Ok, post a video of a pro genocide protest in Toronto that is bigger than this one last month.
Should be easy if the numbers are so high.
Columbia student’s visa cancelled for being with protesters
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
Should be easy if the numbers are so high.
All i see are a bunch of useful idiots wasting taxpayers money. What they are doing is NOT and has NOT change anything with the war. Its nothing to be proud of when it hasn't accomplished anything
Even nazis can raise bigger crowds than zionists now.All i see are a bunch of useful idiots wasting taxpayers money. What they are doing is NOT and has NOT change anything with the war. Its nothing to be proud of when it hasn't accomplished anything
Israel has been declared a rogue state by the ICJ.
Which means Palestine has a better standing in the world then your genocide state lead by a fugitive wanted for extermination.
Enjoy the winning.
trump is attacking more international students.
Israel is attacking more americans.
Israel is attacking more americans.
Now being critical of Israel means you can't study in the US.
The land of free speech.
Even just liking an article like this could end your study.
The land of free speech.
Even just liking an article like this could end your study.
As I said, you obsessively still want to condemn Biden simply to justify your actions pushing for a Trump victory.
Considering you and your racist elitism has you refusing to admit that Hamas does some nasty stuff, he makes a fair point.
Gee. The original tweet says people engaged in antisemitism aren't eligible. Are you saying that it's antisemitic to criticize Israel?
Blame AIPAC and Israel.
Then blame the dems for not having the guts to stand up to AIPAC and Israel.
All they had to do was nominate someone who didn't support sending billions to kill children in Gaza.
Why are you attributing that to me?
Its your team that is making the connection and trying to ban people from the US for being against genocide.
This is what you want.
I still do.
This is categorically false.
You really don't understand Wilhoit's law, do you?
None of that is true, given I was against the crackdowns the whole time.
What the flying fuck?
You really don't understand Wilhoit's law, do you?
I'm not even sure I can untangle the wrongness here.
This is incorrect.
I never once challenged the numbers, I said they did not mean what you want them to mean.
I was entirely correct.
The numbers in those polls don't prove what you want them to prove.
That's not an opinion, that's just a fact.
(Please note they don't disprove it, either. They just can't be used to definitively answer the question you want them to.)
I'm not.
The people advocating that were arguing for voting as a moral statement.
Not enough people willing to vote the way you want means not enough leverage.
I didn't predict Trump would try and execute Project 2025?
That Trump would be more authoritarian than before and more prepared than before?
That there would be disastrous consequences?
Really?
That's the position you are going to take here?
His position isn't very hard to understand.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
"I get it," he said. "I don't think it's gonna work but I get it. I get the feeling.
"I don’t think the pragmatics of it are good, but I get it. I'm not gonna be the one to go out there and say: 'Shut up and fall in line', as somebody who comes from a community that has been told repeatedly to shut up and fall in line."
He understands the position and didn't think it would work.
As he said earlier than that, he would reluctantly vote for Harris.
What's not to understand?
Yet you can't articulate why you don't think it applies to the dems and their support of genocide.
So we're back to you saying you can't prove that my views are right or wrong but you're sure they are wrong.
Which means its just your opinion against my views.
Correct
There were not enough people willing to vote for Harris vs trump, that means not enough leverage for genocide and Harris.
Ok, that's fair. You were really worried about the dangers of trump but not so worried that you'd consider the dems should change their policy towards the genocide.
Is that a reasonable take?
You are intentionally ignoring the next few lines.
He added: "I wish Kamala did better. I was there at the DNC [Democratic National Convention] when they wouldn't even allow a Palestinian speaker to get on the mic.
"I think that was not just a mistake - I think it was cold and inhumane."
Later, Coates said he doubted that a Harris administration would diverge significantly from Joe Biden's policies towards Israel.
Coates wouldn't tell people to fall in line, which means he wouldn't tell them to vote for Harris.
Harris, the dems and you all knew this was a possibility and were willing to risk losing to a person who will destroy the US democracy instead of trying to get the dems to just not support genocide.
Why did you not think it was worth pushing the dems to change?
Because I don't think anyone has been making that argument.
Has there been anyone who says it is bad when the GOP does it but it is ok when the Dems do it?
(About anything in the Israel/Palestine conflict?)
Even the people who are totally in favor of Israeli military action, have you seen any of them say that different rules should apply to Dem support of their position?
There's nothing to articulate here because you haven't even made an coherent argument that it should apply in the first place.
Dear god.
Have you gotten dumber or is this just schtick?
I told you that you are wrong about what the numbers prove.
I am completely correct about that.
That says nothing about whether or not you are right that the issue cost the Dems the election.
That's something I expect we will never see convincing evidence of.
You can claim it is true because you just know it to be true as much as you want.
But you can't claim "it's proven by this poll" with the polls you've used so far.
I don't know of anyone who was making that pitch, though.
No.
It's not remotely reasonable.
But then you seem to have abandoned even trying for "reasonable" a long time ago in this conversation.
Not ignoring those lines at all.
I, too, wish Kamala did better.
I, too, doubt she would have a significantly different policy than Biden.
Of course, instead we have Trump, and his worse policies towards Israel.
Yes.
As a public intellectual, he chose what he would and wouldn't do.
Much like Uncommitted, which said they couldn't endorse Harris, but insisted people should vote to keep Trump out.
He also has a personal issue with using his platform to tell someone to "fall in line", even as he himself freely discussed how he would vote for Harris.
Again, not a lot of daylight between his view of the situation and mine.
Of course it was worth pushing the dems to change.
One should always be willing to push politicians to change.
Your problem is that the approach you insisted was the only one to do wasn't likely to work.
It didn't work.
It was also one that if tried was extremely likely to make things worse.
It made things worse.
You took people pointing these very simple facts out as "support for genocide" and then wondered why your tactic worked even less effectively than you thought.
Its been a given that the GOP exemplifies Wilhoit conservatism in america through its protection of republicans while using the same laws to bind dems. The dems attempts to stifle debate on Israel are Wilhoitian moves to bind critics while protecting donors. But the debate on the genocide adds another layer.
Colonialism is Wilhoit exemplified. Binding the indigenous population while protecting the colonizer. Backing settler colonialism to the point of genocide takes it to extremes.
Biden's support of Israeli colonialism and genocide are examples of binding Palestinians while protecting Israelis and american zionists and donors.
Its a reasonable comparison.
Your argument is wrong. We went through the numbers.
29% of voters who voted for Biden but didn't vote for Harris said the genocide was the main reason.
It wasn't made by the MSM, for obvious reasons.
Then state more exactly what your views were.
That is what comes across through all your posts.
The difference is you didn't think she needed to change during the election and instead now blame voters.
There is quite a bit of daylight between your opinions. Coates said the dems needed to change, you said it was a minor issue that couldn't possibly effect the election results.
During the election you never once argued the dems should change policy on Palestine. Nor did you suggest ways you could work towards change.
What you argued that it was just 'pragmatic' to vote for the dem version of genocide over the trump version. That it was 'naive' to have moral lines you won't cross in politics.
Protests, uncommitted and working within the party did not make things worse. What made things worse was Harris refusing to listen to her own voters.
For someone who argued that trump was a massive danger to the US it should not have been a big reach to argue that the dems just not pay for bombs to kill kids to win the election. But you refused to even go there.
Why are you applying Wilhoit to debate?
The Wilhoit thing isn't "everything they do I don't like is Wilhoit".
If you are saying "The West's view of what it can do versus what other countries can do" qualifies as an example of Wilhoit, then I don't disagree.
But what that has to do with whether or not to vote Dem vs GOP?
But has nothing to do with what we have been talking about.
You were accusing me, remember?
Focus.
Jesus fuck, if you're just going to ignore math despite having been walked through it then never mind.
This is your view that everything other than complete agreement with your position is supporting genocide.
There is no way for me to "state more exactly what my views are" when that's your conclusion every time.
if you haven't gotten it by now, you aren't going to get it.
See?
Coates himself said he doesn't think it cost them election demographically.
Ta-Nehisi Coates: If Democrats can't draw the Line at Genocide, they can't Draw the Line at Democracy
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - Ta-Nehisi Coates and Angela Davis spoke at the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium on February 19, 2025, interviewed by my colleague Angela Dillard, the vice provost for undergraduate education. The event was arranged by the Letters, Sciences and Arts...
www.juancole.com
That you think I think it couldn't possible effect the election results is -- again -- you displaying you haven't understood a thing for over a year.
I argued that "we will withhold the vote and hand Trump the victory to force Democrats to change their policy" was a bad tactic that was likely to fail and that its failure mode was very bad.
All of which was completely true.
I also pointed out that "my vote is a moral statement of my personal beliefs and what happens because of it means nothing" is a complete misunderstanding of what a vote does in a plurality system and a bad thing to encourage because it produces results counter to the desires of the people espousing it.
All of which is completely true.
You decided this proves I am a pro-genocide monster.
Which is false.
See?
This inability of you to even understand arguments is something you may need to work on.
You need to think about your response to "This isn't going to work".
I'm applying Wilhoit because you specifically have used the definition to say what you think is wrong with republicans.
Coate's 'if they can't draw the line at genocide, what makes you think they will defend democracy' comes to mind. But in our debate on this forum, its been a matter of how much law breaking, human rights abuses and war crimes you are willing to accept and still support. You used to argue that republicans were unique in their ability to accept and vote for crooks, rapists and fraud artists. Arguing that you are willing to vote and accept dem law breaking, human rights and genocide even just shows that you personally fit Wilhoit's definition.
It has everything to do with this discussion. Where you accused me of being naive for having moral red lines, even if they are so far down that list that only the worst crime against humanity fits.
I'm not ignoring math.
Because you won't give it, you won't state your own views clearly.
Which leaves me to piece them together on what you are willing to support and what you criticize me for condemning.
I didn't see a single post during the election where you stated that Harris and the dems should change their policy on aiding genocide. All I saw were posts from you declaring it was a minor issue that couldn't change the election and then arguing that voters were wrong to not support her over the issue.
Juan Cole is a great source, by the way. From the post.Coates himself said he doesn't think it cost them election demographically.
Ta-Nehisi Coates: If Democrats can't draw the Line at Genocide, they can't Draw the Line at Democracy
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - Ta-Nehisi Coates and Angela Davis spoke at the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium on February 19, 2025, interviewed by my colleague Angela Dillard, the vice provost for undergraduate education. The event was arranged by the Letters, Sciences and Arts...
That you think I think it couldn't possible effect the election results is -- again -- you displaying you haven't understood a thing for over a year.
Coates said he was convinced that there was some way in which the Democratic Party’s support for the Gaza genocide cost it the election — not, he said, necessarily in a demographic sense, but in a moral sense.
I agree, its a bad tactic. But it was the last tactic left after every other tactic available in the US democracy was tried. Its not even a tactic, its a last ditch hope after you watch a friend self destruct that maybe they come out better after rehab.
Your vote failed. Your vote was wasted on a losing party and leader.
Your tactic failed.
Which means you crossed all moral lines and got nothing in return.
After Harris lost and put in power trump, you still think the dems did nothing wrong and the election was lost because voters failed.
That it was all just bad vibes.
For a political expert, you don't think that's a bit shallow of a response?
And you said I was doing the same with Dems here.
Only you keep failing to show how, and instead are talking about the West applying the mindset to world affairs.
So I'll ask again - is your point that the West (and the US in particular) has a Wilhoitian attitude about international relations?
No.
The discussion is what you mean by "support".
You are under the delusion that your vote is the barometer.
I never said they were unique in that.
I argued how central it was to what they wanted.
Right.
This is completely misunderstanding what Wilhoit is saying.
Even if I granted this was hypocrisy (it isn't), Wilhoit isn't about hypocrisy.
See the question above.
Is it about a critique of US foreign policy or is it an accusation of personal hypocrisy?
Sure you are.
We went over the math.
It ain't mathing.
You refusing to listen isn't actually my problem.
Selective memory is a problem you might want to look into, then.
Yes.
Exactly as I was saying.
And here we are back to your inability to understand democracy or voting.
I get it.
You've given up on democracy.
I mean, obviously not, since you're quite excited about PP losing and the Libs regaining a majority.
I guess it is fun to be dramatic about elections you can't vote in.
LOL.
I bet that sounded very dramatic and cutting in your head.
Jesus Christ you're thick.
Do you really have this much difficulty with reading comprehension?
Or is it only when you get emotionally worked up?
It would be, wouldn't it?
Maybe you should think a little harder.
