Project 2025

[Valcazar]

Wrong dilemna.

If person A is in the act of aiding genocide you say you cannot support them.
If person B talks about backing genocide but hasn't yet aided genocide you don't support them either.

Then you could vote for person C, who doesn't support genocide at all

Yes, we have different ethics.
You believe in the categorical imperative to some degree, and don't believe in consequences being part of the ethical equation.
Therefore voting for C - even though it materially increases the chances for a worse outcome - is morally pure.

I don't believe in deontology nearly as much as you do.

Under this situation, committing a crime is worse than saying you might or even would commit a crime.

That's much simpler and clearer, requires less academic attempts at rationalizations, such as trying to declare that lying to nazis is wrong.
There are scales of bad in criminal acts.
Genocide tops every other crime.
Lying or perjury is way down near the bottom.

I get it.
In the example I gave, the Nazis have only said they want to commit a crime, so there is nothing bad in revealing the hiding place.

Under your moral system all criminal acts are equal, so it is just as wrong to lie to a nazi as it is to commit genocide.
That would fail you in all first year courses, wouldn't it?

Wow.
You don't even understand ethics much, do you?

So let's ask a simple question -- if Trump gets in and things get worse for Palestine, will you consider people who didn't vote for Biden morally innocent?

 

[Frankfooter]

Look.
If you aren't even going to pretend to pay attention, I'm not going to do extra work.

I's clear you aren't ever going to get this.
I do hope one day you bother to look into voting systems and the extreme difficulty in designing them.

Sigh.

I've been paying attention, you just declared you need a third party for democracy but its wrong to vote for them.
Now you're just not willing to share your superior knowledge of democracy with us to explain why.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, we have different ethics.
You believe in the categorical imperative to some degree, and don't believe in consequences being part of the ethical equation.
Therefore voting for C - even though it materially increases the chances for a worse outcome - is morally pure.

I don't believe in deontology nearly as much as you do.

Neither do I, nor am I a consequentialist as you appear to be. If you were going to try to pigeonhole me with old, academic schools, you would be closer starting from the social contract, though most of my views come from neuroscience and not philosophy in general. Philosophy is too concerned with ontology and etymology for my tastes, questions better answered through cognitive study.

I get it.
In the example I gave, the Nazis have only said they want to commit a crime, so there is nothing bad in revealing the hiding place.

No, you didn't say they only 'wanted' to commit a crime, you just said they were nazis which implies they are committing crimes.
You are exposing the weaknesses of your consequentialism, that you believe if 2/4 choices are nazis and more likely to get in you have to pick the least evil of the nazis because one of them will win, and you're wasting your vote if you don't vote for a nazi winner who at least might forgive student loans.

Wow.
You don't even understand ethics much, do you?

So let's ask a simple question -- if Trump gets in and things get worse for Palestine, will you consider people who didn't vote for Biden morally innocent?

That's now a hypothetical, you can't vote for Biden anymore. The arguments I made, that you need to work to get him removed were aided by his own debate self immolation and he's gone. Score one for my case. Not that I back an Aaron Bushnell view either. Biden specifically said the polls were also instrumental for him stepping down and that was one of my arguments, if dems express their views loudly enough he has to change. If the US backed your plan he'd likely still be running.

Harris and rump's views are less clear. Shapiro would be a bad signal and rump bends to whoever is offering him the most grift.
All we know for certain is the guy who has single handedly enabled and aided the worst genocide of the century is stepping down in 100 days.

In this case, it looks like your views are the naive and reductive choice.

 

[basketcase]

Fixed your post as you continu...

More pathetic loser feeling he needs to fake quotes.

 

[Frankfooter]

More pathetic loser feeling he needs to fake quotes.

I'm correcting your false claims about my views.
As soon as you stop mischaracterizing them I won't have to correct them.

 

[Valcazar]

That's now a hypothetical, you can't vote for Biden anymore.

The question stands.
If the result is Trump is worse - after all Kamala is JUST as Guilty as Biden since she was a member of the Adminsitration and therefore you obviously can't support her.

As long as you "did the right thing" by not voting for someone who helped the Israeli offensive, are you absolved from the outcome?

The arguments I made, that you need to work to get him removed were aided by his own debate self immolation and he's gone. Score one for my case.

That has nothing to do with your case, though.
Nowhere was I arguing that trying to get him removed so that someone else who could win could get in instead was a problem.

Of course, that hasn't happened.
Kamala is every bit as guilty according to the standards you've been using.
Or, if she isn't, I would like to see why you say that.

Not that I back an Aaron Bushnell view either. Biden specifically said the polls were also instrumental for him stepping down and that was one of my arguments, if dems express their views loudly enough he has to change. If the US backed your plan he'd likely still be running.

You have next to no evidence that that is true.
The overwhelming reason given by people that they wanted him out is that he was old.
As you saw again and again in polls, the Gaza situation was very low in the priority of the people responding to the polls.

Harris and rump's views are less clear.

Harris's views are very clear and show next to no daylight between her and Biden.
You have said repeatedly that words mean nothing, only actions.
Harris can only be judged by the fact she has participated and supported Biden completely and is therefore just as guilty.

Shapiro would be a bad signal and rump bends to whoever is offering him the most grift.

She didn't pick Shapiro, she picked Walz.

Walz is, of course, someone whose position on Israel you oppose.
He has called for a two-state solution and supported Israel's right to defend itself and he was congratulated by the Israeli counsel.

x.com

x.com

All we know for certain is the guy who has single handedly enabled and aided the worst genocide of the century is stepping down in 100 days.

Why on earth would Joe Biden (since that seems to be who you laughingly are referring to) step down in 100 days?

But it is good to know that you consider every other member of the US Administration innocent, since this is single-handedly Joe Biden's fault.

In this case, it looks like your views are the naive and reductive choice.

LOL.

 

[Frankfooter]

The question stands.
If the result is Trump is worse - after all Kamala is JUST as Guilty as Biden since she was a member of the Adminsitration and therefore you obviously can't support her.

As long as you "did the right thing" by not voting for someone who helped the Israeli offensive, are you absolved from the outcome?

You do love to kill all nuance in discussions.
You can stick to your views if you want.

My view is that Biden's support of genocide is his own and is the most extreme of all the dems. The party backs him but the question of whether they'd support the genocide is still open. Harris has taken $5.4 million from AIPAC and her husband appears to be more zionist than liberal. Even so, Harris has signalled her support for ending the genocide in a clearer way than Biden.

If I were voting would I switch from Stein to Harris?
Not yet, but its quite possible if she shows some sense on the issue.

That has nothing to do with your case, though.
Nowhere was I arguing that trying to get him removed so that someone else who could win could get in instead was a problem.

Of course, that hasn't happened.
Kamala is every bit as guilty according to the standards you've been using.
Or, if she isn't, I would like to see why you say that.

I still argue that Biden, like Netanyahu, are singular politicians. While in Israel Netanyahu is almost a moderate compared the the Kahanists that make up a good part of his government, he's also killed off the two state solution and aided his country's turn to the extreme right wing. Biden's support of genocide in Palestine was not backed by 80% of dem voters. The AIPAC crowd is behind him but Harris is to savvy to not see the polls and protests as meaning its gone way too far. There will never be another president as willfully aiding genocide, I would hope. Even rump doesn't care enough to do something that unpopular.

You have next to no evidence that that is true.
The overwhelming reason given by people that they wanted him out is that he was old.
As you saw again and again in polls, the Gaza situation was very low in the priority of the people responding to the polls.

No, not true. There were only a few polls that asked those questions, it was too small a sample size to declare it done. Given the MSM support and bias in poll questions, there isn't enough solid evidence for your claim.

Harris's views are very clear and show next to no daylight between her and Biden.
You have said repeatedly that words mean nothing, only actions.
Harris can only be judged by the fact she has participated and supported Biden completely and is therefore just as guilty.

We don't know what's been going on behind the scenes, though we'll know soon enough.

She didn't pick Shapiro, she picked Walz.

Walz is, of course, someone whose position on Israel you oppose.
He has called for a two-state solution and supported Israel's right to defend itself and he was congratulated by the Israeli counsel.

x.com

x.com

Walz is more moderate than you suggest, which is good news.

Walz called Gaza situation 'Intolerable,' sought ceasefire, praised Uncommitted; Shapiro did not

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - Presumptive Democratic Party standard-bearer Kamala Harris' pick of Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate has widely been implied to have something to do with his stance on the Gaza genocide. That proposition is likely almost entirely untrue. Governors of...

www.juancole.com

Why on earth would Joe Biden (since that seems to be who you laughingly are referring to) step down in 100 days?
But it is good to know that you consider every other member of the US Administration innocent, since this is single-handedly Joe Biden's fault.

Straw man arguments.
Are you arguing that you don't think Biden will give up the presidency after the election?
Do you think every single nazi should have been put behind bars after WWII?

 

[basketcase]

I'm correcting your false claims about my views.
As soon as you stop mischaracterizing them I won't have to correct them.

More pathetic loser feeling he needs to fake quotes.

Just like Hamas, you think you have the right to violate all norms because you are filled with hate.

 

[Frankfooter]

More pathetic loser feeling he needs to fake quotes.

Just like Palestinians, you think you have the right to advocate for all norms because you are filled with hate of racism.

Had to fix that one, too.
Your own hate is getting out of control, basketcase.
The way you see the world is really fucked up.

rump needs to be kicked out of the race next.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821614158208758045

 

[Valcazar]

You do love to kill all nuance in discussions.

OK.

If you're just going to be silly, never mind.

 

[Frankfooter]

OK.

If you're just going to be silly, never mind.

Your post is as serious as this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821354738895446262

 

[basketcase]

Had to fix that one, too.
...

And more of the moron needing to fake people's quotes due to an inability to argue a point with any rationality or consistency.


p.s. Speaking of rationality and consistency, how does it make sense that you post tweets mocking Trump while arguing people shouldn't vote for Harris?

 

[NotADcotor]

Your own hate is getting out of control, basketcase.

That statement is like Trump calling someone a liar, or Bernardo calling someone hard on the women.

 

[Frankfooter]

And more of the moron needing to fake people's quotes due to an inability to argue a point with any rationality or consistency.


p.s. Speaking of rationality and consistency, how does it make sense that you post tweets mocking Trump while arguing people shouldn't vote for Harris?

Easy.

Vote for the only Jew running for office, the only person clearly against genocide.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820258949452431675

 

[Frankfooter]

That statement is like Trump calling someone a liar, or Bernardo calling someone hard on the women.

Every post from you is this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821729398581510183

 

[Valcazar]

Your post is as serious as this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821354738895446262

What about this isn't serious?

What do you think happened in this clip you just posted?

 

[Valcazar]

My view is that Biden's support of genocide is his own and is the most extreme of all the dems. The party backs him but the question of whether they'd support the genocide is still open. Harris has taken $5.4 million from AIPAC and her husband appears to be more zionist than liberal. Even so, Harris has signalled her support for ending the genocide in a clearer way than Biden.

In what way?
You are on the record that what you say or signal is completely irrelevant, even to the point of saying that Trump's stated preference should be ignored because maybe he won't do it.

Even rump doesn't care enough to do something that unpopular.

Oh, you just don't believe in reality at all.
Gotcha.

No, not true. There were only a few polls that asked those questions, it was too small a sample size to declare it done. Given the MSM support and bias in poll questions, there isn't enough solid evidence for your claim.

Oh.
You just don't believe in reality at all.
Gotcha.

It's just you deciding what polls are real and which aren't.

Walz is more moderate than you suggest, which is good news.

Walz called Gaza situation 'Intolerable,' sought ceasefire, praised Uncommitted; Shapiro did not

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - Presumptive Democratic Party standard-bearer Kamala Harris' pick of Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate has widely been implied to have something to do with his stance on the Gaza genocide. That proposition is likely almost entirely untrue. Governors of...

www.juancole.com

There is nothing here more moderate than the median Democratic politician.
You are on the record that calling for a ceasefire should be ignored and doesn't count because it hasn't happened.
Rhetoric means nothing. You've been very clear.

And right here in the first paragraph of your article...

" Moreover, where his stances are better than those of some other Democratic Party politicians, it is mainly a matter of rhetorical style rather than policy. "

Straw man arguments.

You're the one who said he is singlehandedly responsible.
Either you mean that or you don't.

Do you think every single nazi should have been put behind bars after WWII?

You're the one who has said that genocide trumps everything else and no tradeoff for practical reasons can be accepted.

Are you arguing that you don't think Biden will give up the presidency after the election?

Of course he won't.
Why on earth would he?\
If Trump wins, he isn't going to put him in power months early and if Harris wins, why would he rush the transition?

 

[Frankfooter]

What about this isn't serious?

What do you think happened in this clip you just posted?

Harris was confronted by Palestine protesters and did what you do here repeatedly, 'do you want rump to win'.
The next day she tried to moderate that but then Biden ok'd another $3.5 billion in weapons as Israel used US weapons to kill 100 children sheltering in a school.

The question is whether she'll read the room or continue taking AIPAC instructions.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822090060348744107

 

[Valcazar]

Easy.

Vote for the only Jew running for office, the only person clearly against genocide.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820258949452431675

Huh?

The Libertarian candidate, Chase Oliver, is just as clearly against it.

‘End the genocide’ says Libertarian presidential candidate

The Libertarian Party has nominated activist Chase Oliver for US president, who pledged to ‘end the genocide’.

www.aljazeera.com

He has the advantage of being on the ballot on more states, and the Libertarians have consistently won more votes than the Green party since 2000.
Clearly, that's who you would want to support if the idea is to actually win and effect a change in foreign policy.

You will also notice that Stein is running explicitly against Harris (look at the hashtags in your tweet and notice there aren't any about the Gaza situation).
So if this is more about Israel, Olivier seems to be your guy.

 

[Valcazar]

Harris was confronted by Palestine protesters and did what you do here repeatedly, 'do you want rump to win'.

So she had no other interactions with them during the event?

(Pay attention to the cuts in the clip that you posted.)

And what, might I ask, were they chanting when she said " If you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking" ?

The question is whether she'll read the room or continue taking AIPAC instructions.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822090060348744107

So what is the difference between the two clips, do you think?