Here, why don't we change things up.
Why don't I post pictures of some of the Palestinians Israel hasn't managed to kill yet instead.
Israel hasn't kill her yet.
Students Yelled at Me. I’m Fine. All Americans should defend campus protesters.
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
Why don't I post pictures of some of the Palestinians Israel hasn't managed to kill yet instead.
Israel hasn't kill her yet.
Yes, you've made your misunderstanding of the Wilhoit perfectly clear in the other thread.
What would be the point of raising a counter-argument with you when it is so clearly just an attempt to get under my skin?
There's no point in "counterarguing" basic trolling.
Oh look, you admit you were lying about what he said and what it meant.
I'm glad.
I was worried you had fallen even further down the "It only matters that I feel it is true" rabbit hole.
So you don't believe in looking at facts at all, then do you?
I mean, if the crackdowns started before this, you would look like a complete idiot basing your whole argument on something disproved with a calendar.
Or are you saying this is when the National Guard was sent in on Biden's order?
When was the last occupation of a campus protest in the US?
As for the much more serious repercussions, yes, you insisted that was a good thing because Trump being in power would teach the Democrats a lesson.
That these protesters need to face even more serious repercussions is just a small sacrifice you were willing to make them pay.
Which is what they need to suffer so that the Democrats learn a lesson and maybe fix in four years time.
They are proud, I am sure, to suffer this for the noble cause of Trump being in power and humiliating the Democrats.
Yes.
Biden didn't ok the start of the crackdowns.
This is a true fact.
Do I think he should have pushed back against the way local groups were handling it?
Also yes.
F - you need to support your argument, not just make blanket statements saying you are right.
F - given your ongoing conversation with larue, its not trolling that gets under your skin.
C- - You took what could have been an argument and debate and then added a straw man claim that you can't support. I didn't 'lie', I exaggerated, unless you also want to argue that you just lied when you claimed I am 'lying about what he meant'. That line of argument is very naive for someone steeped in politics.
F - people complain about the x posts but at least I back up my arguments. And no, you can't say everything on x is nonsense any more than you can say all MSM articles are fair and accurate and all research papers the same.
F - I see, you're going to argue that because there were protests and violent arrests before that therefore what Biden said was immaterial, in some sort of historical fallacy.
You will argue that because there were protests before and arrests before and after Biden's statement than the two cannot possibly be related. What you will refuse to do is consider that the protests at universities were largely ended after the first few crackdowns in April followed by Biden's speech on May 4 backing cracking down on protests he labelled as 'violent' or destructive.
F - Today, there are mass protests across the states at universities over trump disappearing students who protested the genocide.
F - Straw man argument, I did not argue that electing trump would be a 'good thing' on any terms. Do better.
F - Straw man argument, not worth addressing.
But note that today we had 1,200 anti trump protests along with dozens of Palestine protests, both at universities and just against the genocide.
trump has gone too far and now pissed off the oligarchs, who have lost $12 trillion in the last week.
The only dems doing rallies and attracting crowds are AOC and Bernie.
B - I agree, Biden didn't ok the start of the crackdowns, what he did was make a public statement saying he supported the crackdowns. That largely ended the university protests.
I really don't.
I wouldn't bother supporting, "Frank is wrong when he says the sky is green" either.
Trolling doesn't get under my skin.
I never said it did.
I'll accept "I honestly thought he said something he didn't and now I know better" from you.
Otherwise, yes, you lied.
Exaggerating specifically to state he said something he didn't state and that it meant what you wanted it to mean instead of what he meant is lying.
You have been steeped in politics enough to know exactly what you were doing unless you want to admit it was another case of "Twitter told me this and I didn't bother to look for myself".
You don't back up all your arguments.
Case in point, the exchange we just had.
X isn't always nonsense.
X is also a source of "this is the narrative I want and I won't think any harder".
There is a reason you like it so much.
You said he announced this and that caused the crackdowns.
This is demonstrably false since the crackdowns started before that.
Biden not choosing to interfere with the crackdowns is not "Biden caused the crackdowns".
If you want to argue "Biden didn't interfere with local law enforcement to prevent the crackdowns" then sure, argue that.
And yet no campus occupations protesting Israel.
Also, if you think the April 5th protests were specifically about the disappearing students, you might want to look again.
Yes, you did.
The Democrats had to lose to learn.
This was the preferable result between the Dems winning and Trump winning.
After all, Trump doing anything bad was hypothetical and couldn't possibly be worse.
Long term, the Democrats losing specifically on this issue would mean they would come back and win after changing their position and things would be better.
I'm sorry that this makes you uncomfortable.
Wow. You really are all in on "the oligarchs will save us".
Your argument now is "the Democrats will collapse completely and that will be better"?
I mean, you are saying only AOC and Bernie are attracting crowds so you are saying the Democrats are done and will be replaced, I presume?
Also, those crowds are for a tour that is anti-oligarchy, not pro-palestine or anti-Israel.
(Unless you are leaning into "all the oligarch money is actually Israeli", which I don't think you intend to do.)
Glad you changed your story to be closer to the actual facts once you were caught.
You accuse me of lying then use straw man arguments to lie about what I said.
I know you have a narrative you need to push, something along the lines that any dem or liberal that didn't vote for Harris because of the genocide was actively supported putting trump in power, but its very much not the case. In 18 months you have refused to say that either Biden or Harris should have changed their policy to win the election. Instead you blame others who wouldn't vote to actively fund genocide
Why do you refuse to blame Biden and Harris?
Harris lost because her policies were not popular enough, including the funding of genocide.
You can rewrite your history if you like.
I know you don't understand how voting works in a plurality system.
To clarify again, I am not saying everyone who voted that way or stayed home for those reasons secretly wanted Trump in their heart. (You can't read the final intention of someone from their vote in a plurality system.)
One - Changing the policy doesn't guarantee them winning the election.
Two - I wanted them to change the policy because a better policy would be better.
Three - People thinking "my vote is about what is in my heart" is the problem and yes, I will always reserve the right to criticize people for how they voted.
Obviously Harris lost because her vibes (a small part of which was her policies) weren't popular enough.
Voting involves people choosing between options.
That's what happens with every election.
The history where I warned that Harris would lose over support of the genocide?
That is exactly what you've been saying here, that its the fault of people who wouldn't vote for Harris and Biden's genocide that trump won and that they actively took part in putting him in power.
Just as I will always criticize people who enable genocide.
Never again.
So it was just bad 'vibes' supporting genocide?
wow
This is just a crowd with bad vibes?
Never denied that you said that.
Not the only thing you said, though.
Yes.
They did.
That does not mean it was their goal in their heart of hearts (not all of them).
You cannot tell in detail what someone does or does not want from a vote in a plurality system.
The vote gives you very little information.
It's one (among many) of the reasons I am in favor of voting reform.
Not just to get better results, but to allow for a more informative/expressive ballot.
You are a Canadian citizen.
By your criteria you are enabling genocide.
Don't pretend to be thicker than you are.
Even at your most ridiculous, I don't think you've ever claimed the entire election was about people voting on the Israel/Palestine issue.
Likewise.
Yet there were massive protests against Israel throughout the year and groups like Uncommitted trying to get their message across.
As there were polls saying 80% of dems backed a ceasefire.
Voters made their views public, even within a media controlled country. It was Biden/Harris that refused to listen.
Not if I've been working to stop Canada supporting genocide.
You said the election was about vibes.
Accept the criticism of that comment.
None of which has fuck all to do with what I just said and you are responding to.
You do understand that you can tell very little about what someone wants from their ballot in a first past the post system, right?
You do understand that someone who votes for the Conservative candidate in their riding is telling you very little about why they cast that vote from the ballot alone?
This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.
Wait.
Someone's vote isn't the only thing they should be judged by now?
Other considerations matter?
How nice of you to acknowledge that.
But your criticism was stupid.
Yes, the election was about vibes.
That's a huge part of any election and the recent ones have only shown that the level on which vibes dominate over policy is higher than ever.
You saying that acknowledging that means I was saying " So it was just bad 'vibes' supporting genocide? " is a deeply stupid reading of the comment.
Don't pretend to be as thick as some people on this board insist you are.
Franky seems to think the 2024 election relied heavily on the Gaza-Israel conflict...Trump minimally focused his campaign on that...sorry Franky Jews just like palestinians have the right to exist...
Of course. But your argument seems to be that this was only one issue so couldn't have changed votes at all.
Uncommitted showed this to be a false premise.
Straw man argument. Do Better.
Declaring the election was about 'vibes' is really stupid.
During 2023 the US saw the biggest protests across the country on a single issue since BLM.
You are doing massive logic twists to try to argue that couldn't have effected the vote in a close election, despite Biden and Harris both being protested directly over the issue throughout the year.
Its amazing to me that you both declared that losing to trump would be the most dangerous thing to the US possible but also weren't willing to accept that the dems should just stop supporting genocide in order to not risk losing the election. It should have been an easy ask and an obvious change for the dems.
No, rich.
It was a close election and the one easiest change that could have been made for the dems to increase their chances would have been to uphold the law and human rights and not back genocide.
Of course it is a false premise.
No one would argue that.
Any one issue can change votes.
But isolating that this issue caused this vote is actually very, very hard.
Why?
You didn't.
Are you now saying that people might have multiple motivations in how they vote?
Because if so, I'm all for this sudden growth on your part.
No.
It's very good analysis.
If you maybe thought about actually engaging with the election and what happened, you might notice that.
I have never, once, said it couldn't have affected the vote.
In fact, it would be insane to think it didn't affect the vote.
That you can't understand this is one of the reasons it is so hard to take you seriously.
Did I once say they shouldn't?
I said the tactic used to try and get there was bad.
And oh look, it was bad and it failed.
I said that the tactic also had a catastrophic failure condition of getting Trump elected and making things worse for Palestinians, the United States, and the world.
And oh look, Trump did get elected and it has made things worse for the Palestinians, the United States, and the world.
Palestine protests were massive and across the entire country.
It was the one issue that put the most boots on the ground during the year.
Straw man argument again.
I never argued that there weren't other issues on voter's minds.
Just that this issue was bigger than you were willing to admit.
Then you should be working towards getting the dems to elect a populist leader with lots of charm and no policies if you really think its about vibes.
I've never said it was the only reason. What I've repeatedly argued is that it was one issue that would have been easy for Harris to have changed her position on and that change could have been enough to win the election.
Multiple tactics were used and you declared all were bad. Student protests, Uncommitted, legal challenges, challenges within the party, party polls and attempts to get her to meet and talk about the issue were tried. You've declare all those tactics bad because Harris wouldn't change her mind.
Again, this is you blaming voters and refusing to say Harris should have stopped support for the genocide for the good of the country and the election.
The problem wasn't with voters not accepting genocide, the problem was with Harris refusing to stop genociding.
What tactic would you have used that wasn't tried?
Yes.
And just like rallies, that doesn't track all that well to votes.
Look, if you wait a couple of years, there is a good chance Pew, which always makes the most extensive verified voter recaps, will have much more solid data.
It may even find data that will prove your point.
We aren't there yet.
ahh.
Retconning.
Well, whatever you need to get you through the day.
Sadly, this is the debate within the party.
Until the Dems make significant inroads in levelling the current media landscape, they will have to over-perform on the "vibes" front.
Look at some of the people that are being pushed as contenders for 2028.
"Can't ever nominate a woman" is a lesson some people are drawing.
This is going to be a huge part of the candidate discussion going forward.
It always has been, but that looks like it is going to escalate.
I'm not happy about it.
And yet this tactic was a complete failure in changing her position.
Which (granting this new version of your argument) means it clearly wasn't so easy to change, was it?
I never declared they were all bad.
Once again, "anything short of complete agreement with me is an attack on my position" isn't a good look, Frank.
You really need to learn not to do that.
I would have continued all the tactics other than "make Trump president".
What kind of idiot would think this is something that is tied to the election and the election only?
What kind of idiot would shoot themselves in the foot and make themselves less likely to succeed by putting Trump and the GOP in charge?
Sure we are, polls say people don't want US money to go to bombs on the children of Gaza. 53% of americans have negative views of Israel, even with the MSM bias.
At the start of the genocide polls show 80% of dems wanted a ceasefire. Fuck, even Israel thought there would be a ceasefire after a few weeks, the way the US normally stopped them from doing the most evil shite.
Right back at you, buddy.
Humans abilities to learn the wrong lesson continue to surprise me.
Yes, it was a total failure of democracy. Voters worked and used every available means and Harris/Biden refused to listen.
What tactics does that now leave voters with, in your mind?
Right back at you, valcazar. The amount of straw man arguments you present here is surprising for someone so schooled in debate.
The kind of idiot that thinks fighting for rules based governance and democracy is important.
The kind of idiot who thinks that you need your government to uphold the law and human rights domestically and internationally.
If you want to support a system as it destroys itself by just picking the slightly less shitty choice, then you're just aiding the eventual trump like leader.
Yes.
Believing this means support for a policy gets those votes is... a choice, I guess.
Wish I had an economist subscription. I'd love to see the context here.
(I don't really trust the Quincy institute to summarize in good faith.)
Would be really interesting, if true, though.
What changed?
The US arms business has always been huge but according to this the US always stopped Israel before.
Indeed, they expected and planned for the US to stop them.
So why didn't it happen this time?
Why didn't Israel stop itself if they planned to "be stopped".
A lot to unpack there.
It doesn't surprise me anymore.
It sometimes shocks me still thank god, but it doesn't surprise me, really.
You're really abandoning democracy pretty quickly, aren't you?
This is an interesting development.
"I couldn't get what I want by voting, democracy failed".
Not what I expected from you.
Citizens have all the tactics they've always had in democracy.
That you can only think of them as voters is telling.
And now we watch you and Butler come into alignment.
Have to admit, I didn't call that.
I know, your theory is its all just vibes and I'm old school and think that people do vote policies.
Really, this is news to you?
We had the discussion about Reagan and the phone call during the summer. Every president has previously shut down Israeli attacks on Gaza before they get critical. Netanyahu needs constant war to stop his corruption trials and dwindling support. But you do ask the bigger question. Why the fuck did Biden and Harris both not only not stop it but actively aid it through extra billions and diplomatic moves at the UN.
I'm not abandoning democracy, it'll make me work more to keep it here in Canada. The US has since citizens united shifted focus from voters to lobbyists, but this is likely one of the bigger issues that had mass popular movement that both parties ignored. Really, the question should be how long has it been since the US has been a fully functioning democracy and is it even possible to fix it.
Is this you admitting Palestine protesters tried every avenue and tactic and that you can't think of another way that they should have tried or that could have worked?
I'm a weaver, not a ripper.
Though the state of or failure of democracy in the US might make me change my position if I was there and couldn't see a way to fix it.
Definitely not an accelerationist who dreams of some Phoenix rebirth as a socialist utopia with universal health care.
The last election was a pretty strong demonstration that vibes dominates to an even higher amount than I had been willing to accept.
Like most people who take politics seriously, I think policy is important.
I acknowledged that vibes and messaging and propaganda were powerful, but policy was still a big deal.
That's been pretty soundly crushed now.
The new media landscape makes vibes absolutely dominant.
It sucks, but until media literacy calibrated to the new paradigm is developed, it's going to be very bad.
Think about it this way - it took Trump almost blowing shit up completely with these tariffs to get through to people and even with that, he is still not much off his previous highs on approval.
Quincy Institute's claim that Israel counted on being stopped but that didn't happen? (apparently sourced to The Economist)
Yes.
Their claim that the US has always been dictated by the arms industry, even though they stopped Israel in the past, and no acknowledgement that therefore something must have changed in either Israel, the arms industry, or the United States?
Yes. (As in, I'd really like them to explore that idea and explain the contradiction instead of just blowing right past it.)
Exactly the question.
If this has always been the US position (self-contradictory as it is described in her paper) then what changed?
Of course, the article isn't about that, so it just becomes a thrown off statement without being explored.
Oh.
You think it matters when it is your vote.
Even though you will be returning a Genocide government to power - which you seem very happy about.
It wasn't going to work.
They weren't going to change this in one election, especially with a track record like many of the people pushing for this had of not voting anyway and not accepting yes for an answer.
This is the kind of thing that takes years to change.
Watching you acknowledge your choice to become a ripper will be interesting.
You have different aims for what happens after, for sure.
For instance, the Middle East policy you each want to arise from the ashes is different.
