Israel at war

[Valcazar]

Yet the possibility of Biden losing over aiding genocide might pressure him to stop before the election.

You have already said that he still couldn't be supported even if that happened.
Also that it would have stopped on its own because you don't expect it to continue.
Also that everything will be exactly the same under Trump so in fact none of this has any effect at all no matter what.

Are you going to pick one of these theories at some point?

This is about the long game, letting rump win will force change in the dems.

Ahh, we are going to stick to this theory, then?
You still think "The pro-Israel side winning the election will teach the opposing party that they should be less pro-Israel"?

Have you... looked at US electoral history?

So to answer this.

1) I don't see any reason to believe your theory of cause and effect should be true.
2) I see even less reason to inflict suffering on people short term in order to get your preferred long-term result.

I do understand that "Look, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" is a thing some people believe and even embrace.
But doubling down on that on the hope - unsupported by evidence - that it will be worth it in the end isn't really my jam.

This is Biden's last election and watching the AIPAC/Bowman fight is a preview of how that money will look during November.

Interesting.
So how is it going to look, extrapolating from what you are seeing in that fight?

Zionism as a movement must be ended, the leaders taken to court and the occupation ended. That won't happen ever under Biden. He needs to go.

Even if he stops the war, which you think he can stop?
He just needs to go, no matter what?

We're back to "Biden must me made an example of and punished" I see?

Your sole argument is that you think rump might be worse for the genocide.
its a genocide, it really can't get much worse.

It isn't my sole argument.
Are you even reading?

Long term it may change that policy. In 2028 its a different discussion.

No, repeatedly voting third party in tiny amounts isn't going to change policy, even long term.
You would need impressive numbers.

But even then, you have a serious problem in that you have NOT ONCE proposed what people should do instead.
If they stay home, no one knows why and so they don't get counted.
If they vote for RFK - he is more pro-Israel than Biden and possibly even than Trump.
If they vote Stein in massive numbers, maybe you get a signal.
Or maybe voting West.

But if the idea was to make a serious statement, there would be a coordinated effort to rally behind a pro-Palestinian candidate with it being clear that is why they are getting that support.
Outside of one poll in one state that hasn't been repeated, we haven't seen that and their certainly hasn't been any such attempt to create a coordinated message.

Hell, you - in all your "But We ARE CHANGING THE SYSTEM" hasn't even thought to bring it up.

Trump couldn't enact a Muslim ban and won't be able to enact this, even if its still going on in Nov.
He's senile and more worried about pardoning himself, a nice piece of chocolate cake and cheating at golf.

Ahh, we are back to "It's all right because nothing bad will happen because Trump is incompetent".

While I think this is ludicrous wishcasting, at least it is better than "No, everyone SHOULD suffer if they don't agree with me".
This is just "If I wish and pray really hard, I won't have to feel bad about what I helped cause happen! (even if I think it is ok because my hands would be clean because I don't understand voting systems)"

You think he'll be worse than this?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786235658358452254

Are you under the impression these are Federal police and that the US Government is deporting them?

 

[Klatuu]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1805259869437444195

 

[Frankfooter]

Because you have said that the entire point is to punish him.
He supported genocide, therefore he cannot be supported, regardless of what else that means.

I could go all Weber and talk about "ethics of conviction" or "ultimate ends" but I'm pretty sure that's a level of discourse that would be wasted here.

Check the threads, I said he shouldn't be supported because of the genocide and that would pressure the dems to eventually change. You interpreted that to mean I wanted to 'punish' Biden. That's been your term and frame of reference all along, which is based on an argument that the vote is already his and its just a 'punishment' to not give it to him. I argue vote third party, or wasted ballet.

What on earth are you talking about?
The Gaza protests aren't going to change the electoral system and have no aim to do so.
They are entirely irrelevant to that point.

When have I been against pressuring the party to enact change?
That's exactly what I say should be done.

I didn't say it would change the electoral system, I only argued that your sole frame of reference is that its a wasted vote, not electoral change and not change to either party.

Right - "Biden must be punished, and then he and the Dems will learn" is your theory (when you aren't just saying it is a pure principle of "cannot vote if X").

My argument is that you are wrong about the electoral consequences given history. (And because unlike you, I am not focused entirely on the next 4 years.)
I also object - as you know - to the "Everyone must suffer until I get what I want" theory of politics you are espousing here.

Again, your language, not mine. Votes are not owned by a party and its not a punishment to not give it to them. They must earn that vote.
Biden chose genocide and is losing support, where that vote goes is up to the voter, whether or not you think its wasted.

The idea of democracy is that you get to choose, even if you disagree. If you have an issue, take it up with the dems themselves for allowing Biden to destroy his reelection and put rump back in power. It is their choice.

Voters will make their own choices in response.

You argue its naive to waste a vote, I argue its more naive to put someone in power who is committing genocide.
Never Again.

 

[Valcazar]

Not good news for POS Nation

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1805149883893973446

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman: US likely unable to assist Israel in war with Hezbollah

Gen. Brown asked Israel to think of how a war would affect the region, as well as the impact it would have on US forces.

m.jpost.com

No one should want an escalation of the conflict, but it is pretty clear that there are people who really do.

 

[Frankfooter]

You have already said that he still couldn't be supported even if that happened.
Also that it would have stopped on its own because you don't expect it to continue.
Also that everything will be exactly the same under Trump so in fact none of this has any effect at all no matter what.

No, no and no.
I wouldn't support Biden but perhaps others will go back.
It won't stop on its own, Netanyahu won't stop because he is done when its over and Biden refuses to stop him.
Things will be different under rump, but Biden is aiding genocide and rump 'might' aid genocide. So you work to stop the one committing genocide now not the one who might or might not in 6 months.

Ahh, we are going to stick to this theory, then?
You still think "The pro-Israel side winning the election will teach the opposing party that they should be less pro-Israel"?

Have you... looked at US electoral history?

So to answer this.

1) I don't see any reason to believe your theory of cause and effect should be true.
2) I see even less reason to inflict suffering on people short term in order to get your preferred long-term result.

I do understand that "Look, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" is a thing some people believe and even embrace.
But doubling down on that on the hope - unsupported by evidence - that it will be worth it in the end isn't really my jam.

Have you looked at US history?
Where is the NRA right now? They used to be a major lobbyist.
AIPAC is now even more hated and even more discussed. Ending AIPAC ends support for Israel, it ends zionist billionaires bribing politicians to support genocide.

Interesting.
So how is it going to look, extrapolating from what you are seeing in that fight?

Whether or not Bowman wins, AIPAC loses as they become the target of everyone not taking their money.

Even if he stops the war, which you think he can stop?
He just needs to go, no matter what?

We're back to "Biden must me made an example of and punished" I see?

Biden should end his life in court at the ICC along with Netanyahu.
Yes, those who aid and commit genocide should be punished and made examples.
I'm sorry you don't think that.

It isn't my sole argument.
Are you even reading?

Its your sole rationale, dressed up with multiple methods to justify it.

No, repeatedly voting third party in tiny amounts isn't going to change policy, even long term.
You would need impressive numbers.

But even then, you have a serious problem in that you have NOT ONCE proposed what people should do instead.
If they stay home, no one knows why and so they don't get counted.
If they vote for RFK - he is more pro-Israel than Biden and possibly even than Trump.
If they vote Stein in massive numbers, maybe you get a signal.
Or maybe voting West.

But if the idea was to make a serious statement, there would be a coordinated effort to rally behind a pro-Palestinian candidate with it being clear that is why they are getting that support.
Outside of one poll in one state that hasn't been repeated, we haven't seen that and their certainly hasn't been any such attempt to create a coordinated message.

Hell, you - in all your "But We ARE CHANGING THE SYSTEM" hasn't even thought to bring it up.

Support for the Vietnam war tanked after Nixon and Humphrey. That changed the system somewhat as did the Pentagon papers.
Support for Israel has tanked and its yet to hit the government yet.

Ahh, we are back to "It's all right because nothing bad will happen because Trump is incompetent".

While I think this is ludicrous wishcasting, at least it is better than "No, everyone SHOULD suffer if they don't agree with me".
This is just "If I wish and pray really hard, I won't have to feel bad about what I helped cause happen! (even if I think it is ok because my hands would be clean because I don't understand voting systems)"

And you're back to this MAGA like claim that they other party will destroy the US and its perfect democracy.
Rump is a moron who is incredibly ineffective as a politician, most of his team is disbarred or in prison and he's now much more senile.
I'm sure there are grifters and extremists waiting for the chance to work with him but even Mitch is gone. Mitch was the brains of the SCOTUS changes, there is nobody in the GOP smart and wiley enough to pull that off now. MTG? Gaetz?

Are you under the impression these are Federal police and that the US Government is deporting them?

Stupid comment, as straw man arguments that's quite weak.
The dems lose the power of saying they are for equal rights, free speech and control of the police state through the attacks on Palestine protesters.
They look no different than the GOP here.

 

[Frankfooter]

No one should want an escalation of the conflict, but it is pretty clear that there are people who really do.

Person.
The correct term here is person.

Netanyahu is the one driving for a war with Lebanon, both to force the US to up their support and to give a bone to the hard liners in government and to make it that much harder to kick him out of office.

The question becomes 'does Biden really have a limit to what he can support'.
Every single red line he's drawn Netanyahu has publicly mocked him by crossing.

Why do you think Biden is still backing him?

 

[Valcazar]

Is Lebanon Israeli settlers’ next frontier?

From the blog of James M. Dorsey at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

.

I've assumed they want to go after Lebanon for quite some time.

 

[Valcazar]

What I have stated is it's an inevitably that the two sides will never make peace. So I chose a side. One I am quite comfortable making.

You also called on Israel to commit war crimes.

I just see them as an inevitably of war.

Given your authoritarian tendencies, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

The notion civilians won't be killed in a war theatre is ridiculous. So I don't play the fake hand wringing game.

Ahh, the classic "people get hurt in war, therefore war crimes are bullshit" defense.

It's either no war, or guaranteed "war crimes". That's the truth.

Scare quotes around "war crimes" as well?

Well, at least you are true to your convictions about this.

 

[Valcazar]

This is entrenched USA policy to let this happen, use attacks by Palestinians to do military operations via the IDF, with the purpose of complete control of Gaza and the West Bank.

I see.
This has been official US policy for how long, in your opinion?

 

[Valcazar]

Check the threads, I said he shouldn't be supported because of the genocide and that would pressure the dems to eventually change. You interpreted that to mean I wanted to 'punish' Biden. That's been your term and frame of reference all along, which is based on an argument that the vote is already his and its just a 'punishment' to not give it to him. I argue vote third party, or wasted ballet.

You have argued he has to lose.
Don't try to weasel out of it now.

I didn't say it would change the electoral system, I only argued that your sole frame of reference is that its a wasted vote, not electoral change and not change to either party.

Because it isn't electoral change.
And you have been saying the whole time that the point is to change the system. This is what you complain about me not proposing.

If you were talking about shifting the political parties' positions on the issue, you would be talking about that.
Those are completely different things.

Again, your language, not mine. Votes are not owned by a party and its not a punishment to not give it to them. They must earn that vote.

You have said "Biden must lose" and the point of him losing is so that the dems will learn their lesson and come over to your position.

Yes, that is "Biden must be punished" no matter how often you try to pretend it isn't.

Biden chose genocide and is losing support, where that vote goes is up to the voter, whether or not you think its wasted.

Of course where that vote goes is up to the voter.
As I have said repeatedly, the voter needs to think about what the purpose of their vote is and what they accomplish by it.
That is the part you and I disagree about.
You seem to want voters to cast it as a sort of statement about their own personal morality instead.

The idea of democracy is that you get to choose, even if you disagree.

Yes!
You choose what to vote for based on what you are trying to accomplish.
I'm not sure why you are so violently opposed to that - or worse, insist on denying the things you say you want to accomplish with your vote.

If you have an issue, take it up with the dems themselves for allowing Biden to destroy his reelection and put rump back in power. It is their choice.

Voters will make their own choices in response.

Of course they will!
My issue is that they should choose with intention and not be deluded about what they are choosing and why.

As always, I find it fascinating that you freely admit the point of casting a vote this way is to make Biden lose and then turn around and deny that is what you are doing and instead claim votes should be about personal feelings.
(That you know this not to be true is shown by how hard you try to deny anything bad will happen when Trump wins because it would make you feel bad to have contributed to that, even though you KNOW that is what you are doing.)

You argue its naive to waste a vote, I argue its more naive to put someone in power who is committing genocide.
Never Again.

Again, that is your right! (Well, it isn't, you don't vote.)

You have decided it is better for Trump to be in power.
Biden's actions are such that you must see him deposed and he must be punished electorally.
Whatever Trump does in the 4 years that follow is justified because hopefully the Dems will learn to be more anti-Israel in the future, then after learning that they will convince the American people to be the same, and after that the Dems will win the election and implement an anti-Israeli policy.

The trade off of all GOP policies and USA actions in the meantime are totally justified by this.

That decision -- that this is a wise trade off -- is absolutely one that any voter is allowed to make.

 

[Frankfooter]

You have argued he has to lose.
Don't try to weasel out of it now.

Yes, and Jill Stein should win.

Because it isn't electoral change.
And you have been saying the whole time that the point is to change the system. This is what you complain about me not proposing.

If you were talking about shifting the political parties' positions on the issue, you would be talking about that.
Those are completely different things.

The system needs change and the dems need change, well, so does the GOP.
Changing the dems is first so that the system can be changed, turfing out all who took AIPAC money and aiding the progressives would be a start.
Unless Stein wins and can change it.

You have said "Biden must lose" and the point of him losing is so that the dems will learn their lesson and come over to your position.

Yes, that is "Biden must be punished" no matter how often you try to pretend it isn't.

Its not 'punishment', Biden needs to earn the chance to win. He could have but instead chose to waste it backing genocide.
Your language makes a mockery of democracy.

Of course where that vote goes is up to the voter.
As I have said repeatedly, the voter needs to think about what the purpose of their vote is and what they accomplish by it.
That is the part you and I disagree about.
You seem to want voters to cast it as a sort of statement about their own personal morality instead.

Isn't it already? Isn't voting for rump a choice about morality? Same with voting for Genocide Joe.
But that's also democracy, voters can choose to vote by age, hair style, party colours or whatever reason they want.
They are free to vote for who they want to win instead of only voting strategically if they want.

Yes!
You choose what to vote for based on what you are trying to accomplish.
I'm not sure why you are so violently opposed to that - or worse, insist on denying the things you say you want to accomplish with your vote.

By arguing that its 'accomplish' you are saying voting can only be strategic, which is anti democratic.
You are supposed to vote for the person who most supports your views and is mostly likely to enact policy to make it happen.
You are not supposed to vote only to win.

Of course they will!
My issue is that they should choose with intention and not be deluded about what they are choosing and why.

As always, I find it fascinating that you freely admit the point of casting a vote this way is to make Biden lose and then turn around and deny that is what you are doing and instead claim votes should be about personal feelings.
(That you know this not to be true is shown by how hard you try to deny anything bad will happen when Trump wins because it would make you feel bad to have contributed to that, even though you KNOW that is what you are doing.)

This is back to your view that strategic voting is the only option. That's your view and your metric, just as you are free to argue its naive to vote for what you actually want instead of choosing the lesser of two massive evils.

Again, that is your right! (Well, it isn't, you don't vote.)

You have decided it is better for Trump to be in power.
Biden's actions are such that you must see him deposed and he must be punished electorally.
Whatever Trump does in the 4 years that follow is justified because hopefully the Dems will learn to be more anti-Israel in the future, then after learning that they will convince the American people to be the same, and after that the Dems will win the election and implement an anti-Israeli policy.

The trade off of all GOP policies and USA actions in the meantime are totally justified by this.

That decision -- that this is a wise trade off -- is absolutely one that any voter is allowed to make.

Yes, some people have limits to what they will support.
Some people will support conmen, some will back a rapist, some would vote for KKK candidates, others won't vote for any of those.
I would argue that it takes a certain kind of special for someone who is very well educated and informed to choose to actively vote to support someone who is aiding genocide, the one person who could have stopped it but chose not to. I would argue that someone who has studied politics should really know their choice is not to just choose between a hitler and a mussolini, their choice is to back the both of them and the genocide they support.

Someone who really knows political history and has any kind of wisdom and/or morality should be working their ass off to stop genocide, not using weasel words to argue that its 'pragmatic' and being mean by 'punishing' someone who should be on the docket at the ICC.

 

[Butler1000]

I see.
This has been official US policy for how long, in your opinion?

I'd say at least Bush and the War on Terror.

 

[Butler1000]

You also called on Israel to commit war crimes.



Given your authoritarian tendencies, this doesn't surprise me in the least.



Ahh, the classic "people get hurt in war, therefore war crimes are bullshit" defense.



Scare quotes around "war crimes" as well?

Well, at least you are true to your convictions about this.

Wow, you really are naive, or just a blatant liar......

 

[Klatuu]

This Is Zionism

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1804868720700891344

 

[mandrill]

You have argued he has to lose.
Don't try to weasel out of it now.



Because it isn't electoral change.
And you have been saying the whole time that the point is to change the system. This is what you complain about me not proposing.

If you were talking about shifting the political parties' positions on the issue, you would be talking about that.
Those are completely different things.



You have said "Biden must lose" and the point of him losing is so that the dems will learn their lesson and come over to your position.

Yes, that is "Biden must be punished" no matter how often you try to pretend it isn't.
Of course where that vote goes is up to the voter.
As I have said repeatedly, the voter needs to think about what the purpose of their vote is and what they accomplish by it.
That is the part you and I disagree about.
You seem to want voters to cast it as a sort of statement about their own personal morality instead.
Yes!
You choose what to vote for based on what you are trying to accomplish.
I'm not sure why you are so violently opposed to that - or worse, insist on denying the things you say you want to accomplish with your vote.
Of course they will!
My issue is that they should choose with intention and not be deluded about what they are choosing and why.

As always, I find it fascinating that you freely admit the point of casting a vote this way is to make Biden lose and then turn around and deny that is what you are doing and instead claim votes should be about personal feelings.
(That you know this not to be true is shown by how hard you try to deny anything bad will happen when Trump wins because it would make you feel bad to have contributed to that, even though you KNOW that is what you are doing.)
Again, that is your right! (Well, it isn't, you don't vote.)

You have decided it is better for Trump to be in power.
Biden's actions are such that you must see him deposed and he must be punished electorally.
Whatever Trump does in the 4 years that follow is justified because hopefully the Dems will learn to be more anti-Israel in the future, then after learning that they will convince the American people to be the same, and after that the Dems will win the election and implement an anti-Israeli policy.

The trade off of all GOP policies and USA actions in the meantime are totally justified by this.

That decision -- that this is a wise trade off -- is absolutely one that any voter is allowed to make.

What our Hamas-loving friend overlooks is that any overt move by Biden to a forthright pro Hamas policy position will lead to 2 overwhelming negative counter-reactions:

1. Support from pro Israel voters will bleed heavily to the GOP.
2. There will be factional schism and in fighting amidst Dems in heavily Jewish areas, such as NYC! That in turn will lead to a decrease in funding and Dem voter apathy. Neither thereof being good things in an election year.

So you get a GOP electoral win, Dem financial chaos and Biden being deposed along with his Dem Party pro Hamas supporters immediately after the election, at which time the Dems would swing back to an amorphous "sorta pro Israel but still holding out some carrots to the pro Palestine Arab and far left vote" party policy.

 

[mandrill]

I've assumed they want to go after Lebanon for quite some time.

FFS! Hezbollah has been rocketing northern Israel non stop for months!

What the fuck country is going to put the fuck up with that?!?!?!

 

[Valcazar]

I'd say at least Bush and the War on Terror.

Ahh, so we are back to the "This is a thing I - Butler - believe, therefore it must be true" standard?

Wow, you really are naive, or just a blatant liar......

Are you now denying that you said Israel should commit war crimes (such as offering no quarter)?

 

[mandrill]

x.com

x.com

LOL...I see a future parking lot attendant here.

Goddammit! That's a shame she's wearing panties!

I had my hopes up there!

 

[mandrill]

If they could poison the air, they would. That’s the fanatical ethos of Ziontologists.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1805004528674078934

Klatty

You've been living on borrowed time for a few weeks now and your existence has been pre conditioned on me not visiting the Gaza threads for a while. But your endless junk diet of Munayyer and Blumenthal and 2 or 3 others must finally come to an end.

Adios, amigo! Onto ignore you go.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, and Jill Stein should win.

But since she won't, you have a dilemma about what to do with your vote.
It would be nice if the US had an electoral system that didn't create that problem, but it does.

The system needs change and the dems need change, well, so does the GOP.

Then why are you fixated on not voting or third party voting, which will accomplish none of this?

Changing the dems is first so that the system can be changed, turfing out all who took AIPAC money and aiding the progressives would be a start.

This is all about actually voting though.
It is about thinking through the consequences of voting in the system as it is and making choices.

Or are you now saying just "anyone who takes AIPAC money must be voted out regardless of any other position they take"?
Which is very possible with you.

Unless Stein wins and can change it.

So you've just decided to abandon reality completely at this point?

Its not 'punishment', Biden needs to earn the chance to win. He could have but instead chose to waste it backing genocide.
Your language makes a mockery of democracy.

You're the one who keeps saying he has to lose to make the dems learn and that even him changing his position wouldn't be enough because it is too late and he has to lose.

Isn't it already? Isn't voting for rump a choice about morality? Same with voting for Genocide Joe.

Of course your vote isn't an illustration of your personal morality.
Who on earth would want to pretend that it is in a compromised system?
That's the same idiocy as "You think Capitalism is a problem, and yet you still use money" as an argument.

But that's also democracy, voters can choose to vote by age, hair style, party colours or whatever reason they want.
They are free to vote for who they want to win instead of only voting strategically if they want.

Of course they can!
And pointing out that voting that way is stupid and counter-productive is just pointing out reality to them.
That you don't like me pointing out reality doesn't prevent reality from existing.
People who voted against a candidate because of their hair style will also be voting in an extremely stupid way.
I'm glad you understand this.

By arguing that its 'accomplish' you are saying voting can only be strategic, which is anti democratic.

What a deeply ignorant thing to say.

You are supposed to vote for the person who most supports your views and is mostly likely to enact policy to make it happen.
You are not supposed to vote only to win.

That you cling to this delusion is the whole point of this argument and really I should drop it because it is clear you are never going to abandon your fantasy.

The First Past the Post system does not allow for that.
In fact, it works against it.

This is the whole point of why it needs to be changed.
Voting "honestly" in this system leads to worse outcomes.

Until you understand that, you understand nothing.

I would argue that someone who has studied politics should really know their choice is not to just choose between a hitler and a mussolini, their choice is to back the both of them and the genocide they support.

And your argument would be silly and ridiculous, because you don't understand voting systems.