Israel at war

[Valcazar]

Not at all, I think he is doing a great job.

There are lots and lots of things to criticize Biden for.
He's exceeded my expectations in some areas and fallen far below them in others.

As for Frank's specific point, it relies on the idea that Biden will lose the election over this specific issue and nothing else.
It also seems to rest on the idea that "The Democrats didn't stop him", because as is well known, all politicians can do exactly what they want to do like flicking a light switch on or off.

 

[Valcazar]

I am not pro-Trump. My post that you are responding to, literally says "I dont support Israel or Joe or Trump'. But yes, I do want Biden punished which I have said openly many times before. But wanting Joe punished isn't being pro-Trump. How about wanting another possibility that neither Joe nor Trump wins, and a 3rd party does?

Wanting a unicorn isn't you being serious - that's just fantasizing.

Now, if you are saying, "Look, in my fantasy, neither win and a third party candidate who is perfect does and everything is fixed" then sure, fantasize away.

But there is no third party candidate with a chance of winning right now.


538 as of today has it at Trump: 40.9%, Biden: 39.9%, Kennedy: 9.4%
RCP as of today has it at Trump: 42.3%, Biden: 39.7%, Kennedy: 10.7%

So no chance for Kennedy to win, barring the greatest turn around ever seen.
And, unfortunately for you, Kennedy may be even more pro-Israel than Trump - saying ceasefires shouldn't happen, Hamas must be eliminated, and everything Israel is doing is moral.

But again, given the US system, saying specifically that Biden must lose to learn his lesson is saying Trump winning is the better result.
You may not like that, but it is the nature of the system in place.

 

[Valcazar]

My bad. I was off by a few years. Must be one of Biden's "epiphanies" that changed him.

It's amazing what some people will stretch to when they want to bad mouth someone.
That's a fascinating clip.

But ignoring the silliness that is TYT - you aren't trying to pretend that Biden's statement 12 years ago didn't happen, are you?
That he didn't have any influence on gay marriage being legalized in the United States?
You aren't implying that all statements he makes on anything is a lie and in fact he has been secretly against gay marriage this whole time?

For one it is a non-sequitur. And for another there are more than two presidential candidates. It is not about who will win if one loses, it is about who I or anyone else supports.

No, it isn't.
Voting isn't about your feelings.
It is about who gets into power.

That people want it to also provide information about your feelings is laudable, but a complete misunderstanding of how voting works in a plurality wins system.

Like I said above, if your statement is meant to reflect your wish - knowing that reality is completely different - for some other magical result to happen, then sure.

But if your wish is - in reality - that Biden loses, then that is a wish for Trump to win, because those are the only two results currently available to you.

 

[Kautilya]

Wanting a unicorn isn't you being serious - that's just fantasizing.

Now, if you are saying, "Look, in my fantasy, neither win an a third party candidate who is perfect does and everything is fixed" then sure, fantasize away.

But there is no third party candidate with a chance of winning right now.


538 as of today has it at Trump: 40.9%, Biden: 39.9%, Kennedy: 9.4%
RCP as of today has it at Trump: 42.3%, Biden: 39.7%, Kennedy: 10.7%

So no chance for Kennedy to win, barring the greatest turn around ever seen.
And, unfortunately for you, Kennedy may be even more pro-Israel than Trump - saying ceasefires shouldn't happen, Hamas must be eliminated, and everything Israel is doing is moral.

But again, given the US system, saying specifically that Biden must lose to learn his lesson is saying Trump winning is the better result.
You may not like that, but it is the nature of the system in place.

That is ridiculous. You are putting the burden of the nature and constraints of the US electoral system, on someone's political beliefs.

As a voter you vote for someone that most closely aligns with your political beliefs. That may not be Biden or Trump. That may be Cornell West or some other independent candidate. Those candidates may not win, and it may take votes away from Biden and he may lose. Doesn't mean you helped Trump. Because it took votes away from Trump as well! It just means you voted per your beliefs. You are asking the voter to "play the game" to make sure Trump does not win. But the voter is not supposed to do that. They are supposed to just exercise their right to vote, and vote for someone that most closely aligns with their political beliefs.

You are wrong on this.

It's amazing what some people will stretch to when they want to bad mouth someone.
That's a fascinating clip.

But ignoring the silliness that is TYT - you aren't trying to pretend that Biden's statement 12 years ago didn't happen, are you?
That he didn't have any influence on gay marriage being legalized in the United States?
You aren't implying that all statements he makes on anything is a lie and in fact he has been secretly against gay marriage this whole time?

I am not denying that Biden in 2012 made statements supportive of gay marriage. I am saying I was off by a few years. It wasn't 10 years ago. It was about 15 years ago when he said he didn't support gay marriage (per the clip in the TYT video) and I am also saying now that just 4 years after that, he magically had an epiphany.

No, it isn't.
Voting isn't about your feelings.
It is about who gets into power.

That people want it to also provide information about your feelings is laudable, but a complete misunderstanding of how voting works in a plurality wins system.

Like I said above, if your statement is meant to reflect your wish - knowing that reality is completely different - for some other magical result to happen, then sure.

But if your wish is - in reality - that Biden loses, then that is a wish for Trump to win, because those are the only two results currently available to you.

No. This is a non-sequitur. The electoral system is not designed by me or anybody else. The voter is supposed to vote their conscience. Not "play the game" as you seem to be insinuating here. A refusal to play the game isn't support for the guy you don't like. This is an illogical argument.

 

[Valcazar]

It is an edited clip of him saying this exact sentence "Gaza will not return to what it was before. Hamas will not exist. We will eliminate everything". Even Oracle provided the quote earlier in this thread. If he did not display genocidal intent he could have simply chosen to say "We will eliminate Hamas". He did not. He said we will eliminate everything. And this is in line with the Israeli govts position that there are no non-combatants in Gaza.

That's insanely sloppy logic.
It's an edited clip.
You just admitted that here.
Only a complete idiot takes an edited clip on the internet at face value.

It is even one that you admit earlier in the thread had an inaccurate translation.

Again - I am not saying that this can't mean what you say it means, but you are wildly short of proving it at this point.

 

[Kautilya]

That's insanely sloppy logic.
It's an edited clip.
You just admitted that here.
Only a complete idiot takes an edited clip on the internet at face value.

It is even one that you admit earlier in the thread had an inaccurate translation.

Again - I am not saying that this can't mean what you say it means, but you are wildly short of proving it at this point.

It is an edited clip in that we dont have the full speech there. But we dont need the full speech as we do have the entirety of the relevant sentences anyway. And no I did not admit that it was inaccurate translation earlier, so that is an outright lie. Oracle said, there was one sentence in the video that was not translated, so I agreed that sentence was uttered, but I made the point to highlight that even with that sentence thrown in, the meaning of what he said does not change.

We have 3 CONTINUOUS SENTENCES presented in that clip. And that is sufficient. Even CAMERA the pro-Israeli group that routinely tries to spin things in favour of Israel has provided the translation as I provided above. These were the sentences he actually said and he said it in this particular sequence:

"Gaza will not go back to what it was before. Hamas will not exist. We will eliminate everything".

Had he said "We will eliminate Hamas", you'd have an argument.

But he did not. He said "We will eliminate everything", and that is genocidal intent. You are grasping at straws here. He couldn't have been clearer.

 

[Frankfooter]

Not at all, I think he is doing a great job.

You think he is doing a great job as Genocide Joe?

 

[squeezer]

You think he is doing a great job as Genocide Joe?

Your tribe refers to him as "Genocide Joe," but I do not share that perspective. His actions align with longstanding U.S. policy, which involves supporting our ally, Israel, while also imposing certain restraints on Prime Minister Netanyahu.

You will all be really shedding tears if Trump and the Repugs take the reigns of power.

 

[Klatuu]

What was the depression from? Not killing enough babies?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799569556744102245

 

[Kautilya]

You will all be really shedding tears if Trump and the Repugs take the reigns of power.

I agree that whoever becomes President will support Israel. There is no US president who will do anything for Palestinians.

But I dont think as Canadians we have to feel sad about Trump winning. The only thing we'd have to put up with are the righties on TERB having a party lmao. Double yikes if PP wins in Canada. lmfao. Other than that, it will be 4 years of non-stop entertainment.

 

[Valcazar]

That is ridiculous. You are attributing the nature and constraints of the US electoral system, to someone's political beliefs and choices.

Not at all. I am pointing out that there are two different things going on.

As a voter you vote for someone that most closely aligns with your political beliefs.

Why?
What on earth makes you think "that is what you do"?
Especially in a system which will actively punish you for doing that by producing a result you consider worse more often if you do that?

I agree many people think that way.
That's what they WANT the system to to incentivize.
But wishing the system worked that way doesn't make it work that way.

That may not be Biden or Trump. That may be Cornell West or some other independent candidate. Those candidates may not win, and it may take votes away from Biden and he may lose. Doesn't mean you helped Trump.

Yes, it does.
By definition.

Now, you may be happy that it helped Trump or you may be upset by it.
But in a plurality-wins system, any vote for someone hurts someone else.
If you truly have no preference between the other candidates, then what you do does not affect anything concerning your satisfaction in the result.
If you have any preference at all between the other candidates, then you have to consider whether or not your vote will produce a result that you like less than the outcome you helped create.

It just means you voted per your beliefs.

Something that is actively detrimental to you getting your preferred result overall in a plurality-wins system.
Ignoring that because you don't like that the system produces results like that doesn't change that truth,

You are asking the voter to "play the game" to make sure Trump does not win. But the voter is not supposed to do that. They are supposed to just exercise their right to vote, and vote for someone that most closely aligns with their political beliefs.

You are wrong on this.

I am completely and utterly right on this.
Because not "playing the game", as you say it, produces worse results for the voter.

This is one of the main issues with FPTP and probably the least disputed result in electoral theory.

FPTP fails the Favourite Betrayal Criterion.

 

[Valcazar]

It is an edited clip in that we dont have the full speech there.

Yes.
End of discussion.

But we dont need the full speech as we do have the entirety of the relevant sentences anyway.

This is nonsense.
You have no idea if this is the entirety of the relevant sentences.
Because it is edited.

And no I did not admit that it was inaccurate translation earlier, so that is an outright lie. Oracle said, there was one sentence in the video that was not translated, so I agreed that sentence was uttered, but I made the point to highlight that even with that sentence thrown in, the meaning of what he said does not change.

I know you highlighted that, but you're wrong.
You are doing a lot of interpretive work on three sentences here.

We have 3 CONTINUOUS SENTENCES presented in that clip. And that is sufficient. Even CAMERA the pro-Israeli group that routinely tries to spin things in favour of Israel has provided the translation as I provided above. These were the sentences he actually said and he said it in this particular sequence:

"Gaza will not go back to what it was before. Hamas will not exist. We will eliminate everything".

Which is wildly far from proving genocidal intent.

Had he said "We will eliminate Hamas", you'd have an argument.

But he did not. He said "We will eliminate everything", and that is genocidal intent. You are grasping at straws here. He couldn't have been clearer.

This is nonsense and you are the one grasping at straws.
It's like you don't understand how English works.

 

[Frankfooter]

There are lots and lots of things to criticize Biden for.
He's exceeded my expectations in some areas and fallen far below them in others.

As for Frank's specific point, it relies on the idea that Biden will lose the election over this specific issue and nothing else.
It also seems to rest on the idea that "The Democrats didn't stop him", because as is well known, all politicians can do exactly what they want to do like flicking a light switch on or off.

I didn't say 'and nothing else'.

But this one issue is losing him a few key demographics and swing states, its the final straw for quite a few people.
Your specific point is that this choice is a failure of voters and its not a failure of Biden's himself.

75,000 people surrounded the WH today. Yet you still argue this is just me.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799513115064684771

 

[Frankfooter]

I agree many people think that way.
That's what they WANT the system to to incentivize.
But wishing the system worked that way doesn't make it work that way.

Not voting for the status quo is how you change the status quo.
It may never happen but at least you are trying to change the system, not just choose between two genocidal options.

Your view appears to be that democracy is broken and can't be fixed.
You sell the same 'the other guy will end the world' story that the other side sells.

Its like you think nobody should protest and the students should cut it out because they won't force Biden to change his mind.
Even though you, amongst everyone here, know this looks like a Humphrey moment.

 

[Kautilya]

Not at all. I am pointing out that there are two different things going on.

That is what you are doing, you are making the voter choose only between 2 choices, when in fact they have more than one, because only one of those 2 choices are likely to get elected.

Why?
What on earth makes you think "that is what you do"?
Especially in a system which will actively punish you for doing that by producing a result you consider worse more often if you do that?

I agree many people think that way.
That's what they WANT the system to to incentivize.
But wishing the system worked that way doesn't make it work that way.

Of course that is what you do. You vote per your conscience. If your conscience suggests that you do not want Trump to win, and if that is the priority for you, then you vote for whoever you think has the best chance of beating Trump. If your conscience suggests that you vote for Cornell West because the Israel Palestine issue is big for you, you vote for him, whether or not he wins.

Yes, it does.
By definition.

Now, you may be happy that it helped Trump or you may be upset by it.
But in a plurality-wins system, any vote for someone hurts someone else.
If you truly have no preference between the other candidates, then what you do does not affect anything concerning your satisfaction in the result.
If you have any preference at all between the other candidates, then you have to consider whether or not your vote will produce a result that you like less than the outcome you helped create.

By that definition my choice to vote for say Cornell West or another independent, hurts Trump too. So your accusation that it helps Trump falls flat right there.

Something that is actively detrimental to you getting your preferred result overall in a plurality-wins system.
Ignoring that because you don't like that the system produces results like that doesn't change that truth,

Both choices - Trump and Biden are detrimental for this particular issue of Palestine. Say I was a voter, I may choose Cornell West or some other to ensure my vote does not go to either of the two that I dont like. If Cornell West or other independent candidates did not exist as a choice, I may choose to not vote at all. It just means you voted per your beliefs.

I am completely and utterly right on this.
Because not "playing the game" as you say it, produces worse results for the voter.

This is one of the main issues with FPTP and probably the least disputed result in electoral theory.

FPTP fails the Favourite Betrayal Criterion.

You are being presumptuous about what is good for the voter. The voter is an individual and they will make their choices that they find beneficial for them. That includes not voting for Biden or Trump, or even anyone at all. Or voting for an independent. What exact benefit would a pro-Palestinian person have in voting in Biden? None. Trump? None. So what do they do? They either choose to not vote at all, or vote for someone who speaks their mind. Its fair enough. So no, you are still wrong about this.

This is nonsense.
You have no idea if this is the entirety of the relevant sentences.
Because it is edited.

He literally said those sentences. Those were his words. He uttered those 3 sentences. Case closed.

I know you highlighted that, but you're wrong.
You are doing a lot of interpretive work on three sentences here.

I am interpreting nothing. I am repeating translation of 3 sentences that literally came out of his mouth, word for word.

Which is wildly far from proving genocidal intent.

This is nonsense and you are the one grasping at straws.
It's like you don't understand how English works.

He said "We will eliminate everything". What is in Gaza? People, infrastructure, animals. Everything is an all encompassing term. It proves genocidal intent without a shred of doubt. I am not even quoting his other pronouncements of Palestinians as "human animals", or Israel's president saying "there are no non-combatants in Gaza" etc., Just going off of his words alone is enough to show genocidal intent. As I said, if all they wanted was to take out Hamas, they could have just said so. Its not difficult. Hamas attacked them. They could have said "We will eliminate Hamas". But he did not. He chose to say "We will eliminate everything".

You are the one grasping at straws on this one. I am simply pointing out what Gallant very clearly said.

 

[Valcazar]

But I dont think as Canadians we have to feel sad about Trump winning. The only thing we'd have to put up with are the righties on TERB having a party lmao. Double yikes if PP wins in Canada. lmfao. Other than that, it will be 4 years of non-stop entertainment.

Even if you were correct about it having no effect on Canada, I would think "not finding human suffering amusing" would be something you would aspire to.

 

[Kautilya]

Even if you were correct about it having no effect on Canada, I would think "not finding human suffering amusing" would be something you would aspire to.

If the majority of Americans choose to vote for Trump, why should we not find it amusing? They dont think they are suffering if they elect him so why should we care?.

 

[Butler1000]

Poor Val. He is watching in real time the actual reasons why Biden could very well lose the election to Trump, which is essentially why Hillary did.

And he is going to continue to gaslight with his elitist "I know better than you what's good so line up and vote what I say" because it's all he knows. He can't fathom another opinion.

This is what happens when you piss people off enough. They will vote their conscious and will accept eorse results to hope for later better options. Val essentially wants people to stay in a bad abusive relationship because he thinks it's worse leaving.

What he is incapable of seeing is that's just not true.

 

[Hunter96]

Wait he claims to be an expert in logic. He has ZERO education on the topic yet is still an expert.

Don't let him drag you down to his level of intellect and then beat you with his experience there.

Thanks for your concern. Tbh, it doesn’t bother to me anymore when ppl call names, assume nationalities and pov. Have been dealing with such cases day in and day out.

Earlier debates or discussions used to happen to grab a different point of view. To understand the side which we never thought of. The point we could see due to confirmation bias. That’s gone for sure in today’s worldz

Now a days, ppl have this thought that the louder I am and the length of my post decides how correct I am. It doesn’t matter what others are saying but it does matter what I am saying.
I made a mistake of not realising the fact that 900 pages of this thread are nothing but “echo” chamber of leftist “me right” “me correct” and “only me telling thrth”. There is no room for decent and logical discussion. Certain ppl have pre determine mind set which can’t be changed.
I always remember that Rome didn’t fall in a day. It was their inability to counter the leftist propaganda which caused them a slow but study death. However that’s for history lesson. lol.

I am unable to afford time only in this forum as I joined thinking of getting inputs for my pleasure however I found few thread I thought of engaging but when I see ppl are obsess with this forum I have to draw a line.
Having said that, I will continue to add my pov on thread which are not “echo chamber”

Once again, thanks!

 

[Valcazar]

I didn't say 'and nothing else'.

But this one issue is losing him a few key demographics and swing states, its the final straw for quite a few people.

That isn't what you are arguing though.
You are saying "THIS is what is costing him the election".

That is saying it is - if not nothing else - the primary reason.
Yet you've never managed to provide evidence for that.

Your specific point is that this choice is a failure of voters and its not a failure of Biden's himself.

Not at all.
I've said repeatedly that you don't understand the voting system and that people who vote based on the same thinking as you also don't understand it.

75,000 people surrounded the WH today. Yet you still argue this is just me.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799513115064684771

I've never said it was just you.
Or that it wasn't a problem that was affecting his election chances.
That's all just projection by you because you can't believe anyone wouldn't think that this is the single most important thing - if not the only thing - affecting Joe Biden's chances of re-election.