•

Democratic Staffers Told To Let Constant Calls For Cease-Fire ‘Go To Voicemail’

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calls-for-congress-ceasefire-gaza-israel_n_654d4d0ce4b0373d70b16b0f

Congressional staff say the mood inside the Capitol is tense, stifling and bewildering as members brush off their constituents’ outrage.

Democratic Staffers Told To Let Constant Calls For Cease-Fire ‘Go To Voicemail’

Congressional staff say the mood inside the Capitol is tense, stifling and bewildering as members brush off their constituents’ outrage.

117 comments

FlexibleToast

•

Let's see how the strategy of ignoring calls from your base a year before a contested election that your opponent polls higher in key states works out for them. It feels like the DNC is trying to lose in 2024 right now.

SnotFlickerman

•

It feels like the DNC is trying to lose in 2024 right now.

And this is new, how? It feels like they're trying to throw every election. They never even bother to call out Republicans on their shenanigans and they spend a lot of time being like "We know the fascists passed these very fascist laws, but everything falls apart if we don't take the obviously fascist laws they passed with the seriousness they deserve by enforcing those fascist laws. We have to play by these rules they've set that benefit them and harm us, because if we did that, it would be unfair and undemocratic." (Conveniently ignores Republicans being unfair and undemocratic.)

FlexibleToast

•

That's fair. The DNC loves to rig things because they think they know better than the voters they rely on...

Dkarma

•

Ehh. It's more like... what other choice do you have? Don't gotta outrun the bear...just the GOP.

This is why we need ranked choice voting.
Anyone who's even brushed the surface of game theory knows fptp is the easiest to manipulate and a race to the bottom.

FlexibleToast

•

Every place that has winner take all and every simulation of winner take all always boils down to a two party system.

Franzia

•

Controlled opposition!
The democrats indeed find the Republicans very useful for moderating Democrat policies without taking the blame.

constate368

•

Lose to who? The republicans?

Sweetie, we've already established the gridlock of 'lesser evil.' All democrats have to do to win is be slightly less worse than the republicans, which is incredibly easy.

zout

•

Which works every time, unless it doesn't work.Like when Hillary Clinton lost against Donald Trump.

constate368

•

Yeah... hillary clinton wasn't a good nominee.

girlfreddy

•

Blame the DNC for manipulating a Clinton nomination win over Sanders.

zout

•

She was at least slightly less worse than Trump though.

dalekcaan

•

True, but the problem was the Dems assumed it was a slam dunk, and wound up pretty much handing Trump the presidency.

SnotFlickerman

•

It was Her Turn, duh!

masquenox

•

No she wasn't. She would have been slightly less worse for the US only... for the rest of the planet, having a buffoon that was incompetent at neocolonialism was somewhat less worse.

zout

•

The voting was US only,

masquenox

•

Yes, I know... the rest of the world doesn't get a say in the US's shitfuckery. If we could, we'd vote the US out of existence.

MycoBro

•

I really think it might be a toss up. Good chance that bitch Hillary would have been just as bad

FlyingSquid

•

Yeah, like how Hillary would have given massive tax cuts to the rich, ended Roe v. Wade with three extremist SCOTUS judges, and instigated a riot when she lost the election. Just as bad.

FlexibleToast

•

Neither is Biden. A majority of democrats don't want Biden to run again.

SnotFlickerman

•

Don't forget her campaign literally centered Trump in her "pied piper" strategy.

She built her own political demise.

Ensign_Crab

•

And all her supporters still blame progressives.

FlexibleToast

•

Except that right now Trump polls higher than Biden nearly across the board in the battleground states. You'd like to think it should be an easy victory against someone with multiple ongoing criminal court cases, but Biden is just that bad of a candidate.

Dkarma

•

The poll ur referring to is landline calls, bro... No one under 40 has a landline.

FlexibleToast

•

The New York Times/Siena College polls of 3,662 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from Oct. 22 to Nov. 3, 2023. When all states are joined together, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.8 percentage points for all registered voters and plus or minus 2 percentage points for the likely electorate.

It wasn't just landlines because they know that's bad polling.

FlyingSquid

•

How many younger people answer unknown calls on their phone? I'm 46 and I don't do that. And if I got a voicemail saying they wanted me to take a poll and to call them back, I would assume it was a scam.

FlexibleToast

•

Well, you don't have to guess because that's part of the statistics as well. 40% of the people polled were 44 and under. Also, they weighted the poll to help account for age. It's not like professional pollsters and statisticians don't know how to account for these sorts of things.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/07/us/elections/times-siena-battlegrounds-registered-voters.html

I know it's scary that if the election were held today, Trump would have a very real chance at winning, but that's the reality we live in. And right now, it is because Biden is such a weak candidate. A lot can change in 1 year. I hope that when it comes down to it, people will do the right thing and not vote for the insurrectionist. However, we have no reason to believe they will.

FlyingSquid

•

40% of the people polled were 44 and under.

That doesn't mean it represents what those people think, it means that they chose a group out of the 40% of people under that age who would answer their phones when an unknown caller calls them to poll them.

Maybe the poll is accurate, but I am very dubious of any telephone poll's accuracy at this point because so many people simply will not respond to an unknown caller.

Focus group polling might be more accurate because you can pick the demographics ahead of time, but I don't know.

FlexibleToast

•

agent_flounder

•

If true, we peons pay the price for that, not them.

timicin

•

Let’s see how the strategy of ignoring calls from your base a year before a contested election that your opponent polls higher in key states works out for them. It feels like the DNC is trying to lose in 2024 right now.

the "vote for the lesser evil" crowd are an overwhelming majority and, they not only don't care that dems don't deserve your vote; but will use that overwhelming majority voice to blame you for enabling trump.

Franzia

•

I think the crowd of apathetic voters is much larger than the "lesser evil" crowd. But the lesser evil crowd sends their hate towards third party voters rather than the apathetic.

FlyingSquid

•

Okay, but the fact is there are only two viable choices and every vote that isn't for Biden supports and enables Trump. That is true despite Biden being terrible. And he's nowhere near as terrible as Trump. Read about Project 2025. People need to know about it. That is what Trump wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

It is vital that be stopped. And that means voting for Biden.

FlexibleToast

•

This election there actually could be 3 viable candidates. Both major parties have such awful candidates that RFK Jr is polling the highest a 3rd party candidate has in a very long time. They show Biden and Trump both in the 30s percentile wise and RFK Jr at 24%. The "protest vote" seems to get stronger and stronger.

FlexibleToast

•

The cold, hard truth is that with a winner take all system, it will always be a lesser of two evils situation. Just like they want it to be.

Ensign_Crab

•

Congressional staff say the mood inside the Capitol is tense, stifling and bewildering as members brush off their constituents’ outrage.

Why would this be any different than every other issue about which they're ignoring their constituents?

SnotFlickerman

•

Just send out a form letter response, geeze! How hard is it really to ignore your constituents effectively? I've been receiving form letter responses for decades now, it's not hard guys! You don't even have to functionally address any points made by your constituents, just shit out a form letter with a loose connection to the ideas presented and you're good.

The number of times an elected official has made it clear that my opinions mean fuck-all to them is extremely high.

agent_flounder

•

Would help if we didn't cap the house of reps.

bioemerl

•

Politicians have armies of statistics and pollsters to study people's opinions and feedback.

They carefully choose a demographic groups they choose to appeal to, and they pick issues that will allow them to capture enough people who will begrudgingly support them as possible.

They don't need the 1500th phone call saying the exact same thing as the last 1400 to understand who they're representing and what their opinions are.

There are times contacting your representative in this way is important. When your road is fucked up or your local company is doing something they shouldn't and nobody in the media or on the internet is talking about it.

Or sending a letter, answering a poll, so that their data people can sit and count them to figure out what they need to do in the next election cycle.

teft

•

There are times contacting your representative in this way is important. When your road is fucked up or your local company is doing something they shouldn’t and nobody in the media or on the internet is talking about it.

But not literal genocide?

bioemerl

•

The representative is very well aware of what's going on in Israel and is very aware of the protests and the opinions people have about it. You're not informing them, and you're not actually contributing anything by spamming them with phone calls about it.

And if you want to see literal genocide, let the Palestinians rule "from the river to the sea". What they do to the Jews will make isis look like children in terms of their cruelty.

derphurr

•

If you want to see literal genocide, turn on any TV and see what IDF is actually doing today, yesterday, tomorrow.

Not some hypothetical fictional Boogeyman.

SnotFlickerman

•

let the Palestinians rule “from the river to the sea”.

Palestinian /= Hamas.

Serinus

•

Okay then, separate them.

bioemerl

•

They might not be, but they certainly can't stop him or any future incarnations.

DarkGamer

•

let the Palestinians rule “from the river to the sea”.

Palestinian /= Hamas.

Unfortunately that sentiment is not unique to Hamas.
According to polling, the majority of Palestinians want to:

Destroy Israel, which is what, "from the river to the sea," means (70%)
Deny Jews equal rights in their one-state solution (76%)
Continue violent resistance, reject peaceful solutions (52%)
Employ guerilla/terrorist strategies to do so (58%)

SnotFlickerman

•

So that justifies genocide? Because just over half have been terrorized enough to not be willing to forgive?

DarkGamer

•

So that justifies genocide? Because just over half have been terrorized enough to not be willing to forgive?

Well, advocating for actual explicit genocide and oppression certainly makes one's cause seem less noble. I was pointing out that Hamas aren't the only ones who want Palestine, "from the river to the sea." It's a popular Palestinian sentiment. Perhaps that's related to why calls for cease fire are going to voice mail.

One can make a case that Israel is also performing a genocide, but they themselves deny that it is. I think it's more accurate to say that Israel is under attack by and defending itself from a belligerent monoethnic nation. It's a big stretch to claim that this makes defense against it genocide. If wiping out Arabs were their motivation and not pacifying a belligerent nation they would be behaving very differently. 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab with full rights, after all.

BeautifulMind

•

On the one hand, congressmen know that if they don't back Israel unconditionally, they will be accused of being antisemitic, in league with Nazis.

On the other hand, Israel routinely violates human rights, it conducts an apartheid regime in the West Bank, it sponsors settlers whose actions clearly violate international law, and its conduct in Gaza looks more like genocide than it doesn't. And it does all of that with US backing, despite US law forbidding the US from giving military aid to countries that ...violate human rights.

So, if you recognize any of that, you're a Nazi?

It's so frustrating to know that our elected leaders are made to not recognize actual human rights violations, for fear of being accused of antisemitism even though Israel's government is not the same thing as the Jewish people.

My social media is full of Jews pointing out that Israel's actions goes against their faith, that they experience pain and shame knowing that Israel claims to do them in the name of Judaism.

Just once I wish American congresspeople had it in them to exhibit anything like moral courage.

oakey66

•

It’s so crazy because I’m seeing the exact opposite. A bunch of Jewish folks in my extended family being vehemently pro Israel. It’s wild.

Cannacheques

•

Didn't Biden already call for a cease-fire not long ago? The best he could do is pulling funding at this stage, putting boots on the ground would be an attack on the spiritual holy land of a variety of religious fanatics and against Zionist beliefs that gentiles should know their place, unless of course Ben himself called on Biden for some imaginary reason 🤔

queermunist

•

No. He called for a pause, and that's what we got. Now there's a short pause every day while they reload.

Dkarma

•

President can't "pull funding". They can only veto a bill.

UnspecificGravity

•

A distinction without difference since he isn't even asking Congress to pull funding nor is he even calling on anyone to just stop killing people.

NocturnalMorning

•

Oh no, they're inconvenienced by people telling the U.S. not to support the bombing of civilians in Gaza. How terrible...

constate368

•

They aren't actually inconvenienced.

Probably enjoying a nice lobster brunch right now.

constate368

•

Does anyone actually believe contacting representatives matters?

If it did, why would they take bribes?

eestileib

•

US Representatives care.

US Senators have achieved escape velocity and can just concentrate on their stock trading and junkets.

AlwaysNowNeverNotMe

•

Good thing we don't have direct democracy, something something mob rule.

constate368

•

Yeah, the mob would rule we need universal health care and to stop aid to Israel.

Rapidcreek

•

You know how many people actually complained about Janet Jackson's boob reveal at the Superbowl?

It's just that they each called 1,000 times.

SnotFlickerman

•

I don't understand why it's not considered harassment of an elected official when they are doing that.

Calling a few times, sure no big deal, but a thousand times for each person? That's fully in the territory of harassment and abuse.

You shouldn't be rewarded for that behavior by fucking giving in to it.

Especially when rewarding them is saying "Okay, because you harassed us so much we've decided your opinion matters and we'll actually do something about this issue."

Rapidcreek

•

Before they figured out what went on they did reward them. The FCC fined the broadcasters millions of dollars.

Point is that phone calls aren't a good Guage of public opinion. Non form letter e-mails or letters are much better.

Talaraine

•

I'm pretty sure Israel is calling in all the favors for supporting our gallavant through the Middle East in the name of revenge.

SnotFlickerman

•

Oh they answer those calls, though.

AlwaysNowNeverNotMe

•

So that's after they stole nukes, attacked our warship, and interfered in our elections.

UnspecificGravity

•

Just one more little reminder that American democracy is an illusion and the choice that most of us get is as meaningful as "coke vs Pepsi".

Who are you supposed to vote for if you are against sponsoring genocide?

The Democrats think that supporting genocide will still leave them with enough daylight between them and the actual fascists of the GOP, but it isn't going to make people run to the polls on election night and Americans deserve an actual choice.

nucleative

•

I'm not sure how my idea will come across but here goes.

This Gaza conflict is complicated as F. I think most people agree with that.

Pretty much everyone that's touched it has blood on their hands by this point. And everyone in the fallout has been hurt in some immeasurably painful way.

The US involvement multiples the complexity because there is evidently a proxy between Hamas and Iran, and the US is already in opposition to Iran in other ways.

The US is also in the position of throwing its weight around in many other conflicts at the moment.

Diplomatically, this US is walking a thin line all over the place between needing to show strength vs compassion. Using negotiating finesse vs being strong fisted.

Inside the US, our representatives ideally can think for themselves, but as a party they hopefully work as a team to represent the American best interests, vis a vis "the people." Specifically, I mean the people don't always know what they want or how to get there, nor do they educate themselves as a whole about every issue at play. Not to mention that international diplomacy issues are very often not shared with the public.

So, yes, the average human with a functioning soul wants to see a ceasefire yesterday. But what if there is something else at play that we don't know about, which justifies not pressuring Israel to stop?

wildginger

•

What, in your mind, justifies helping genocide?

No joke, you clearly think its a possible concept. What thing could you theorize justifies this?

nucleative

•

Genocide is unacceptable. It's unjustified in every case. Does this conflict meet the definition of genocide? And if so, who is the perpetrator here?

wildginger

•

Youre dodging the question with a joke? Really?

nucleative

•

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious. I'm being serious. I'd be happy to learn and discuss if you're willing to reply with more than accusations.

As I understand it, the Hamas Charter says that Israel should not exist. At all. Attacking civilians as opposed to Israeli militants appears to reinforce that assesment. I'm not sure this meets the definition of genocide but telling your opponent they don't get to exist seems to bark up that tree.

At the same time, Israel is sending missles into populous zones, which absolutely sucks, but isn't that where Hamas attacks from and stores weaponry? I consent that I only think this because of what I've read. I have no idea if it's really factual. Is Hamas using the Palestinians as a shield to further their goals? That doesn't sound like symbiosis, it sounds like a parasite.

If it's true, why is Hamas putting civilians in the line of fire by waging war and then locating their gear in such a location? That sounds a bit genocidal in the same way that cancer kills its host.

wildginger

•

Feathercrown

•

How do you reconcile the fact that Hamas explicitly does not want Israelis to exist anymore though? Does that not mean they intend to carry out a genocide?

wildginger

•

queermunist

•

They would be fine with Israelis becoming Palestinian. That's hardly genocide.

They just don't want Israel to exist.

5too

•

I've never found this sort of argument compelling. Yes, it's possible there's things going on we don't know about; and sometimes tactical and strategic necessities may require hidden actions.

Those actions still need brought to light as soon as it's feasible to do so; and I struggle to imagine what sort of strategic necessity would require this sort of stance for more than a few months, let alone the years these stances have been in effect. Not to mention the difficulty of keeping something on this scale quiet for this long. At best, things are more or less as they appear - the alternative is there's things they don't want their electors to find out.

mycatiskai

•

https://youtu.be/62I61kBahNY?si=EPFMpGYNM1gCK2iT

Michael Brooks on the complexity of Gaza.

Leadership of Hamas is in Qatar, money from Qatar was released through Israel by Bibi. So additional to this video showing how not complex it is, the Israeli leader wants Hamas in charge to make sure nothing peaceful happens in a joined Westbank and Gaza.

febra

•

"Man, it's too complicated.. I don't know.. man.. None of my business.."

That's all that I'm getting from this. This is not the first time in history when people have turned a blind eye to a massacre because "it's too complicated".

UnspecificGravity

•

It's not complicated to say that I don't want my tax dollars to provide weapons to blow up people in their homes.

Dkarma

•

Just as in any schoolyard fight when you remove the power imbalance and or the bully the problem goes away.

The solution here is to move one of the "kids in the fight" somewhere else. One of them is saying I was here first. The other kid has a rich dad.

We all know what the correct moral decision is here when you take away the political labels.

The big fuckup here was by daddy England back in 1947 and he's got massive egg and on his face right now.

nucleative

•

In a fair world, I would agree with you. But in every conflict since the beginning of time, at least on this faulty rock careening through space, the wealthy are the winners. Every king became king because he controlled the most resources and squashed his opposers.

If the rest of the world hadn't gotten involved I don't think Gaza would have even made it this far.

masquenox

•

I think most people agree with that.

Only the ones filled to the brim with pro-Israeli and pro-colonialist propaganda agrees with you. You are either against white supremacist settler-colonialism or you're not.

nucleative

•

I think this response is why there's so little productive dialogue out there. Everybody is too deeply entrenched.

masquenox

•

No, this is very productive... more and more people in the world are seeing the monstrosity the west has created in Israel - even USians are waking up to it.

You're not bemoaning a lack of "productivity" - you are bemoaning the fact that the propaganda shielding Israel which has been preventing "productivity" for the last seventy years is starting to implode.

nucleative

•

I don't directly have a dog in this fight, and I could never hope to properly untangle the moral standing of each side. At best I can comment on what I see as the obvious righteous mess that it has become.

Those who are entrenched in their positions and have resorted to slinging labels or using pejoritaves don't move others closer to their positions, they move them further. That is what I mean by unproductive.

But I can comment on why the elected American representatives may be letting calls go to voicemail in regards to a ceasefire. Since the beginning of time as we know it, the winner of a conflict writes the history book, and Hamas doesn't have enough apparent support to emerge from this still controlling Gaza.

I can imagine an American calculus that history will blame Hamas for the unnecessary deaths, and another few months of not changing the stance on Israel's strategy will not impact the rest of the course of world affairs in any other significant way.

masquenox

•

That is what I mean by unproductive.

The "marketplace of ideas" is a thoroughly debunked idea, Clyde - only the most desperate liberals cling to it these days.

the winner of a conflict writes the history book, and Hamas

The entire propaganda model that the US and Europe has spent untold treasure propping up for the last fifty years or so to protect their little white supremacist "fortress state" in the middle-east is falling apart right in front of our eyes... and there's absolutely nothing that the (so-called) "west" can do to reverse that now.

This would not have happened were it not for Hamas' attack.

They don't get to write the history books in whatever way they see fit any more - those days are long gone. Any historian that pretends US hegemony in the middle-east hasn't been significantly weakened due to the (so-called) "War On Terror" isn't one that's going to be taken very seriously.

ggBarabajagal

•

USians

Just as I was starting to take you seriously,,,,

masquenox

•

You do know that "America" doesn't stop at the Mexican border, right?

ggBarabajagal

•

I know that the "United States of America" is the only country with the word "America" in its name. I know that the "United Mexican States" also has the words "united" and states" in its name -- are Mexicans "USians" too?

I know that most Mexicans, by default, refer to people from the United States as "Americanos." I know that most Canadians are quite happy not to be confused with the "Americans" from south of their border.

I know that people from the United States of America have been referred to as "Americans" for over 200 years. I know that when someone makes it a point to start calling someone else by a different name than the one that's preferred, that person is usually pushing some outside agenda and should not be taken seriously in the conversation at-hand.

TL;DR: What does any of this have to do with your point about Israel and Gaza?

masquenox

•

Mexicans, by default, refer to people from the United States as “Americanos.”

Oh, I've heard them refer to you by plenty of terms.

America have been referred to as “Americans” for over 200 years

By whom? Your fellow colonialists? Lol!

What does any of this have to do with your point about Israel and Gaza?

You're the one that went on this little tangent because somebody referred to you by a term you don't approve of, USian - you tell me?

Number1SummerJam

•

Why should they be expected to have the manpower to answer every single one? A voicemail gets the message across perfectly fine.

SnotFlickerman

•

Why should they be expected to have the manpower to answer every single one?

Because they are expected to consider the opinions of their constituents, and as an elected representative and they are supposed to represent our interests, not theirs.

To be able to functionally listen to your constituents, yes, you need the staff to be able to do it.

You think that listening to and transcribing voicemails somehow takes less time than taking a call? Pro-tip, they take about the same amount of time.

I mean, with that attitude, why have any staff at all? Just let it all go to voicemail and never read any of those thousands of emails from constituents! Fuck 'em! Fuck representative democracy, amirite?

constate368

•

Direct voting is the future.

SnotFlickerman

•

Agreed. Elected officials need to be reduced to figureheads who craft legislation and whose voting power on legislation is removed and given to the people.

When legislation is introduced, it should be in a Wiki format and with logins tied to your voter registration so only registered voters can comment and edit the Wiki.

All final edits will be attributable directly to who wrote them and version control would be the standard for the documents.

The final text and vote should be with individual voters here in the 21st century.

A guy can dream.

FlyingSquid

•

Honestly, that's not perfect either. Switzerland has had direct voting for a very long time. They also stopped women from getting the right to vote until 1971 through that direct voting.

Meowoem

•

Jesus that would be scary, I know here in the left echochambers it feels like we're the only people that exist but the reality is there's millions of people who have strong opinions about wacky things and they're incredibly easy to manipulate through a few social media posts.

Look at how many people know basically nothing about this situation but are completely sure it's a very simple matter - A dozen bad memes and we'd be at war with Cony 2012 or banning funding NASA or some bullshit.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod

•

I see you’ve talked to my “representative.” At one point he shut down all his local offices and refused to meet with any member of the public

ares35

•

computers can transcribe the voice mail messages much faster and more efficiently than an intern can answer the calls and deal with each one individually.

that is, of course, with the assumption that they actually do that.. and don't just hit DELETE ALL or let the voice mailbox 'fill up'.

SheeEttin

•

Honestly, yeah. From what I've heard about Congressional offices, they basically just count the number of people expressing an opinion for/against a particular issue, and report that to the congressperson. Mail, calls, voicemail, emails, everything.

OldWoodFrame

•

Is it because the Biden admin already got Israel to agree to daily humanitarian pauses?

Nastybutler

•

That's like putting a bandaid on a severed limb

eestileib

•

A fig leaf

Saxoboneless

•

Is this a joke? If the IDF had any desire to even pretend that they were interested in protecting civilian life, they would obviously refrain from bombing civilian exit routes 24 hours a day, not 4. And even then, the actual point of this burning olive branch is obvious - the only option Israel offers to Palestinian civilians that isn't certain death is the barely less certain death of fleeing, and after they flee, Israel will settle what remains, as they have done in Palestine for over 70 years.

OldWoodFrame

•

The IDF has zero desire to protect Palestinian lives... that's why a cease fire is absolutely not happening any time soon and why any amount of time paused to help Palestinians is an actually surprisingly big thing to get from them.

Franzia

•

We now have predator drones there as well. Our military is monitoring the situation and providing strategy research.

I believe the bombing damage has been done. Its leveled. Now its important to force the IDF to focus on Hamas rather than genocide, and that's a decent pivot.

DarkGamer

•

Why don't they just let the average uninformed and outraged voter set international policy, or answer the phone and calmly explain to them why they're wrong and go over the realpolitik intricacies of this conflict?

If discussing this matter on Lemmy has taught me anything. It's that some people are outraged, partisan, and cannot be reasoned with. It's no wonder they're letting it go to voicemail.

timicin

•

difference they're not on lemmy; they're people to volunteered to work in a position where they have to deal with this behavior.

FlyingSquid

•

They're elected by the people. Why shouldn't the people get to talk to at the very least one of their staff?

Meowoem

•

Yeah, what are you supposed to do when someone yells down the phone 'i saw a meme and now I'm basically an expert on this so you have to do what I say or you're evil!' or 'the joooos control the world bank and eat babies, we should be helping kill them!'

It's a painfully complex situation with no clear solution and a lot of hard choices, pretending you have some clairvoyant power or simple answer just means you don't even begin to understand the situation.