Eletriarnation posted:

Yeah, so this is what we call a 'strawman'. No one is proposing this. They're saying you ought to vote for Joe Biden in the 2024 general election, just that one particular vote.

Lemming posted:

From https://www.c-span.org/video/?531245-1/presidential-candidates-speak-republican-jewish-coalition-conference

It's difficult to copy and paste the text, so here's a screenshot:



"If you spill a drop of American blood, we will spill a gallon of yours. We are doing that because we want to start peace. We will start wars. The wars have to be finished often times before the peace. If you don't do the wars the peace will not happen. If you aren't tough and ruthless like they are it will not happen."

This sounds like obviously substantially worse.

Jeff the Mediocre posted:

Give the thread title and the Super Bowl tonight, wouldn't Nuffle be the most applicable chaos god instead of one of the lesser four?

Also given the two candidate's ages, I wonder what the parties would do if one or both pass away before the election. Guess we could have Kamala v whoever trump pics at VP

Kchama posted:

That's cool that you're fine with it, but it's still hardcore antisemitism. It's not going to solve anything, especially not branding it on people they clearly think are Jews.

Raiad posted:

What are we supposed to expect to change in the next four years that is different from the past several election cycles?

Trump is a particularly inept figurehead who has said the quiet part out loud and blundered into plenty of devastating actions, but the groundwork for this has been laid for the past several decades. MAGA is the rule rather than the exception among the only realistic alternative party. Even once Trump goes, there will be the Trump kids, or the Millers, or the many other grifters and sycophants who eager to take the reins.

KillHour posted:

And it's cool that you're mad about it, but nobody is going to get permabanned and I think most people here are going to contextualize it differently.

Also, if you're mad at people conflating Israel with Jews, you should be mad at Israel for screaming from the rooftops that that they're doing this in the name of Jews everywhere. You're technically correct, and we all know you're correct, but pithy slogans are more useful than correctness when doing propaganda.

Eletriarnation posted:

Well, for one thing, Joe Biden won't be running again. You can be certain it won't be him winning the Democratic nomination in 2028, and you can be fairly certain it will be someone younger than him. You might even be able to influence who that person is through the primary process.

If the person you choose is successful enough to strike the Republicans a resounding defeat, then the GOP might decide to change ideological tack a bit for the elections of 2030 and beyond. I don't think we will end up with a real alternative choice anytime soon, but we might end up with something that doesn't make us go "holy poo poo, this is an existential threat that absolutely must be voted against." Is that likely? I don't know, but I like the chances a lot better than what I get if I let Trump win.

Lemming posted:

From https://www.c-span.org/video/?531245-1/presidential-candidates-speak-republican-jewish-coalition-conference

It's difficult to copy and paste the text, so here's a screenshot:



"If you spill a drop of American blood, we will spill a gallon of yours. We are doing that because we want to start peace. We will start wars. The wars have to be finished often times before the peace. If you don't do the wars the peace will not happen. If you aren't tough and ruthless like they are it will not happen."

This sounds like obviously substantially worse.

mobby_6kl posted:

Trump just unilaterally cut off UNRWA funding https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/9/1/us-ends-all-funding-for-uns-palestine-refugee-agency, which Biden restored: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2BU2XS/

Raiad posted:

Given how the alternative party is full of militia psychopaths willing to die for MAGA in ways that Democrats are unwilling to die for the people they claim to want to protect, this does not seem very likely.

Majorian posted:

...and then Biden cut it off again. The head of UNRWA has admitted that he fired the accused employees without evidence, and Tony Blinken admits that the US hasn't verified Israel's claims. Penalizing an already-underfunded agency aimed at helping keep desperate refugees alive, based on unverified allegations about 12 employees, is pretty hosed up. I don't see how Trump is worse than Biden on this front.

Kagrenak posted:

"you're technically correct it's hardcore bigotry but hardcore bigotry is more useful"

listen to yourself

also Kchama has repeatedly expressed their disgust over how Israel conflates the two.

mobby_6kl posted:

Yes I know he paused it in response to the accusations. I linked the article about it. Did you review the evidence then to make the claim?

Eletriarnation posted:

Maybe not, but this whole conversation started with me asking you to propose any alternative whatsoever to winning the election and you still haven't done that. So, you know, I'll keep doing the best thing I know until you have a proposal that isn't "lay down in the road and die".

Majorian posted:

Thank you, I appreciate it. Those are vague threats, though - they remind me of Trump promising to kill all of ISIS' families, something that he didn't follow through on. It's a bloodthirsty and insane post, but it's also in-keeping with his long pattern of offering tough talk on foreign policy and then not following through.

Raiad posted:

What are we supposed to expect to change in the next four years that is different from the past several election cycles?

Trump is a particularly inept figurehead who has said the quiet part out loud and blundered into plenty of devastating actions, but the groundwork for this has been laid for the past several decades. MAGA is the rule rather than the exception among the only realistic alternative party. Even once Trump goes, there will be the Trump kids, or the Millers, or the many other grifters and sycophants who eager to take the reins.

Failboattootoot posted:

There is no guarantee that whoever comes post trump can generate the cult of personality that Trump has in order to get people to enact (more) violence in order to bring in a real autocracy.

KillHour posted:

Whoever bought that title was clearly loving pissed. I don't know the exact conversation that led to it, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were probably rightly pissed, given the subject matter. I'm not going to stand in front of someone who is rightly pissed about an ongoing genocide and say "you're lumping in innocent people with the genociders; you should really be more careful."

Majorian posted:

Trump could be worse than Biden on Gaza, but if you're going to make the affirmative claim like this, it would be great if you'd explain why you believe this and what makes you so certain of it. Remember, we're talking about him being worse than Biden, not just "not better than Biden."

Majorian posted:

I think there's an argument to be made that Trump would be worse than Biden in terms of supporting this genocide, but it's a pretty small difference IMO, unfortunately.

Doctor Yiff posted:

I remember the op-eds flying around just after Trump won in 2016 floating the idea that Hilary lost because the Democrats were too protective of trans people's rights, so I'm more than a little skeptical of being used as a rhetorical tool to shame people into voting for Biden.

Doctor Yiff posted:

I remember the op-eds flying around just after Trump won in 2016 floating the idea that Hilary lost because the Democrats were too protective of trans people's rights, so I'm more than a little skeptical of being used as a rhetorical tool to shame people into voting for Biden.

Majorian posted:

Thank you, I appreciate it. Those are vague threats, though - they remind me of Trump promising to kill all of ISIS' families, something that he didn't follow through on. It's a bloodthirsty and insane post, but it's also in-keeping with his long pattern of offering tough talk on foreign policy and then not following through.

Raiad posted:

I have given you my proposal: the democrats should, given the dire implications of Trump winning the election, consider suspending elections and prevent him from taking office. If we accept that this is possible for Trump, it should be possible for Biden. If the military would have to go along with Trump, it will have to go along with Biden and suppress the violent movements that result from this action. And if we accept that refusal to do something is the same thing as allowing the alternative, the democrats failing to secure their position by any means necessary is the same as empowering Trump to establish his dictatorship.

Again, this is not an ideal option, or even a good one. But it is an option, with a much higher rate of success than relying on irrational and unreliable leftists, and certainly would result in a lesser evil.

socialsecurity posted:

Opeds are meaningless tripe I am unsure why you would base any decision ever based on anything they have said.

haveblue posted:

Trump could probably keep his movement together by anointing a successor, but he's not going to do that, because he's Trump

Majorian posted:

Thank you, I appreciate it. Those are vague threats, though - they remind me of Trump promising to kill all of ISIS' families, something that he didn't follow through on. It's a bloodthirsty and insane post, but it's also in-keeping with his long pattern of offering tough talk on foreign policy and then not following through.

Kagrenak posted:

Interesting that you think that this time the op-eds would interpret people sitting it out with wanting the party to move left on the issue. Surely THIS time that leftists step back from the process, the establishment will finally listen to our silence.

Killer robot posted:

Trump saying he would drop more bombs and kill more civilians than Obama was one of the most visible kept promises of his 2016 campaign. That's even with him trying to cover it up by instructing the US government to stop tracking and publishing civilian casualties.

Seriously here. In 2016 the "Trump is an unknown that could do anything, who are we to say if his victory would be good or bad" was marginally defensible. It was absolutely idiotic even in the moment, let alone hindsight, and without exception it came either from credulous fuckwits with the worst political instincts (in both the moment and in hindsight), or people who fully knew what a Trump victory would entail but wanted it anyway whether for its own sake or merely to own the libs. But it had the thinnest veneer of plausibility and people were expected to entertain it.

In 2024 that veneer is long since stripped away and there is no cover for polishing the rotted particle board and insisting that it could be fine hardwood under there.

KillHour posted:

Being angry and being rational are generally not well correlated.

Whoever bought that title was clearly loving pissed. I don't know the exact conversation that led to it, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were probably rightly pissed, given the subject matter. I'm not going to stand in front of someone who is rightly pissed about an ongoing genocide and say "you're lumping in innocent people with the genociders; you should really be more careful."

You're free to, but I don't recommend doing it in person unless you like getting slugged.

Edit: And if they had just said "that should be worded more carefully" I wouldn't have responded in the first place. From context, they told someone they should be permabanned for being mad about a genocide and being overly broad about directing that anger, and didn't even clarify what it was they were taking issue with. That deserved some pushback.

Eiba posted:

What has the point of this whole derail been then? Why are you repeatedly demanding that everyone prove that Trump would be worse, when you yourself seem to think that Trump would be worse?

Kchama posted:

Because he literally made a bunch of tweets after Oct 7th about how if HE was President he'd have America actively help genocide the Gazans with troops. He wanted a much worse genocide.

Considering he wanted to Just Start Killing Gazans with American troops, I think that's a bit of a clue.

Mormon Star Wars posted:

Never get ready to die. There's never a reason to capitulate to someone coming after your community, and if they want you dead, it should be their problem, not yours. The future is uncertain, but your own dignity is certain, and you should not give it up pre-emptively. We are not alone in these situations - you mentioned your entire community, and the trans community has incredibly strong bonds because of their shared struggle. You are not alone even besides that - trans people came before you and people wanted to wipe them out, but trans people persevered, and you are still here.

Yes, you'd be safer in a blue state. But if you are worried that it still wouldn't be safe enough, and that a fight is inevitable, then it's better to focus on what you can control: Your community, your loved ones, your dignity, and your self-respect.

(Also, the future is really uncertain, things are way to in flux to be like "Yeah, Trump is going to win." You should still get ready to fight for your dignity all the time, though!)

Majorian posted:

I haven't "demanded" that of everyone; specific posters made the positive claim that Trump would be much, much worse than Biden on Gaza (not just "slightly" or "marginally" worse), and I wanted to learn why they believed that. For example:
[quote]
I have no doubt that Trump would be incredibly bloodthirsty with regard to Gaza, and I think he probably would be marginally worse than Biden in purely material terms, ie: what can actually be accomplished that makes people's lives materially worse. But Biden's really, really loving bad on this issue, to the point where, if someone's going to make the claim that Trump would be that much worse, I'd like to at least know why.

socialsecurity posted:

But Trump would make everything Gaza worse so this analogy doesn't make sense.

Eiba posted:

MonsieurChoc posted:

At worst Trump will be as bad on Gaza as Biden, while most likely he'd gently caress it up.

He already floated the idea to make the aid payments to Israel loans, which would be very bad longterm for the genocidal apartheid state.

But the reality is that if you want to elect someone that isn't a genocidal racist rapist you gotta find a way to make a third-party run work, because right now Biden and Trump are all those things.

Majorian posted:

I haven't "demanded" that of everyone; specific posters made the positive claim that Trump would be much, much worse than Biden on Gaza (not just "slightly" or "marginally" worse), and I wanted to learn why they believed that. For example:

I have no doubt that Trump would be incredibly bloodthirsty with regard to Gaza, and I think he probably would be marginally worse than Biden. But Biden's really, really loving bad on this issue, to the point where, if someone's going to make the claim that Trump would be that much worse, I'd like to at least know why.

Majorian posted:

I haven't "demanded" that of everyone; specific posters made the positive claim that Trump would be much, much worse than Biden on Gaza (not just "slightly" or "marginally" worse), and I wanted to learn why they believed that. For example:

I have no doubt that Trump would be incredibly bloodthirsty with regard to Gaza, and I think he probably would be marginally worse than Biden in purely material terms, ie: what can actually be accomplished that makes people's lives materially worse. But Biden's really, really loving bad on this issue, to the point where, if someone's going to make the claim that Trump would be that much worse, I'd like to at least know why.

small butter posted:

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I think one difference which hasn't been explored is that Trump would correctly see the war as politically advantageous to him and want it to go on. It's a war where the "good guys" are right-wingers beloved by evangelical Christians and the "bad guys" are all Arab and generally Muslim. Basically all of Trump's base is energized by it and it scares independents/swing voters into wanting the party they see as stronger on foreign policy (generally the Republicans)

Biden, I think, correctly sees the war as a political liability that in an ideal world would never take place/conclude asap - he's too ideologically committed to Israel, or afraid of his party's pro-Israel wing, to go very far here. But he knows that the war makes him look bad particularly among people who voted for him in 2020 - (both anti-Zionists and left-wing-except-for-Israel Jews). He wants to see the war ended but first Hamas has dismantled, and all hostages returned, etc.

For this reason I think there are many potential peace deals that Biden would pressure Israel to accept and Trump would pressure Israel to reject.

Also, Biden has not (afaik) used the diplomatic crisis as a pretext to directly antagonize Iran, while Trump, who antagonized Iran throughout his prior administration, would absolutely be doing so now.