Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
No one should want an escalation of the conflict, but it is pretty clear that there are people who really do.Not good news for POS Nation
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, 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.
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.
Whether or not Bowman wins, AIPAC loses as they become the target of everyone not taking their money.
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.
Its your sole rationale, dressed up with multiple methods to justify it.
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.
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?
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.
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?
I've assumed they want to go after Lebanon for quite some time..
Is Lebanon Israeli settlers’ next frontier?
From the blog of James M. Dorsey at The Times of Israelblogs.timesofisrael.com
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.
I see.
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.
