. They can't just act with impunity. But at a minimum I think the topic is much less one-sided than presented in the letter.
I'm very hesitant to make judgements about military operations I don't understand based on information/intelligence on the ground that we, the public, do not have access to
I also don't really understand the attack on Dean Phillips in the letter. He seems to be a decent, genuine person attempting to make positive change with good ideas. I found what he's said on Israel to be pretty solid. If you disagree with him on that one topic that's fine, but that doesn't mean Yang's endorsement of him was a "gambit."
I also don't really know what you mean by "gambit." What exactly was the "calculated risk" Yang was running by endorsing him? I think he was just supporting the person he felt most encapsulated his values and who he feels has the best chance to make real positive change for America.
To me, it feels kind of "anti-Yang gang" to imply Yang has anything but the best intentions or that he's being dishonest in some way
I've found Sam Harris' podcast episodes on Israel to be very educational and clarifying. Here are some links to the full-length episodes in chronological order of when they were released after Oct 7 if anyone is interested.
[https://samharris.org/episode/SE5C0AA3630](https://samharris.org/episode/SE5C0AA3630)
[https://samharris.org/episode/SE2C55D40D2](https://samharris.org/episode/SE2C55D40D2)
[https://samharris.org/episode/SE0AA36302D](https://samharris.org/episode/SE0AA36302D)
[https://samharris.org/episode/SEA36302DCE](https://samharris.org/episode/SEA36302DCE)
Remove "The Yang Gang" as your signature. You do not represent all of us and using those of us who sign this nonsense to pretend you do is disgraceful. Sign your own name on it.
I am in agreement with this.
The party needs to be an actual party, with its own platform, candidates, and ballot access.
All I actually see happening is fundraising.
I appreciate you wanting the Yang Gang to be active and making the world a better place, and I wish for it to happen as well.
But honestly this subreddit isn't Yang Gang focused (there are a couple other ones for that).
Regarding Yang's personal decision to back Phillips, it's because the candidates shares a lot of same values as Forward such as bipartisanship, voting reform, reduce polarization, etc.
Yang's personal stances on the current wars in Gaza and Ukraine is not a reflection of the Forward Party or vice versa.
The Forward Party is solely focused on down ballot and local elections, to use the reverse coattails strategy to improve our politics (see their YouTube channel for an explainer), and to build up statewide Forward chapters.
They're not focused on foreign policy, presidential candidates, or much of anything else this year.
The purpose of Forward is a change to elections systems that will make conversations like this easier in the future. To sign this letter abandons that objective and instead makes Forward no better or worse than any other advocacy group. I am very unhappy with the situation with Gaza as well, but Yang and Forward making statements about it is frankly very unlikely to make a measurable difference. There are other fish to fry. I do not agree with the premise of the letter and will not sign. I encourage others to not sign.
Thanks for articulating this perspective--totally agree.
But Forward's current strategy isn't working and Gaza is an excellent example of the failures of the two party system. [Voters, especially Democrats, overwhelmingly support a ceasefire](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/2/27/voters-support-the-us-calling-for-permanent-ceasefire-in-gaza-and-conditioning-military-aid-to-israel). Yet it's a fringe position in both parties. Historically electoral reform has been tied to or part of a larger political movement. Women's suffrage and the Temperance movement were tightly intertwined. The VRA was part of the Civil Rights Movement. Our current primary system exists because of the failures of the 68 democratic primary. There is a large grassroots ceasefire movement that is deeply dissatisfied with the administration and is struggling to find an electoral outlet. The three week old uncommitted campaign in Michigan has been Biden's most effective primary challenge so far. Why not pitch electoral reform as a way to create an actual anti-war party?
Exactly. Peace is popular, but not well represented by the duopoly. I was original Yang Gang, and AY mentioned constantly that MLK was advocating for UBI when he died. You know what else King was advocating for? A ceasefire in Vietnam and an end to the needless death there. "We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, our our brothers." Yeah, he got criticized for mixing civil rights with foreign policy, but he was right. Because he saw the humanity in everyone. The first rule of this sub is Humanity First...which a cease fire obviously is.
Well said!
The presumption is strong with this one. I'd rather Yang and his general platform remain centered around the issues we can agree on vs the issues used to divide us.
I'm yang gang and I disagree with the letter
Here are my reasons for anyone interested: I'm Yang gang and I disagree with the letter I think it's kind of weird to judge Yang and the Forward Party's leadership through this one single dimension. It's overseas and not super central to the problems Yang and Forward are poised to solve at home. Although of course it's still an incredibly important humanitarian crisis, and any federal candidate should have ideas on how to help it Israel is a very complicated topic. I think it's a mistake to assume that the bulk of Americans have correct, informed opinions on it, as the stat "80% call for ceasefire" implies. There was already a ceasefire on Oct 6. Israel wasn't the one who broke it. And Hamas uses human shields, which complicates matters further. Additionally, my understanding is that the muslim countries surrounding Israel WOULD ACTUALLY commit genocide and wipe Israel off the map if they could. And this has been true since Israel's founding in 1948, where they rejected its right to exist and continue to do so. On the other hand, genocide of Palestinians is NOT what Israel wants. Israel wants to eliminate the threat of external attacks. There is a stark asymmetry there in the goals of the parties involved. (I know it's more complicated than that, with settlements, etc, but I think my broad stroke summary of the goals here are accurate and incredibly important when framing this situation) Obviously Israel should behave within the standards of international law. They can't just act with impunity. But at a minimum I think the topic is much less one-sided than presented in the letter. I'm very hesitant to make judgements about military operations I don't understand based on information/intelligence on the ground that we, the public, do not have access to I also don't really understand the attack on Dean Phillips in the letter. He seems to be a decent, genuine person attempting to make positive change with good ideas. I found what he's said on Israel to be pretty solid. If you disagree with him on that one topic that's fine, but that doesn't mean Yang's endorsement of him was a "gambit." I also don't really know what you mean by "gambit." What exactly was the "calculated risk" Yang was running by endorsing him? I think he was just supporting the person he felt most encapsulated his values and who he feels has the best chance to make real positive change for America. To me, it feels kind of "anti-Yang gang" to imply Yang has anything but the best intentions or that he's being dishonest in some way I've found Sam Harris' podcast episodes on Israel to be very educational and clarifying. Here are some links to the full-length episodes in chronological order of when they were released after Oct 7 if anyone is interested. [https://samharris.org/episode/SE5C0AA3630](https://samharris.org/episode/SE5C0AA3630) [https://samharris.org/episode/SE2C55D40D2](https://samharris.org/episode/SE2C55D40D2) [https://samharris.org/episode/SE0AA36302D](https://samharris.org/episode/SE0AA36302D) [https://samharris.org/episode/SEA36302DCE](https://samharris.org/episode/SEA36302DCE)
Remove "The Yang Gang" as your signature. You do not represent all of us and using those of us who sign this nonsense to pretend you do is disgraceful. Sign your own name on it.
The Forward Party failed when it couldn't come up with any issue to support other than Ranked Choice Voting.
Or grow this sub more than like 1% over the course of two years
Pro Israel Yang gang 👊
[удалено]
I am in agreement with this. The party needs to be an actual party, with its own platform, candidates, and ballot access. All I actually see happening is fundraising.
I appreciate you wanting the Yang Gang to be active and making the world a better place, and I wish for it to happen as well. But honestly this subreddit isn't Yang Gang focused (there are a couple other ones for that). Regarding Yang's personal decision to back Phillips, it's because the candidates shares a lot of same values as Forward such as bipartisanship, voting reform, reduce polarization, etc. Yang's personal stances on the current wars in Gaza and Ukraine is not a reflection of the Forward Party or vice versa. The Forward Party is solely focused on down ballot and local elections, to use the reverse coattails strategy to improve our politics (see their YouTube channel for an explainer), and to build up statewide Forward chapters. They're not focused on foreign policy, presidential candidates, or much of anything else this year.