I see.
This has been official US policy for how long, in your opinion?
Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
This has been official US policy for how long, in your opinion?
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.
Yes, and Jill Stein should win.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FFS! Hezbollah has been rocketing northern Israel non stop for months!
What the fuck country is going to put the fuck up with that?!?!?!
Ahh, so we are back to the "This is a thing I - Butler - believe, therefore it must be true" standard?
Are you now denying that you said Israel should commit war crimes (such as offering no quarter)?
Last edited:
Goddammit! That's a shame she's wearing panties!x.com
x.com
LOL...I see a future parking lot attendant here.
I had my hopes up there!
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.
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.
Then why are you fixated on not voting or third party voting, which will accomplish none of this?
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.
So you've just decided to abandon reality completely at this point?
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.
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.
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.
What a deeply ignorant thing to say.
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.
And your argument would be silly and ridiculous, because you don't understand voting systems.
There is serious question about how large either of those counter-reactions will be, though.
A lot would depend on what the actual policy shift was, of course - along with how it is handled, the messaging, the GOP response, and so on.
It's one theory of the case, but I don't think that's definitive.
One that has to be careful about how much they escalate a war.
But Bibi and company have talked about finding ways to strike at Iran as well.
It isn't like they don't want to do it, they just don't think they can get away with either right now.
Trump would be an idiot not to jump on the "Senile Joe's a terrorist supporter now!" bus. But then, Trump is an idiot.
The other wild card is how many synagogues the Hamas lovers attack in the USA and whether the backlash increases towards them There's only so much Jew-baiting, art destroying and traffic stopping the purple-hair-and-keffiyeh peeps can do before they bleed away any and all support from the normies.
I think anything more than a random missile hit on Iran is a pipe dream. They can take Hezbollah pretty easily though. Guys shouting "Inshallah!" and waving AK's and RPG's don't hold up for long against Merkavas, artillery and tac air. Just like in Gaza right now.
As you've told us, everything happens for a reason. That would include Islamophobia. I assume.
