Hunter Biden backs down.

[Insidious Von]

So what about them? Or what about Ragan and Iran Contra, Bushes WMD etc. All ancient history and BTW none of those compares to Trump

100% agreed, the GOP can pillory Hunter Biden all they want, it doesn't deter from the bitter fact that their leader Trump is a rancid traitor. Only in bizarro America can a rancid traitor run for the Presidency again. More States should have the chutzpah to ban him from the ballot. He should be in jail in Alaska.

 

[Valcazar]

I'm not saying who they will vote for only who they now say they can't vote for.

Its your argument that voting for Jill Stein or not voting doesn't count because you think the system is binary.

That's not an argument, that is a factual description of the structure of the current voting system in the USA.

They may feel otherwise and really, I have no idea what those people who now say they can't support a guy single handedly enabling genocide will do in November. All I know is that, as you continue to argue, the election will likely be very close and losing a few percent is enough to change the results.

I am sure they feel otherwise.
Like I've said from the beginning, people don't understand the system (in fact, have been consistently mislead about it) and think of their vote and what it means in an irrational way.
This campaign to convince people to not vote for Biden because they feel bad about it is predicated on the fact that only a few percentage points in the right place can change the results and that people don't understand how the system works.

You're smarter than that, valcazar.

I am smarter, which is why you should listen to me when I say that the idea that Biden is single-handedly responsible for Israeli genocide is idiotic.

Biden could end the genocide with one phone call.

Think about how silly and insane this idea is.

The work has been the other way, the MSM and US government has been working hard to try to message that the genocide is justified.
The response on the streets and by voters is a massive rejection of that messaging.

But the money and effort in the media has been towards justifying the genocide, not calling it out.

There is work being put in on both sides.
Lots of people are very invested in misrepresenting this for all kinds of reasons.

 

[Frankfooter]

That's not an argument, that is a factual description of the structure of the current voting system in the USA.

Its factually inaccurate.
While the results are binary you can still vote for a third party. Just because one of the choices is useless doesn't make it not a choice.

I am sure they feel otherwise.
Like I've said from the beginning, people don't understand the system (in fact, have been consistently mislead about it) and think of their vote and what it means in an irrational way.
This campaign to convince people to not vote for Biden because they feel bad about it is predicated on the fact that only a few percentage points in the right place can change the results and that people don't understand how the system works.

Again, you think you are smarter than people who may choose differently than you.
That's not a reasonable assumption for intelligence, that's only a statement on your views of your own intelligence.

I am smarter, which is why you should listen to me when I say that the idea that Biden is single-handedly responsible for Israeli genocide is idiotic.

If I had said that it would be idiotic.
What I said is that Biden is single handedly enabling the genocide to continue through US vetoes at the UN SC, US support at the ICC and ICJ, US weapons funding and US pressure internationally. The US holds a lot of power and Biden's very unpopular position is his alone and is the single largest international reason that Israel continues the genocide. Biden could end it with a phone call.

Think about how silly and insane this idea is.

You should know your history well enough to understand that Reagan stopped a previous Israeli attack on Palestinians with a single phone call.

REAGAN DEMANDS END TO ATTACKS IN A BLUNT TELEPHONE CALL TO BEGIN (Published 1982)

www.nytimes.com

There is work being put in on both sides.
Lots of people are very invested in misrepresenting this for all kinds of reasons.

Citations, please.

 

[Valcazar]

Its factually inaccurate.
While the results are binary you can still vote for a third party. Just because one of the choices is useless doesn't make it not a choice.

It isn't useless. It depends on context.
It can sometimes be a signal since the outcome was never competitive in the first place.
In a competitive election, it fundamentally shifts the odds of one of the binary parties winning.
That isn't useless, it is a clear effect on the outcome.

Again, you think you are smarter than people who may choose differently than you.
That's not a reasonable assumption for intelligence, that's only a statement on your views of your own intelligence.

There are lots of people who choose differently than me and understand the system and their choices.
I am addressing this to those who don't - which are many.
All you have to do is look at ANY discussion of voting and voting systems to know that most people have lots and lots of misconceptions about them.

If I had said that it would be idiotic.
What I said is that Biden is single handedly enabling the genocide to continue through US vetoes at the UN SC, US support at the ICC and ICJ, US weapons funding and US pressure internationally.

Which is slightly better than the magic phone call theory.
"Biden shouldn't be supporting Israel in this way and should actually be doing more to constrain it" is a perfectly reasonable position.
It's mine, even.

But that isn't what you've been pitching, since you keep going back to "He could stop it with a phone call."

The US holds a lot of power and Biden's very unpopular position is his alone and is the single largest international reason that Israel continues the genocide. Biden could end it with a phone call.

Case in point, the idiotic "he could end it with a phone call" one paragraph later.

You should know your history well enough to understand that Reagan stopped a previous Israeli attack on Palestinians with a single phone call.

REAGAN DEMANDS END TO ATTACKS IN A BLUNT TELEPHONE CALL TO BEGIN (Published 1982)

www.nytimes.com

You might want to look into the context of that a bit before assuming it is as strong an argument as you think it is.

Citations, please.

You don't think that Israel is deliberately trying to influence how this war is seen and the language used about it?
You don't think that Hamas is deliberately trying to influence how this war is seen and the language used about it?
You don't think other countries with political stakes in this are deliberately trying to influence how this war is seen and the language used about it?

I don't know what to tell you in that case.

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762987293995139410

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762959438409863281

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762903062929400073

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1763019757404434607

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1763016750398832860

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762943319309500842

 

[Boss Nass]

Newsmax? What, is the web site of the Hooterville World Guardian down for maintenance?

 

[dirtydaveiii]

The republicans have already reached their conclusion : there is strong evidence to suggest illegal activities but not enough to press charges at this time