Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Wayne Knight
May 11, 2006

Seems like the best way to go then is to work on energizing and uniting leftest voters, while also voting in a way that ensures they are allowed to continue to exist.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Agents are GO!
Dec 29, 2004

But my purity!

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Bodyholes
Jun 30, 2005

Wayne Knight posted:

Seems like the best way to go then is to work on energizing and uniting leftest voters, while also voting in a way that ensures they are allowed to continue to exist.

That sort of my strategy... at least the way I conceptualize it.

-Vote for the better democrat in the primaries
-Vote for the democrat in the general pretty much always
-Make republicans lose so much that they are forced to moderate to win
-Once republicans have moderated sufficiently, THEN let democrats eat poo poo to speed up the process of selecting for better ones.

The last two steps are important because without them you're not really punishing dems for being insufficiently left, you're rewarding republicans for becoming more and more extreme. You'd think after 2000 and 2016 the accelerationist left would learn something, but like all death cults empirical evidence is not really something they value.

theCalamity
Oct 23, 2010

Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Misunderstood posted:

It zero percent does that. It minimizes the utility of not voting because of it.

Are the Muslim and Arab Americans - whose friends and families have been murdered in Gaza - afraid of cooties because they don't want to vote for Biden as he continues to support Israel in their genocide of Palestinians?

Nucleic Acids
Apr 10, 2007

Agents are GO! posted:

And I don't care how you rationalize it, I'm asking you to show some empathy and not enable fascists to kill me because you're worried about maintaining your moral purity.

I put it that way because do you think that not voting for Joe Biden will lead to a better outcome for Palestinians? If your answer is no, and you still won't vote to keep fascists out of power, then you're voting solely on how voting makes you feel about yourself and not about material conditions.

That, as I said, is a position that is worthy of derision.

Not voting for someone carrying out a genocide is not a matter of preserving moral purity.

Agents are GO!
Dec 29, 2004

If you never win you never have to deny your child gills compromise!

theCalamity
Oct 23, 2010

Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War
https://twitter.com/HuffPostPol/status/1733931028815733182

Blinken says that with Hamas still alive, a cease fire would only help them, something that has been repeated many times over the past couple of months, but that the US is a proponent in humanitarian pauses and that they are trying to reduce the amount of Palestinian civilian casualties.

Huffpo points out that what Blinken stated is contradicted by the State Department bypassing Congress to approve the emergency sale of tank ammunition to Israel.

CAIR's Nihad Awad states that Biden admin is unconscionable in allowing ethnic cleansing, starvation, and genocide to continue



quote:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken defended the U.S. government’s decision to, for the second time, veto the United Nations Security Council’s resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, as Israel continues to kill and displace tens of thousands of Palestinians.

The 15-member council introduced the cease-fire resolution during an emergency meeting on Friday, which was convened days after Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked an article that allows him to raise what he believes are threats to international peace and security.

It was the second time the council brought a cease-fire resolution to the floor since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, which killed about 1,200 people and resulted in hundreds taken hostage, more than 100 of whom were released during a weeklong pause in the violence last month.

Since then, Israeli forces have killed more than 17,700 people in Gaza ― 70% of whom are women and children ― wounded more than 46,000 and trapped thousands more under rubble. The violence has also resulted in about 1.9 million Palestinians displaced, and forced surviving families to flee to southern Gaza.

But despite global support for a cease-fire and an end to what human rights groups have described as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the U.S. vetoed the resolution. The United Kingdom abstained, while the remaining council members voted in favor of the cease-fire.

“It is unconscionable that the Biden administration would stand alone in voting to continue the ethnic cleansing, starvation and genocide being carried out by Israel’s far-right government in Gaza,” CAIR National Executive Direct Nihad Awad said on Friday after the veto. “It is not clear what level of suffering by the Palestinian people would prompt our nation’s leaders to act in their defense.”

In addition to a cease-fire, the draft resolution called for all parties to comply with international humanitarian law, protect Israeli and Palestinian civilians, and release all hostages. Despite the demands in the resolution aligning with what the White House has publicly called for, the U.S. government still vetoed the resolution.

The decision by the U.S., who serves as Israel’s strongest ally, drew widespread backlash from those who warn that the move will lead to more civilian deaths. But on Sunday ― the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ― Blinken defended the decision, saying that the U.S. supports temporary “humanitarian pauses” but that a cease-fire would only benefit Hamas.

“We have been a strong proponent of humanitarian pauses. In fact, because of our advocacy, because of the work we did, we got pauses. We got pauses on a daily basis to make sure that people could get out of the way, that humanitarian supplies could get in. We helped negotiate the longer pause that results on the release of more than 110 hostages, and it also allowed doubling of the humanitarian assistance that was getting into Gaza,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”

“But when it comes to a cease-fire in this moment, with Hamas still alive, still intact, and again, with the stated intent of repeating Oct. 7 again and again, that would simply perpetuate the problem,” he continued. “And so our focus is on trying to make sure that civilians are protected to the maximum extent possible [and] that humanitarian assistance gets in to the maximum extent possible.”

On Friday, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters that fewer than 100 trucks carrying humanitarian aid had entered Gaza over 24 hours.

Despite Blinken’s statements claiming the U.S. cares about the protection of Palestinian civilians, the country’s veto on the cease-fire resolution has and will only result in more Palestinian deaths. On Friday, Guterres described the status of aid access in Gaza as a “spiraling humanitarian nightmare.”

“There is no effective protection of civilians,” the secretary-general told the council. “The people of Gaza are being told to move like human pinballs ― ricocheting between ever-smaller slivers of the south, without any of the basics for survival. But nowhere in Gaza is safe.”

Aid groups and journalists in Gaza ― whose numbers are dwindling due to Israel’s deadly attacks on the press ― have reported civilians facing starvation and thirst; patients with severe injuries undergoing treatment without anesthesia due to the lack of medicine; men digging children out of rubble with their bare hands; and soldiers rounding up, blindfolding and stripping hundreds of Palestinian men.

Blinken’s claim that the U.S. is trying to reduce Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza also directly contradicts the State Department’s controversial move this weekend to bypass Congress and approve the emergency sale of nearly 14,000 rounds of tank ammunition worth more than $106 million to Israel. Previously, some Democratic lawmakers had proposed making $14.3 billion in American assistance to Israel contingent on concrete steps by Netanyahu’s government to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza.

Byzantine
Sep 1, 2007

Bodyholes posted:

How embarrassing, we almost got Sanders for president in 2016. Good thing we let him lose so we can find someone more progressive though. Phew!

Yeah, might have been a good thing. Between the Republican Congress and the covid pandemic, Bernie would've gone down in flames in 2020 and the brief dalliance with social democracy would be seen as the disaster that allowed the Chinese Communist Wuhan Virus to infect America and turn all the frogs gay.

Moktaro
Aug 3, 2007
I value call my nuts.

NomNomNom posted:

A box of cheezits is five loving dollars at my local grocery store.

A King Soopers out here has Bugles at the regular price of $3.29.

Every so often they put it on sale for $1.49 if you buy 5 or more, probably aren't selling so well at the regular price.

Also the inflation on soda has been absolutely insane.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

socialsecurity posted:

Has the collapse of a society ever brought about some socialist utopia? If it has what % of the population dying did that cost?

I do think it's worth noting that the first person who brought up a collapse (also the person who most explicitly argued for it as a 100% good thing that he would like it to happen) isn't a socialist or a leftist, but a very dim libertarian who thinks he'll get an Ayn Rand utopia from the collapse.

FLIPADELPHIA
Apr 27, 2007

Heavy Shit
Grimey Drawer
Same can pretty much be said for present Hillary as well. 2018 would have been an absolute bloodbath for the Democrats and the vaccine skepticism would have been so much worse.

I am in no way saying that I'm glad Trump was president, but these factors should also be considered alongside the obvious negatives.

Bodyholes
Jun 30, 2005

Agents are GO! posted:

If you never win you never have to deny your child gills compromise!

The US degrading into an autocracy where the right gets absolute power and the token representation the left has is in an electoral prison is perfect for a certain type of liberal that likes complaining and lecturing about things and doesn't actually like changing things.

cgeq
Jun 5, 2004

Moktaro posted:

Also the inflation on soda has been absolutely insane.

Is that really a bad thing considering how unhealthy it is?

theCalamity posted:

Blinken says that with Hamas still alive, a cease fire would only help them,

So is the official US stance unironically that the war will end once every member of Hamas (going by their, uh, payrolls or something) is dead?

Kavros
May 18, 2011

sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

socialsecurity posted:

Has the collapse of a society ever brought about some socialist utopia? If it has what % of the population dying did that cost?

The contemporary right and all associated autocratic or theocratic bodies only offer one material lesson: they're not any sort of engaged or 'good faith' participants in any kind of democracy anymore, they're the actual revolutionaries. Their electoral base is committed to them without any shame of antidemocratic efforts; 'conquering' any impediment to their minority rule is actively championed. Here in the US, as a singular example, the J6 insurrection is not disowned, it is celebrated and excused.

If any of these contemporary conservative factions sweep and get in strong enough to end democratic structures, they absolutely do so. Then everything gets to the level of "bad enough" that is supposed to bring about whatever the acceleration of bad things was supposed to make Happen™ — but the expected protests never materialize in a way which can overcome the expansive, brutal powers of subjugation the post-republic has gifted itself.

things then just continue to get steadily and regularly worse, cruelly mirroring the endless decline that the accelerationism was supposed to inhibit by being more relentless, more fatal to persecuted classes, and faster.

Professor Beetus posted:

I do think it's worth noting that the first person who brought up a collapse (also the person who most explicitly argued for it as a 100% good thing that he would like it to happen) isn't a socialist or a leftist, but a very dim libertarian who thinks he'll get an Ayn Rand utopia from the collapse.

Absolutely tracks.

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

theCalamity posted:

Calling those who don’t want to vote for people who support genocide selfish is a hell of a characterization. I don’t do this to make myself feel superior. I do it because I don’t want to vote for someone who supports genocide.

Can you explain to me how you manage to think like this? You deny yout motivation as selfish and then directly and immediately describe your motivation as a purely selfish one. There's clearly some sort of mental disconnect.

Misunderstood
Jan 19, 2023

by Fluffdaddy
I drink a fuckton of soda and I don't give a poo poo that the price has gone up because, even drinking an unbelievably huge poo poo ton of soda, the price going up has probably, over the course of the last ten years, added up to costing me two hundred extra bucks a year, for something that is the vast majority of what I drink.

People also exaggerate the price to a ridiculous degree, although I know there's regional variation and higher in places that have soda taxes, but I can get a 12 pack at the gas station near me for $8.50. 5 years ago it would've been like, $6.99. And yet everybody who talks about it online acts like you have to Know a Guy to pay less than ten bucks for one. I regularly pay $10.99 for 24 packs and I live in a high COL area.

You can imagine how the process of people getting less mad at high prices works: right now, everybody is still finding it cathartic to talk about the high prices they pay for things. In a few months, it's going to be less interesting, because the prices are going to be pretty much the same as they were a few months ago. And over time, people find other things to talk about (and complain about).

Like, talking about "gee whiz this thing costs so much!" is a nice way to connect with pretty much everybody, across any demographic or cultural signifier. It's not "we're all in this together" but at least it's "we're all in this." So it's a good subject for small talk, as long as it's on people's minds.

Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 10, 2023

Bodyholes
Jun 30, 2005

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Same can pretty much be said for present Hillary as well. 2018 would have been an absolute bloodbath for the Democrats and the vaccine skepticism would have been so much worse.

I am in no way saying that I'm glad Trump was president, but these factors should also be considered alongside the obvious negatives.

I am willing to entertain the argument that letting Trump win in 2016 had some positives. The left did gain some strength in Congress with the squad and justice dems and while Bernie didn't win in 2020, Biden has actually passed a decent chunk of Bernie's domestic platform.

This came at the cost of normalizing far right discourse in mainstream politics. MAGA would've been dead on arrival for a generation if it had lost to Hillary.

Personally I think allowing Gore to lose in 2000 was the bigger strategic mistake. Veith V Jubilerer and Citizens United have made our task so much harder, and have pushed the US so much closer to autocracy. Someone much earlier in the thread said "if it only takes one election to fall to fascism, that democracy was fake and doomed", and I think that is true, but I think we already have two strikes on the board from the massively damaging Supreme Court cases that followed 2000 and then the normalization of fascist ideology in 2016. I don't think we can take another strike... although it looks like we're going to.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

James Garfield posted:

Biden winning doesn't cause genocide in Israel (it doesn't prevent it, but it doesn't prevent the genocide in Myanmar either and nobody here is mad about that) but Biden losing does cause genocide in Ukraine. If genocide is the main issue for you Biden is the obvious choice.

I don't think it's really clear how Biden losing causes genocide in Ukraine.

theCalamity
Oct 23, 2010

Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

GlyphGryph posted:

Can you explain to me how you manage to think like this? You deny yout motivation as selfish and then directly and immediately describe your motivation as a purely selfish one. There's clearly some sort of mental disconnect.

Not voting for people who support genocide isn't selfish. There's certainly a mental disconnect, but it's not on my part.

Would you call the many Arab and Muslim Americans who lost friends and families in this ongoing genocide selfish because they don't want to vote for Biden?

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

mawarannahr posted:

I don't think it's really clear how Biden losing causes genocide in Ukraine.

The rights been increasingly clear they wish to stop funding Ukraine.

Misunderstood
Jan 19, 2023

by Fluffdaddy

theCalamity posted:

Not voting for people who support genocide isn't selfish.
Let's put it this way.

You are going into a box. You have two choices: you can check the box next to "Joe Biden" or you can write in "End Genocide." You choose the latter. Who benefits from that action and how?

Bodyholes
Jun 30, 2005

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-criminalizes-extremist-lgbt-movement/ar-AA1kNS7W
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/russian-police-raid-moscow-gay-162039582.html

quote:

Police in Russia have raided four gay nightclubs in Moscow, the night after a court effectively banned LGBT activism.

Eyewitnesses said police photographed the passports of hundreds of party-goers at the nightclubs on Friday before allowing people to leave.

“In the middle of the party, they stopped the music and [police] began to enter the halls,” the Ostorozhno Novosti news service quoted an eyewitness as saying.

“The scheme was worked out. This is how they closed similar clubs in St Petersburg. People were panicking.”

Russian authorities are suspicious of underground bar and music scenes which they regard as pro-Western, and in March police raided and closed several St Petersburg bars.

On Thursday in a closed ruling, Russia’s Supreme Court declared the “international LGBT+ Movement’’ an extremist organisation – effectively as dangerous as a terrorist group, and warned that anybody linked to it faced prison.

I assume this will be among the many social exports the Russians will impose on an occupied Ukraine.

Maybe it'll come to the US as well depending how far we fall? Wouldn't rule it out.

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

Misunderstood posted:

Let's put it this way.

You are going into a box. You have two choices: you can check the box next to "Joe Biden" or you can write in "End Genocide." You choose the latter. Who benefits from that action and how?

i would simply not go into the box

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

socialsecurity posted:

The rights been increasingly clear they wish to stop funding Ukraine.

How does stopping funding lead to genocide?

For the time being, it seems like Joe is willing to play ball and throw immigrants under a bus.
Biden open to 'significant' concessions on border security in return for Ukraine aid

www.telegraph.co.uk posted:

Joe Biden pleaded with Republicans on Wednesday for a fresh infusion of military aid for Ukraine, warning that a victory for Russia would leave Putin in position to attack Nato allies and could draw US troops into a war.

The US president spoke as the White House planned to announce $175 million in additional Ukraine aid from its dwindling supply of money for Kyiv. He signalled a willingness to make significant changes to US migration policy along the border with Mexico to try to draw Republican support.

“If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Mr Biden said. Putin will attack a Nato ally, he predicted, and then “we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today: American troops fighting Russian troops”.

The US president’s appeal came after the Senate blocked an emergency aid package that included more than $60 billion in new military support for Kyiv.

Congress has for months been split over sending more cash to Ukraine, with hard-line Republicans demanding an overhaul of immigration policy along the border with Mexico in exchange for their support.

Efforts to secure a funding deal were placed in an effective logjam on Wednesday, after Republicans in the upper house blocked a bill to provide aid to Ukraine and Israel over a lack of border provisions.

Senators voted 49-51 and therefore failed to reach the 60-vote threshold that would allow the proposal to come up for consideration.

The vote was along party lines, with every Senate Republican voting “no” along with Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who generally votes with Democrats but had expressed concerns about funding Israel’s “current inhumane military strategy” against Palestinians.

In an indication that Democrats intend to return to the matter promptly, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer flipped his vote to “no” so he could bring the bill up again in the future.

Speaking from the Roosevelt Room in the White House, Mr Biden accused “extreme Republicans” of “playing chicken with our national security, [and] holding Ukraine’s funding hostage to their extreme partisan border policies”.

He accused them of being willing to “literally kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield” and “give Russian president Vladimir Putin the greatest gift he could hope for”.

House and Senate Republicans are backing renewed construction of a border wall, former president Donald Trump’s signature goal, and a revival of a controversial policy under which asylum seekers must remain in Mexico while their immigration case is heard.

Mr Biden said on Wednesday he was willing to make “significant” compromises on the border issue, admitting the system was “broken” and in need of fixing, but could not meet their every demand.

He said Democrats had put a “bipartisan compromise on the table” which had been rejected.

“This has to be a negotiation,” he said. “Republicans think they get everything they want, without any bipartisan compromise. That’s not the answer.”

Mr Biden has asked Congress for nearly $106 billion to fund the wars in Ukraine, Israel and other security needs.

He said “petty, partisan, angry politics can’t get in the way of our responsibility”, before warning that if Putin enters Nato territory it could result in “American troops fighting Russian troops”.

The debate on supplemental Ukraine funding descended into a shouting match at the US Capitol on Tuesday, prompting several Republicans to walk out of a classified briefing.

Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, had been due to brief US senators on the war effort but was forced to cancel due to a “last-minute” hiccup, according to Chuck Schumer, the Democrat Senate majority leader.

Mr Schumer had accused Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of “hijacking” the meeting to question the administration about the border. He said some “disrespectful” lawmakers resorted to “screaming”.

Mitt Romney, a senator for Utah and one of a number of lawmakers who walked out of the meeting, said: “Republicans are saying that there’s support for Ukraine, but there has to be security of our border.”

“What I saw inside that briefing looked like an exercise in political theatre,” said Democrat senator Chris Murphy, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. He warned that “Kyiv will be a Russian city” if Congress does not act.

Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, is currently in Washington DC to hold talks with congressional leaders and White House chiefs over Ukraine and Israel.

$175m donated to Ukrainian military

It comes as the Department of Defence announced a $175 million security assistance package for Ukraine from “the limited resources that remain available”.

The package includes additional air defence capabilities, artillery ammunition, anti-tank weapons, and other equipment.

Mr Zelensky told G7 leaders on Wednesday that Russia had ramped up pressure on the front lines and warned Moscow was counting on Western unity to “collapse” next year.

The virtual G7 meeting, attended by Mr Biden and Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, comes amid fears Western support for Ukraine could wane as it makes limited progress on the battlefield.

“Russia hopes only for one thing – that next year the free world’s consolidation will collapse,” Mr Zelensky said, warning Moscow had “significantly increased pressure on the front”.

Despite a Ukrainian counteroffensive that has employed billions of dollars’ worth of Western weapons, the front lines in the conflict have barely shifted in more than a year.

But Russian attacks have intensified in recent weeks, including around the strategically important eastern town of Avdiivka.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
"I would simply walk away from the trolley control booth."

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Nucleic Acids posted:

Not voting for someone carrying out a genocide is not a matter of preserving moral purity.

It is not inherently a matter of preserving personal moral purity - there are plenty of reasons to vote against someone carrying one out. But in this specific instance thats the main reason people are actually giving for why they are taking the action.

Presumably if they had a better reason they'd be using that one instead, but they aren't.

theCalamity posted:

Not voting for people who support genocide isn't selfish. There's certainly a mental disconnect, but it's not on my part.

Would you call the many Arab and Muslim Americans who lost friends and families in this ongoing genocide selfish because they don't want to vote for Biden?

It doesnt have to be selfish, but you have clarified multiple times now that for you specifically it absolutely is selfishness and nothing but. You havent offered a non selfishness based reason yet, despite having a clear desire to do so. The best argument youve offered so far is that its justified because it doesnt matter... But thats the sort of argument you wouldnt be making if you had a non selfish motivation.

You also seem to be of the belief that I am using the word as some sort of stand in for "generically bad", which I am not - selfishness is often understandable, justifiable, and even good, although Id argue all those outcomes are more likely for someone recognizing their intent is selfish to begin with.

GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Dec 10, 2023

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

"I would simply walk away from the trolley control booth."

Uh oh, i’ve been put in the Discendo Box

Agents are GO!
Dec 29, 2004

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

i would simply not go into the box

The box is America

theCalamity
Oct 23, 2010

Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Misunderstood posted:

Let's put it this way.

You are going into a box. You have two choices: you can check the box next to "Joe Biden" or you can write in "End Genocide." You choose the latter. Who benefits from that action and how?

I live in a red state. It doesn't matter. Where it does matter is a state like Michigan where Arab and Muslim American leaders are organizing to call for others to not vote for Biden because of his support of the genocide in Palestine. Are they selfish or childish?

DarkHorse
Dec 13, 2006

Nap Ghost

Bodyholes posted:

I am willing to entertain the argument that letting Trump win in 2016 had some positives. The left did gain some strength in Congress with the squad and justice dems and while Bernie didn't win in 2020, Biden has actually passed a decent chunk of Bernie's domestic platform.

This came at the cost of normalizing far right discourse in mainstream politics. MAGA would've been dead on arrival for a generation if it had lost to Hillary.

Personally I think allowing Gore to lose in 2000 was the bigger strategic mistake. Veith V Jubilerer and Citizens United have made our task so much harder, and have pushed the US so much closer to autocracy. Someone much earlier in the thread said "if it only takes one election to fall to fascism, that democracy was fake and doomed", and I think that is true, but I think we already have two strikes on the board from the massively damaging Supreme Court cases that followed 2000 and then the normalization of fascist ideology in 2016. I don't think we can take another strike... although it looks like we're going to.

Bush not winning means the US doesn't invade Iraq for no loving reason. It's also possible that a Gore administration, still swept up in the chase for vengeance after 9/11 (assuming they ignore intel like the Bush one did) accept the Taliban's offers and get Bin Laden that much sooner and possibly end the Afghanistan war a decade earlier.

There were 327 federal judges Bush appointed, including Alito and of course Chief Justice Roberts.

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

Agents are GO! posted:

The box is America

how do i get out of this box

RBA Starblade
Apr 28, 2008

Going Home.

Games Idiot Court Jester

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

i would simply not go into the box

Now hold on a minute, let's hear out Mr. Genocide's social policies.

RealityWarCriminal
Aug 10, 2016

:o:

Discendo Vox posted:

"I would simply walk away from the trolley control booth."

To attempt to stop the trolley completely

Agents are GO!
Dec 29, 2004

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

how do i get out of this box

Same way you get off Mr Bones Wild Ride.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Pleasant Friend posted:

Yes. But the biggest genocide supporters are the people who actively preach to other people how they don't vote, implicitly trying to shame and convince other people to do the same, which is tangibly indistinguishably from campaigning for Trump and for Russian interests.

I missed this and wanted to acknowledge it. Thank you for your response. I disagree in your assessment of who are the biggest genocide supporters. I'm not sure who is, but the people campaigning against a ceasefire are greater genocide supporters than people who say "I won't vote for Biden because I think it is immoral to." For an example of whom I mean by the former, see here the folks trying to convince the president in a more than implicit fashion:
Remarks by President Biden at a Campaign Reception | Minneapolis, MN | The White House

www.whitehouse.gov posted:

And the previous President, who is seeking the job again, was asked what he thought about it.  You know what he said?  He said, “There are very fine people on both sides.”  “Very fine people on both sides.” 

When I heard that, I knew I couldn’t —

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Mr. President, if you care about Jewish people, as a rabbi, I need you to call for a ceasefire right now.

(Cross-talk.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Sit down!

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Get out!  Get out!

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, no, no, no, no.  No, let —  

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible) Palestinians and Israelis have died.  Please explain to me why.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Ma’am, you need to leave the event.

THE PRESIDENT:  Let — if you’ll be quiet, I’ll answer your question.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I would love for you to answer my question, please.

THE PRESIDENT:  I think we need a pause.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  A pause?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, a pause, for — 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  What is a pause?

THE PRESIDENT:  A pause means give time to get the prisoners out.  Give time — (applause).

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)  If you’re clapping for a ceasefire, (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, don’t — don’t — look —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more year!

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Ceasefire now!

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, no, no, no.  No, it’s okay.  It’s okay. 

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!  

Gripweed
Nov 8, 2018

Misunderstood posted:

There is absolutely no possible way they would learn that lesson, and it's not because they are Bad and want to Hurt Muslims and will come up with whatever reasoning they need to, it's because an election is a pretty broad brush and they have no way to draw signals directly out of the noise, which is why parties spend millions on in-depth post mortems after each elections.

This paragraph contradicts itself. You say the Democrats can’t draw signals from the noise, which is why they spend millions doing just that?

If Democrats lose a swing state and post election polling shows a number of people who didn’t vote for Democrats because of Gaza that is greater than the number of votes they lost by, that seems pretty clear.

And your position that Democrats aren’t Bad and don’t want to Hurt Muslims requires evidence. Do you have any sources supporting that?

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

RealityWarCriminal posted:

To attempt to stop the trolley completely

No trolley? No problem!

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

Uh oh, i’ve been put in the Discendo Box

The box is political agency. This is some serious Erich Fromm poo poo.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

mawarannahr posted:

Do we know this for real across different times and places? I suspect for a lot of people it's more like supporting one's sports team no matter what, but I cannot declare this confidently. Have you studied about this issue?

I suspect most people heavily lean towards one party, so that lines up with what I posted and what you're saying. I haven't looked too closely for a study that shows exactly what I stated, but it's an educated guess based on conversations among people, seeing conversations in news articles/online, seeing how nearly everyone who votes in a presidential election votes for the D/R candidate despite having disagreements with said candidate, etc.

Byzantine posted:

The Gazans?

Palestinians are hosed regardless of whatever the outcome of presidential elections have been since WWII. Although, currently, they're probably slightly better off with Biden being president over Trump. For an anecdotal example of why I think this, I'm guessing Yemenis would have rather had Biden in charge when Pompeo was selling $8bn in weapons to Saudi Arabia/their allies.

But to the point of your quote of my post, if you wouldn't have cut out that one sentence, you can easily see who I was talking about. I'll bold it for you with the entirety of my post:

Kalit posted:

Honestly, I can't think of the last time a president and most of congress haven't [accidentally or purposefully] attempted or directly supported attempts of genocide. It sucks, but the alternative is not voting, having said support of genocide escalating even higher, and watching more and more marginalized people in our country suffer.

If you have (somehow) never voted for a politician who has supported genocide, good for you I guess. Meanwhile, I'll vote for politicians who have made a meaningfully better life for those who need the most help. It's not that hard of a calculation in my mind, so go ahead and be offended.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

The box is political agency. This is some serious Erich Fromm poo poo.

May i see the box?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply