I use it quite critically.
If I'm not sure its accurate I will say so, like I've said with AI Netanyahu.
You think AI Netanyahu may not be true and the whole "He's dead" thing a lie?
And you've been pointing this out?
You are no different from MAGA, or anyone else, in that way, you have your own model of the world in your predictive mind and you can deal with prediction error but you can't deal with changing your model.
You have decided on your own conclusion here as well. You've built your own version of how informed you are and how diligent you are with sources, as academics mostly are. Though you've also admitted that there is no absolute proof either of us are right or wrong. The biggest piece of new info is the internal dem report, which you want to dismiss entirely as it doesn't fit your own narrative. But you also know that true debate requires actual consideration of opposite views and not just dismissing them, as you do here. Likely there will never be conclusive proof either way, but given the progression of news, my view stands as way more compelling an argument then 'genocide had no effect' on the election. And this place tends towards absolute positions instead of admitting, 'yes, its possible'.
And here we see it again.
You admit either that you've been influenced by here to believe extreme positions regardless of the strength of the evidence or you've decided you have to
take these positions, even though you don't believe them.
Then you get mad when I point out that the evidence doesn't actually support the extreme position you are claiming.
You also assign extreme positions I haven't taken to me (and presumably others - I can't imagine I'm special here).
It's fascinating.
Are you arguing there never was any such report?
Of course not.
Why do you leap to these insane conclusions?
Oh right, you just admitted it is either damage from being online too much or a deliberate bad faith move because that's what online people do.
Or do you have another rationale as to why the dems wouldn't publish it if it wasn't so damming towards their chief fundraiser?
Oh, I think protecting Future Forward PAC and the people who ran it is definitely part of the reason some people don't want it published.
But since you asked for other rationales.
There's the one they originally gave, about not wanting to fuck with a winning streak by providing a distraction. (“Here’s our North Star: Does this help us win?” )
There is preventing internal division and finger pointing in general.
There is the general "don't embarrass important people who fucked up".
There is the precedent of the GOP autopsy and Trump winning by ignoring everything that is in it.
Are these good reasons?
No, not in my opinion.
They should release it, because the shitty news cycles of "they are hiding it" are just as bad as any shitty news cycles of people making stupid proclamations about what is actually in it if it is released.
And if you think it doesn't exist, why would the dems not do an autopsy on their election failure?
No one thinks it doesn't exist. (Well, there are billions of people on the planet, I guess
someone must think it doesn't exist.)
Who are these people you imagine think it doesn't exist?
Sure, its possible that while Harris totally supported the genocide she might have drawn a line at attacking Iran. I do agree that the history of the dems is that they understood how stupid that was. The war on Iran really reads as Netanyahu finally getting someone stupid enough to back his 40 year dream only to have it kill him on week later and destroy all of Israel and america. So sure, we can say we know that both Harris and Clinton would have backed committing genocide on Palestinians but likely would not have supported war on Iran. I'm sure that makes you feel much better.
So are you admitting you lied about what she said?
Anytime you admit you were lying about things you lied about is good.
Confession is good for the soul.
" picayune" --> Fun!
More interesting is guess where the fuck this all goes.
That's really what we should be discusing.
So is that an admission that you think this whole digression you went on to prove something you now admit doesn't exist is picayune, or is me objecting to you claiming things you can't back up picayune?
Thesis:
The war on Iran is the single worst american military disaster.
I'm not sure you can say that given the decades long history of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
It's fucking terrible, sure, but "single worst American military disaster" is big claim.
The questions:
Is there an offramp other than nukes or TACO?
Will Israel survive?
(go ahead, I know, you can't do both a thesis and a question in one paper/post)
How are nukes an "offramp"?
I don't expect Israel to cease to exist as a political entity anytime soon.
