Columbia student’s visa cancelled for being with protesters

[Valcazar]

Weren't you arguing last year that it was pragmatic to support genocide?

No.
But you were arguing that everything happening now was good because it would teach Democrats a lesson and make things better for Palestinians and those who support them.

Doesn't it look like it would have been smarter now to stand up for student protests last year when it wasn't life and death?

I was in favor of the student protests, remember?
You're the one who said this was the preferred outcome.

 

[Frankfooter]

No.
But you were arguing that everything happening now was good because it would teach Democrats a lesson and make things better for Palestinians and those who support them.

No.
It was never good. I argued that lots of people have a red line about voting for a party that is aiding genocide, you argued that it was naive and 'pragmatic' to vote for the dems and their support of genocide.

I was in favor of the student protests, remember?
You're the one who said this was the preferred outcome.

No.
I said the preferred outcome was to work to change the party before the election, to support the student protests and to try to change the party before they lost the election over the genocide. I did argue that if the dems couldn't change before that maybe this would be the only way to make them change, but that was not 'good' nor the best choice. I do admit that I underestimated how many fascists and project 2025 people would support trump this time, I had hoped his total incompetence would keep him from screwing over the system.

But I'd say in retrospect that the dems fucked up, both their leaders and the party. Biden ended the idea that the US backed international law and rules based governance. Now they're stuck with trump taking what they made acceptable too far.

 

[Valcazar]

No.
It was never good. I argued that lots of people have a red line about voting for a party that is aiding genocide, you argued that it was naive and 'pragmatic' to vote for the dems and their support of genocide.

Because it would keep Trump out and Trump would be worse.

Oh look.
Trump is worse.

How shocking that the obvious thing that was obvious came to pass.

No.
I said the preferred outcome was to work to change the party before the election, to support the student protests and to try to change the party before they lost the election over the genocide. I did argue that if the dems couldn't change before that maybe this would be the only way to make them change, but that was not 'good' nor the best choice.

You said it would be the way to make them change and that it couldn't get worse under Trump.
Once it was obvious that you weren't going to get the result you wanted from pre-election pressure, you turned to this being long term the better result than the Democrats winning the election.

I do admit that I underestimated how many fascists and project 2025 people would support trump this time, I had hoped his total incompetence would keep him from screwing over the system.

You insisted that it would.
It wasn't even a risk.
It was a "hypothetical" and I was being pro-genocide by warning you of the consequences.

But I'd say in retrospect that the dems fucked up, both their leaders and the party. Biden ended the idea that the US backed international law and rules based governance. Now they're stuck with trump taking what they made acceptable too far.

Ahh, I see you've grown Butlerian in your logic.

 

[Uwauwa]

But I'd say in retrospect that the dems fucked up, both their leaders and the party.

No it’s not just the dems, it’s their supporters too, are fucked up. From the top all the way down.

 

[Frankfooter]

Because it would keep Trump out and Trump would be worse.

Oh look.
Trump is worse.

How shocking that the obvious thing that was obvious came to pass.

trump is the same as Biden, though he did get Netanyahu to declare a ceasefire for a while.
Both aided genocide. Both are letting AIPAC and Netanyahu do what they want.
Both sent US money to Israel instead of for health care or anything for americans.
Both are working to destroy international laws and human rights organizations.

You said it would be the way to make them change and that it couldn't get worse under Trump.
Once it was obvious that you weren't going to get the result you wanted from pre-election pressure, you turned to this being long term the better result than the Democrats winning the election.

You declared it would be 'pragmatic' to vote for Biden's version of genocide to stop trump. But you also know that in a split vote between a hitler and a hitler lite that the hitler will always win because some people will refuse to vote for any form of a hitler.

You insisted that it would.
It wasn't even a risk.
It was a "hypothetical" and I was being pro-genocide by warning you of the consequences.

Yes, you acknowledged the risk of the hitler lite losing to the hitler yet still backed the hitler lite instead of trying to change the party and their choice.
The thing is, I was right and was trying to actively stop it from happening. You just dismissed those warnings and declared a little genocide was ok.

Ahh, I see you've grown Butlerian in your logic.

That's a weak deflection to a question you can't answer.
You used to declare the Wilhoit definition all that was wrong with conservatism, but now you're just on that team.

 

[Valcazar]

trump is the same as Biden

Such a ludicrous statement.

You declared it would be 'pragmatic' to vote for Biden's version of genocide to stop trump.

Your inability to understand voting remains a problem in having a serious conversation with you.
But yes, voting to not make things worth for the Palestinian people was a good thing to vote for.
I know you disagreed.

Yes, you acknowledged the risk of the hitler lite losing to the hitler yet still backed the hitler lite instead of trying to change the party and their choice.
The thing is, I was right and was trying to actively stop it from happening. You just dismissed those warnings and declared a little genocide was ok.

No.
You overestimated the leverage you (generalized you) had and then, instead of working to minimize damage, said that Trump would be better in the long run.

That's a weak deflection to a question you can't answer.
You used to declare the Wilhoit definition all that was wrong with conservatism, but now you're just on that team.

LOL.
Dear god.
You really shouldn't use tools you don't understand.

 

[Frankfooter]

Such a ludicrous statement.

Its not ludicrous at all, on the subject of Israel both Biden and trump have given Netanyahu what they wanted. At most you could argue that trump did force Netanyahu into a ceasefire for a bit, which is way more than Biden ever did.

Your inability to understand voting remains a problem in having a serious conversation with you.
But yes, voting to not make things worth for the Palestinian people was a good thing to vote for.
I know you disagreed.

And yet I was correct about what would happen and you were wrong.
Your inability to understand that your own choice to overlook genocide to vote for Biden means that you are just like MAGA, willing to overlook crimes by your leader in order to gain power.

No.
You overestimated the leverage you (generalized you) had and then, instead of working to minimize damage, said that Trump would be better in the long run.

That's not what I said. l said getting the dems to change would be better long term.

LOL.
Dear god.
You really shouldn't use tools you don't understand.

How are you not fitting Whilhoit's definition of conservatism right now?

 

[Valcazar]

Its not ludicrous at all, on the subject of Israel both Biden and trump have given Netanyahu what they wanted. At most you could argue that trump did force Netanyahu into a ceasefire for a bit, which is way more than Biden ever did.

Wow.

And yet I was correct about what would happen and you were wrong.

Wow.
That's some hard core cognitive dissonance you have going for you.

That's not what I said. l said getting the dems to change would be better long term.

Keep lying to yourself.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wow.

So prove I'm wrong.

Wow.
That's some hard core cognitive dissonance you have going for you.

So prove I was wrong about the election.

Keep lying to yourself.

What is your path forward for the dems now?
Prove to me, with support material, that my claims are wrong.

Its really quite telling that you claim I'm wrong but won't defend your position.

 

[Valcazar]

So prove I'm wrong.

Netanyahu and his government disagree.

So prove I was wrong about the election.

Trump won, things are worse.
Which is what I told you would happen.

What is your path forward for the dems now?
Prove to me, with support material, that my claims are wrong.

How am I supposed to prove your claim that years from now the Dems will be better on Palestine specifically because of this loss?
It's an impossible thing to prove.

Its really quite telling that you claim I'm wrong but won't defend your position.

Frank, why would I bother?
You post HUNDREDS of posts on this subject all the time and have shown your obsession can outlast all but the most passionately obsessed counter arguments.
Reality is an entirely optional component of this process.
Why on earth would I waste my time that way when even the things you ask to prove are impossible to prove or disprove?

It's a fool's errand.

 

[Frankfooter]

Netanyahu and his government disagree.

Netanyahu is wanted for 'extermination' by the ICC.
Yet you are taking his side here.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

During the election you argued that it was pragmatic to overlook Harris and Biden's aid and funding of the genocide in Palestine. Now this is lead to a point where all the GOP and most of the dems are owned by AIPAC and this is leading to the expansion of Wilhoit conservatism in the US. You've got students and immigrants being disappeared, universities under attack and an acceptance that the US is using the law to bind those who are against the genocide. Once its accepted by americans that the law is no longer fair, breaking it becomes acceptable.

Trump won, things are worse.
Which is what I told you would happen.

Harris lost the election over support of the genocide, which is what I told you would happen if the dems didn't listen to the 80% of their base that wanted a ceasefire.
Now the dems are screwed over, they are seen as just as AIPAC and billionaire controlled. They have no moral base and no position to argue from.

trump is letting Netanyahu do what he wants, the exact same as Biden, while paying for it. That is the same.
What's happening now is that trump's tariffs just lost him the support of the oligarchy. Its not quite time for the lettuce watch, but the country will turn against him and the people with the money have already.

How am I supposed to prove your claim that years from now the Dems will be better on Palestine specifically because of this loss?
It's an impossible thing to prove.

I know, you don't care if the dems are better on Palestine. You admit its genocide but don't have any problem with it.
That leaves you sitting in this murky area where your ivory tower self assurance left you blind to backing what a political historian should have understood.
If you back parties that are corrupt and committing evil acts it only makes more evil acts more acceptable.

Frank, why would I bother?
You post HUNDREDS of posts on this subject all the time and have shown your obsession can outlast all but the most passionately obsessed counter arguments.
Reality is an entirely optional component of this process.
Why on earth would I waste my time that way when even the things you ask to prove are impossible to prove or disprove?

It's a fool's errand.

How long is your conversation with larue been going now?
The reason you won't debate this with me is not because you think I'm wrong, its because you don't think you can win.

Here's the thing.
We both know larue is an idiot.
You're not, you know this subject well enough to have known better.

 

[Valcazar]

Netanyahu is wanted for 'extermination' by the ICC.
Yet you are taking his side here.

How is pointing out that Netanyahu doesn't agree with you that Biden gave him everything he wanted "taking his side"?

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

Yes, I quote it often.
That you somehow think I have no adopted it simply means you don't seem to understand what the quote means.

During the election you argued that it was pragmatic to overlook Harris and Biden's aid and funding of the genocide in Palestine. Now this is lead to a point where all the GOP and most of the dems are owned by AIPAC and this is leading to the expansion of Wilhoit conservatism in the US. You've got students and immigrants being disappeared, universities under attack and an acceptance that the US is using the law to bind those who are against the genocide. Once its accepted by americans that the law is no longer fair, breaking it becomes acceptable.

I see chains of logic are about as a strong a suit of yours as might be expected.

Harris lost the election over support of the genocide, which is what I told you would happen if the dems didn't listen to the 80% of their base that wanted a ceasefire.

I know you believe this.
You've failed to prove it many times.

Now the dems are screwed over, they are seen as just as AIPAC and billionaire controlled. They have no moral base and no position to argue from.

Solely based on this.
It was literally the only thing anyone voted for or cares about.
You've been very clear that you will believe that until you die.

trump is letting Netanyahu do what he wants, the exact same as Biden, while paying for it. That is the same.

And again, not according to either Trump or Netanyahu.
Or anyone else following the conflict.

What's happening now is that trump's tariffs just lost him the support of the oligarchy. Its not quite time for the lettuce watch, but the country will turn against him and the people with the money have already.

Ahh.
"The oligarchy will save us".
Nice.

I know, you don't care if the dems are better on Palestine. You admit its genocide but don't have any problem with it.

Your wild inability to understand my position has grown more boring each time you insist on it.

That leaves you sitting in this murky area where your ivory tower self assurance left you blind to backing what a political historian should have understood.
If you back parties that are corrupt and committing evil acts it only makes more evil acts more acceptable.

So you've joined Butler in the "if things aren't perfect, we should encourage the most evil as possible since that is what is going to happen anyway" crowd?
Or is this back just to "If everyone only agreed with me, there would be world peace"?
How far are you going to take the stupidity?

But I do agree that your support for Trump and the GOP taking over encouraged more evil.
We agree about you backing their corruption and evil only encouraged more.

How long is your conversation with larue been going now?

Every so often I play with him as a chew toy because it is kind of amusing.
You're not amusing.

The reason you won't debate this with me is not because you think I'm wrong, its because you don't think you can win.

I can't win with Larue either.
You're both very married to narratives that don't need to connect to reality.

 

[Frankfooter]

How is pointing out that Netanyahu doesn't agree with you that Biden gave him everything he wanted "taking his side"?

I said Netanyahu is wanted for extermination by the ICC and you replied that the Netanyahu government disagrees.
You are trying to cast doubt on the charges, that's taking a side.

Yes, I quote it often.
That you somehow think I have no adopted it simply means you don't seem to understand what the quote means.

In context it looks like this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1908122020837020105

I see chains of logic are about as a strong a suit of yours as might be expected.

Ok, it was late and saying it 'lead to' AIPAC controlled parties is incorrect, they have been bought by AIPAC for quite some time now.

I know you believe this.
You've failed to prove it many times.

I have not failed to prove that 80% of dems wanted a ceasefire.
Nor have you proved I'm wrong that the genocide cost the dems the election.

Solely based on this.
It was literally the only thing anyone voted for or cares about.
You've been very clear that you will believe that until you die.

Straw man. I never argued it was the sole issue, only that it was a major issue for enough people to cost the dems a close election.

And again, not according to either Trump or Netanyahu.
Or anyone else following the conflict.

Back this up with evidence, this assertion doesn't hold water.

Ahh.
"The oligarchy will save us".
Nice.

Save us? Not at all, but they may let trump be turfed.

Your wild inability to understand my position has grown more boring each time you insist on it.

Your position becomes clear as you dance around the issue and refuse to step on certain clear statements.

So you've joined Butler in the "if things aren't perfect, we should encourage the most evil as possible since that is what is going to happen anyway" crowd?
Or is this back just to "If everyone only agreed with me, there would be world peace"?
How far are you going to take the stupidity?

But I do agree that your support for Trump and the GOP taking over encouraged more evil.
We agree about you backing their corruption and evil only encouraged more.

Finally, this is as close to you defending your position as I've seen in a while on this issue. I do find it cute that you want to blame the people who wouldn't vote for genocide instead of blaming the party that wouldn't say no to genocide even though their polls said 80% wanted a ceasefire. You're looking for an excuse for the loss. You know that the Palestine protests were front page news along with the genocide for most of the election year and continuing today. How hard should it have been for the dems to get Biden or Harris to stop paying billions for bombs dropped on Gaza? Why do you refuse to blame them for aiding and funding a genocide?

Every so often I play with him as a chew toy because it is kind of amusing.
You're not amusing.

That's because I can challenge you.

I can't win with Larue either.
You're both very married to narratives that don't need to connect to reality.

So it must have hurt when my warnings about the dems losing were proven correct.
When you face a prediction error you need to adjust your predictions or adjust your model of the world.
This would require adjusting your model of the world, which is nearly impossible for most people.

 

[Valcazar]

I said Netanyahu is wanted for extermination by the ICC and you replied that the Netanyahu government disagrees.
You are trying to cast doubt on the charges, that's taking a side.

No.
You said " Its not ludicrous at all, on the subject of Israel both Biden and trump have given Netanyahu what they wanted. "
Netanyahu and his government disagree.
The court had nothing to do with the exchange.

In context it looks like this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1908122020837020105

What does this have to do with choosing between Biden and Trump?
This is a larger foreign policy question across the West that won't be addressed by a single Presidential election.

I have not failed to prove that 80% of dems wanted a ceasefire.
Nor have you proved I'm wrong that the genocide cost the dems the election.

I doubt anyone will be able to prove it in either direction.
Won't stop you from claiming it with absolute certainty, just as it hasn't stopped you in the past.

Straw man. I never argued it was the sole issue, only that it was a major issue for enough people to cost the dems a close election.

Which I never disagreed with.
All major issues are important in a close election.
You, however, did say it was the sole issue.
In fact, you said the fact I would consider other issues at all meant I was a moral monster who thought other lives were more important than Palestinian ones.

Back this up with evidence, this assertion doesn't hold water.

LOL
I thought you listened to the Israeli government to pay attention to what it was doing?

Save us? Not at all, but they may let trump be turfed.

And this would lead to a better Israeli policy from JD Vance?

Your position becomes clear as you dance around the issue and refuse to step on certain clear statements.

LOL.
I don't respond to LaRue's constant repetition of "You refuse to acknowledge the debt bomb and love all government spending and think there is never any waste" and its variants either.

Finally, this is as close to you defending your position as I've seen in a while on this issue. I do find it cute that you want to blame the people who wouldn't vote for genocide instead of blaming the party that wouldn't say no to genocide even though their polls said 80% wanted a ceasefire. You're looking for an excuse for the loss. You know that the Palestine protests were front page news along with the genocide for most of the election year and continuing today. How hard should it have been for the dems to get Biden or Harris to stop paying billions for bombs dropped on Gaza? Why do you refuse to blame them for aiding and funding a genocide?

I do.
I've consistently said it was the wrong policy.
I've also said encouraging people to not vote for them because of it, given the options in the actual election was stupid and counter productive, EVEN if your only voting issue was the Gaza situation.
I was right.

The options were as follows.
On Gaza - Biden Bad / Trump promises to be worse and his previous term shows it isn't an empty promise.

Therefore, if I am a one-issue Gaza voter, I should vote Biden.

On EVERYTHING ELSE - Biden a range of bad-to-ok / Trump consistently worse on all subjects.

Therefore, if I include anything else in my weighting, I should vote Biden.

You -> Biden should lose, Trump can't possibly be worse.

Oh look, reality agreed with me, not you.

That's because I can challenge you.

No.
It's because you are less amusing.
You don't break down in a funny "looping robot" way.

So it must have hurt when my warnings about the dems losing were proven correct.
When you face a prediction error you need to adjust your predictions or adjust your model of the world.
This would require adjusting your model of the world, which is nearly impossible for most people.

You are demonstrating that quite well, I acknowledge.

 

[richaceg]

No.
You said " Its not ludicrous at all, on the subject of Israel both Biden and trump have given Netanyahu what they wanted. "
Netanyahu and his government disagree.
The court had nothing to do with the exchange.



What does this have to do with choosing between Biden and Trump?
This is a larger foreign policy question across the West that won't be addressed by a single Presidential election.



I doubt anyone will be able to prove it in either direction.
Won't stop you from claiming it with absolute certainty, just as it hasn't stopped you in the past.



Which I never disagreed with.
All major issues are important in a close election.
You, however, did say it was the sole issue.
In fact, you said the fact I would consider other issues at all meant I was a moral monster who thought other lives were more important than Palestinian ones.



LOL
I thought you listened to the Israeli government to pay attention to what it was doing?



And this would lead to a better Israeli policy from JD Vance?



LOL.
I don't respond to LaRue's constant repetition of "You refuse to acknowledge the debt bomb and love all government spending and think there is never any waste" and its variants either.



I do.
I've consistently said it was the wrong policy.
I've also said encouraging people to not vote for them because of it, given the options in the actual election was stupid and counter productive, EVEN if your only voting issue was the Gaza situation.
I was right.

The options were as follows.
On Gaza - Biden Bad / Trump promises to be worse and his previous term shows it isn't an empty promise.

Therefore, if I am a one-issue Gaza voter, I should vote Biden.

On EVERYTHING ELSE - Biden a range of bad-to-ok / Trump consistently worse on all subjects.

Therefore, if I include anything else in my weighting, I should vote Biden.

You -> Biden should lose, Trump can't possibly be worse.

Oh look, reality agreed with me, not you.



No.
It's because you are less amusing.
You don't break down in a funny "looping robot" way.



You are demonstrating that quite well, I acknowledge.

It's as simple as Franky thinking th world revolves around the Hamas-israel conflict. When something happens in the world...somehow he manages to connect Israel to it...the ultimate world peace can only be achieved when the jews are gone...

 

[Frankfooter]

No.
You said " Its not ludicrous at all, on the subject of Israel both Biden and trump have given Netanyahu what they wanted. "
Netanyahu and his government disagree.
The court had nothing to do with the exchange.

That's your opinion, its biased and wrong.
Biden funded genocide and blocked UN and ICC, trump is funding genocide and bombing Yemen. You can call them different but they are both doing what Netanyahu and AIPAC want, not what americans want.

What does this have to do with choosing between Biden and Trump?
This is a larger foreign policy question across the West that won't be addressed by a single Presidential election.

That was an example of Wilhoit in this particular case.

I doubt anyone will be able to prove it in either direction.
Won't stop you from claiming it with absolute certainty, just as it hasn't stopped you in the past.

And it won't stop you from claiming with absolute certainty I'm wrong. That's the same.
The only difference is I provided polls that backed my argument.

Which I never disagreed with.
All major issues are important in a close election.
You, however, did say it was the sole issue.
In fact, you said the fact I would consider other issues at all meant I was a moral monster who thought other lives were more important than Palestinian ones.

Nope, I said it was the biggest issue that Harris could have easily changed and made a large effect on her support.

LOL
I thought you listened to the Israeli government to pay attention to what it was doing?

deflection

And this would lead to a better Israeli policy from JD Vance?

deflection

LOL.
I don't respond to LaRue's constant repetition of "You refuse to acknowledge the debt bomb and love all government spending and think there is never any waste" and its variants either.

deflectin

I do.
I've consistently said it was the wrong policy.
I've also said encouraging people to not vote for them because of it, given the options in the actual election was stupid and counter productive, EVEN if your only voting issue was the Gaza situation.
I was right.

No, you've never said it was the wrong policy on this board, in fact you made it very clear that you refused to make a clear stance here.

The options were as follows.
On Gaza - Biden Bad / Trump promises to be worse and his previous term shows it isn't an empty promise.

Therefore, if I am a one-issue Gaza voter, I should vote Biden.

On EVERYTHING ELSE - Biden a range of bad-to-ok / Trump consistently worse on all subjects.

Therefore, if I include anything else in my weighting, I should vote Biden.

You -> Biden should lose, Trump can't possibly be worse.

Oh look, reality agreed with me, not you.

Intentional mischaracterization.
I said its a red line to vote for genocide, any moral person that believes in 'never again' can never vote for anyone aiding genocide.
You argued that was naive and it was pragmatic to vote for the lesser amount of genocide and just accept it.

I also said the best plan was to pressure the dems to change before the election, which many groups tried to do.
Harris chose to pay for bombs for killing children rather than win the election.
That was her choice.

No.
It's because you are less amusing.
You don't break down in a funny "looping robot" way.

You want more copy and paste?

You are demonstrating that quite well, I acknowledge.

Yet I was right and you were wrong.
Its your predictive model that needs adjusting.

Ta-Nehesi Coates put it well.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's as simple as Franky thinking th world revolves around the Hamas-israel conflict. When something happens in the world...somehow he manages to connect Israel to it...the ultimate world peace can only be achieved when the jews are gone...

Some people choose to back genocide.
Some choose to stand against it.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1908607336412836261

 

[Valcazar]

That's your opinion, its biased and wrong.
Biden funded genocide and blocked UN and ICC, trump is funding genocide and bombing Yemen. You can call them different but they are both doing what Netanyahu and AIPAC want, not what americans want.

And Netanyahu and his government disagree.
They repeatedly said how Biden was an impediment because he wouldn't give them what they want.

Now, you can argue that I'm saying Billy wants a thousand dollars, and I will only give him five hundred, therefore I'm not giving him he wants, but the real issue is "Billy wants money, you gave him money".
We can disagree on that, but at least it would show you thinking about the situation.

That was an example of Wilhoit in this particular case.

Sure, I'll accept it as Wilhoit on international relations.
Still irrelevant to the Trump/Biden vote.
And your accusation was that I was just a Wilhoitian conservative for saying voting in a way that gets Trump into power would be bad.
Which is entirely irrelevant to your whole "The West doesn't obey its own rules" thrust here.

And it won't stop you from claiming with absolute certainty I'm wrong. That's the same.
The only difference is I provided polls that backed my argument.

No.
Not the same.
You made claim and said the numbers proved it.
I said you were wrong about the numbers proving it, and I was completely correct.
You choosing to interpret that as me saying I have proved your claim wrong is your own problem, but also indicative of how you have handled almost all discussion.

Nope, I said it was the biggest issue that Harris could have easily changed and made a large effect on her support.

Back to lying about what you said, fine.

No, you've never said it was the wrong policy on this board, in fact you made it very clear that you refused to make a clear stance here.

I never blindly parroted words you want to hear and insisted you were absolutely right in your views on the situation.
That you therefore think I have never said it was the wrong policy is, again, indicative.

Intentional mischaracterization.
I said its a red line to vote for genocide, any moral person that believes in 'never again' can never vote for anyone aiding genocide.
You argued that was naive and it was pragmatic to vote for the lesser amount of genocide and just accept it.

Yes.
You think your vote is about making a moral statement and I told you that is wrong.
I explained the reality and I just recapped it.
And again, reality agreed with me.
That you still want to soften the cognitive dissonance in your head isn't really my problem.

I also said the best plan was to pressure the dems to change before the election, which many groups tried to do.
Harris chose to pay for bombs for killing children rather than win the election.
That was her choice.

Yes.
And I told you there wasn't enough leverage, leaving people with a choice of what to do.
You said in that case Trump should win and it would teach the Democrats to not support genocide.
In the end, if the Democrats didn't blink, there was a choice.
Now, since it wasn't your election, you didn't have to think about that choice very hard, but you were very clear that the answer was "The Democrats have to lose and know it was this issue that cost them".

Of course, most everyone thinks it was the price of eggs that cost them, so even them losing isn't getting you what you want.

You want more copy and paste?

No.
I'd hate to see your brain showing signs of rot.

Besides, "here is something I found on X and didn't look into" pasting is a problem you should try and overcome.

Yet I was right and you were wrong.
Its your predictive model that needs adjusting.

LOL.
My predictive model ("Trump will be a disaster") has been shown to be very correct.

Ta-Nehesi Coates put it well.

Coates is a very smart man.

[Coates] explained to the crowd his reluctant decision to support Harris.

"What you're basically saying is to preserve the rights of all of you in this room, all of us in this room … I will vote for somebody, I will support somebody who continues to allow bombs to be dropped on hospitals in defense of apartheid," Coates said. "… Sometimes, the choices are bad, man."

It's almost like he understands the voting system of the country he is a citizen of.

 

[Frankfooter]

And Netanyahu and his government disagree.
They repeatedly said how Biden was an impediment because he wouldn't give them what they want.

Now, you can argue that I'm saying Billy wants a thousand dollars, and I will only give him five hundred, therefore I'm not giving him he wants, but the real issue is "Billy wants money, you gave him money".
We can disagree on that, but at least it would show you thinking about the situation.

That's a rather naive argument. Its like the zionists who used to argue that if Israel really wanted genocide they'd nuke Gaza. Netanyahu used to only kill as many as he thought he could get away, now his limit seems to be how much the US will support. Same way Biden would say he was working towards a ceasefire while blocking UNSC, ICC and sending billions in bombs with no conditions. Or, conditions that were public only, and like the Rafah red line, only for show. Now you could do the pedantic prof argument and say I should have been more accurate with my language and said trump/Biden/Harris were only giving him as much as they thought they could publicly get away with, but even that's not accurate. Netanyahu, the fugitive wanted for extermination, whined constantly that he wanted more money and more bombs. But he also got them. What next, are you going to say that Netanyahu is really visiting trump today because he needs to talk tariffs?

Sure, I'll accept it as Wilhoit on international relations.
Still irrelevant to the Trump/Biden vote.
And your accusation was that I was just a Wilhoitian conservative for saying voting in a way that gets Trump into power would be bad.
Which is entirely irrelevant to your whole "The West doesn't obey its own rules" thrust here.

Lets go back to Coates. You used to argue that MAGA was based on the Wilhoit conservatism and that it was wrong. But when it gets to Biden and Harris you refuse to apply those same terms to them. When Biden switched from 'they are right to protest' to 'violent protests must be stopped' you stuck with him. Even as you argued that student protests had the right and were correct to protest you also supported the crackdowns and Biden ok'ing the crackdowns which sent the message that all university encampments would be ended by force. The same way you were and are willing to accept supporting the continuing genocide just to get your preferred candidate in office.
That is the epitome of Wilhoitian conservatism, arguing in this case that the law needs consider students and Palestinians to be the outgroup in order to protect dems and faculty.

No.
Not the same.
You made claim and said the numbers proved it.
I said you were wrong about the numbers proving it, and I was completely correct.
You choosing to interpret that as me saying I have proved your claim wrong is your own problem, but also indicative of how you have handled almost all discussion.

You gave your unfounded opinion that the polls and numbers were wrong.
You did not make a case, you offered a biased opinion aka larue.

Back to lying about what you said, fine.

You should be failed for refusing to provide supporting material to outrageous claims.

I never blindly parroted words you want to hear and insisted you were absolutely right in your views on the situation.
That you therefore think I have never said it was the wrong policy is, again, indicative.

Thank you for confirming my statement as accurate.

Yes.
You think your vote is about making a moral statement and I told you that is wrong.
I explained the reality and I just recapped it.
And again, reality agreed with me.
That you still want to soften the cognitive dissonance in your head isn't really my problem.

You made the argument that withholding your vote for the dems was 'punishment'.
How do you argue that's not a moral statement?

Yes.
And I told you there wasn't enough leverage, leaving people with a choice of what to do.
You said in that case Trump should win and it would teach the Democrats to not support genocide.
In the end, if the Democrats didn't blink, there was a choice.
Now, since it wasn't your election, you didn't have to think about that choice very hard, but you were very clear that the answer was "The Democrats have to lose and know it was this issue that cost them".

The reason why there wasn't enough leverage is because there were enough dems like you that refused to push back.

LOL.
My predictive model ("Trump will be a disaster") has been shown to be very correct.

I said I thought he'd be a disaster but said thought he's too senile and the US survived 4 years of him before.
I admit I didn't expect Musk and Project 2025 to use that opportunity to really screw over the US.
You also didn't predict that happening.

Coates is a very smart man.

[Coates] explained to the crowd his reluctant decision to support Harris.

"What you're basically saying is to preserve the rights of all of you in this room, all of us in this room … I will vote for somebody, I will support somebody who continues to allow bombs to be dropped on hospitals in defense of apartheid," Coates said. "… Sometimes, the choices are bad, man."

It's almost like he understands the voting system of the country he is a citizen of.

Its almost like you don't understand his position.

Ta-Nehisi Coates says 'I don't give a fuck' about backlash for speaking on Palestine

Award-winning author tells MEE he would not urge people to vote for Kamala Harris, labelling the Democrats 'cold and inhumane'

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[basketcase2]

Can't believe that after all that Trump's done, Frank is still trying to pretend Biden was the problem.