|
Uh, seriously, how? Because I pay taxes?
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Kagrenak posted:The question no one who is saying things like this will never answer is: so what are you going to actually do about any of this then? I have called and written letters. The obvious route that has made itself apparent to me is that I have to have more money than AIPAC does. So I’ve decided to start saving up and working towards that. It might take a while. The thing is, voting is a moral as well as practical decision. That I live in a safely red state pretty much eliminates all practical considerations, but those wouldn’t matter to me at this point anyway, as the genocide is so bad and the support so awful I can’t countenance supporting it no matter the calculation. It’s just transcended what I’m willing to suck down while living inside the Death Star. The moral implications of my position as a subject of the imperial core are basically too monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:The question no one who is saying things like this will never answer is: so what are you going to actually do about any of this then? I’m not selec, but my feeling on the matter is that those non-voting exercises of power that you mention probably have a much greater chance of affecting policy than voting ever could, unless it’s a super close local race or you live in a super close swing state or whatever. So good on you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
selec posted:The thing is, voting is a moral as well as practical decision. That I live in a safely red state pretty much eliminates all practical considerations, but those wouldn’t matter to me at this point anyway, as the genocide is so bad and the support so awful I can’t countenance supporting it no matter the calculation. The moral dimension of it IS the practical dimension. There is no morality outside the consequences of your decisions - any contrary idea is ideological sentimentality verging on superstition, highly inappropriate for a politically active adult and wildly disrespectful to the people who might be affected by your decisions. The entire moral importance of voting for Joe Biden is that the number of votes he gets in your state goes up by 1. You're talking about it like it stains your soul or something. Don't worry about that, voting isn't magic. Just evaluate whether you want the number to go up by 1, or a different number to go up by 1, or no number to go up by 1. Anyone interested in this discussion might be interested in Jose Saramago's book "Essay on Lucidity" (published in English as "Seeing") which is about an election where the vast majority of the population choose to cast blank ballots and what it does to the legitimacy of the government. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Apr 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
Not voting is never going to change policy and will in fact make policy worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The moral dimension of it IS the practical dimension. There is no morality outside the consequences of your decisions - any contrary idea is ideological sentimentality verging on superstition, ridiculously inappropriate for s politically active adult and wildly disrespectful to the people who might be affected by your decisions. This is nonsense. A vote for Biden would not change the practical outcome of my state. I only have the one vote. But Biden losing a state he already was gonna lose with one vote less sends a small, small message, but if I tell all my friends to do the same, and they agree with the message, the message gets larger, creating a moral message without creating any practical difference to the outcome. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:Not voting is never going to change policy and will in fact make policy worse. There are people who were voted into power right now who want to take away your right to change policy, whether it be through voting, organizing, protesting, etc. Tom Cotton wants to embolden other citizens to infringe on your right to protest and organize. https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/1780039918737121502
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
selec posted:This is nonsense. A vote for Biden would not change the practical outcome of my state. I only have the one vote. Biden losing a red state by a higher margin doesn't carry any kind of specific moral or policy message, it's just a number. He's just as likely to assume that the state has more bigots who think Trump is great as he is to think anything about I/P policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
selec posted:This is nonsense. A vote for Biden would not change the practical outcome of my state. I only have the one vote. The message you're describing is a potential outcome of the election. It's an outcome you're looking to induce by voting in a certain way. If this outcome does to pass, it will either have an impact on peoples' lives, in which case it has practical significance and corresponding moral importance, or it won't have any impact on anyone's life, in which case it has no practical significance or moral importance. Trying to separate the practical outcome of your decision - the actual real-world consequence of it - from its moral significance is superstition. The moral significance of what you do, in the voting booth and everywhere else, is what you cause to happen in the world. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Apr 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The moral dimension of it IS the practical dimension. There is no morality outside the consequences of your decisions - any contrary idea is ideological sentimentality verging on superstition, highly inappropriate for a politically active adult and wildly disrespectful to the people who might be affected by your decisions. You're just assuming that consequentialism is true here. Plenty of intelligent, non-superstitious people - including probably a majority of everyone who has ever studied ethics seriously - disagree with that for reasons that would be hard to attribute to ideology or sentimentality. (Edit: E.g. every deontologist or virtue theorist or existentialist. This is covered in every single intro to philosophy class on earth, maybe read up a bit before making grand pronouncements as to the true nature of morality or whatever) Gnumonic fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Apr 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Biden losing a red state by a higher margin doesn't carry any kind of specific moral or policy message, it's just a number. He's just as likely to assume that the state has more bigots who think Trump is great as he is to think anything about I/P policy. The Dems absolutely have better data than this. This is just assuming they’d decide to be incompetent rather than actually look at polling, per-district trends and historical performance, as well as seeing how many people voted Dem downticket but didn’t vote for the president. All of this is pretty surface level analysis, and the data nerds could dig in even more by bringing in all kinds of purchasable data to really drive home what happened. Now, if the argument is they’re ideologically unable or unwilling to do that work, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if that is the argument that doesn’t make me more inclined to change my mind and vote for anyone that ideologically rigid—if they’re unwilling to even ask why, they’re not responding to their base, they’re responding to lobbyists and an ideology I disagree with, and would be indicating they don’t intend to ever change course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:04
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:You're just assuming that consequentialism is true here. Plenty of intelligent, non-superstitious people - including probably a majority of everyone who has ever studied ethics seriously - disagree with that for reasons that would be hard to attribute to ideology or sentimentality. I'm not assuming it, I'm saying it because I believe it, and if anyone disagrees, they can say so and say why. And they should give a better reason than "I think there are smart people who disagree with you for good reasons." When it comes to politics, your rear end and mine and everyone else's asses are on the trolley tracks, there's no room to accommodate anyone's reticence to pulling the lever because the calculation makes them uncomfortable. Which is not me saying "vote for Joe Biden." There are strong consequentialist arguments for voting against Joe Biden. I'm saying it is a luxury to worry about anything other than the consequences of the decisions available to you, and to indulge in that luxury with so much on the line is selfish and immature. Gnumonic posted:(Edit: E.g. every deontologist or virtue theorist or existentialist. This is covered in every single intro to philosophy class on earth, maybe read up a bit before making grand pronouncements as to the true nature of morality or whatever) I know many intelligent, thoughtful people disagree with me about this. Many intelligent, thoughtful people disagree with me that Israel should cease its campaign of genocide. Many intelligent thoughtful people disagree with me that women are equal to men in intellectual and spiritual capacity. When I make a post am I responsible for describing everyone who might disagree with me? I'm not posting their opinions, I'm posting mine. If you disagree with me, you should make the case for why I'm wrong, instead of simply alluding to the fact that people disagree with me. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:11
|
|
|
I think the lesson that the Democrats would learn if/when Biden wins (which I think is the most likely outcome) is that they don't need to pay any attention, not even cursory lip service, to anything under the left wing idea umbrella. After all, many said they would stay home and not vote for him, and it turned out they were unnecessary for victory, so they will probably continue to be unnecessary for future elections. To flip this around, why are the Republicans stuck with the religious fanatics? Because their voting patterns, number, frequency, etc., have made them an indispensable bloc. If they tried to ditch the crazies, and be a party solely dedicated to being big business friendly, they would just straight up lose too many elections. They're going to be stuck pandering to them until they lose enough elections even with maximum crazy people turnout. The Democratic Party is very much structured in a way where you pay your dues, wait your turn, slowly rise up the ranks kind of thing. I think that a group of people with that mentality would have the disposition that if you're not a reliable member of the coalition, then they don't want to spend the effort to implement your policy requests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:16
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:When it comes to politics, your rear end and mine are on the trolley tracks The trolley has run over at least 30k Palestinians. They are on a track too—one we don’t need to be running a parallel trolley car on, but which is explained over and over that it makes us sad to do so, but for [some reason] we’re not going to decouple it. Do you agree that a modern liberal worldview could (and mine does) view those lives as just as valuable as an American life, and so to include them as equal in the political calculations I make?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
single-mode fiber posted:I think the lesson that the Democrats would learn if/when Biden wins (which I think is the most likely outcome) is that they don't need to pay any attention, not even cursory lip service, to anything under the left wing idea umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
selec posted:Do you agree that a modern liberal worldview could (and mine does) view those lives as just as valuable as an American life, and so to include them as equal in the political calculations I make? I'd say "must" - it *must* view those lives as just as valuable, or it's neither modern nor liberal, it's barbaric tribalism. Whatever voting decision anyone makes, it must be motivated by a well-informed thought process about the consequences it will have for the Palestinian people, or already it is an immoral decision. My point is that trying to separate "practical" from "moral" is an act of profound disrespect toward everyone who stands to be practically affected by the vote, which is more than just who wins the whole election - like you said, political actors will infer information and make choices based on how many votes the winner collects, on how this compares to downballot races, etc. So even a vote with no probability of changing the ultimate winner can have a practical consequence, and all its moral importance comes from that. The message you described earlier is a legitimate consequentialist approach to voting - voting for Joe Biden would send this message, not voting would send this other message, I think the other message will have better consequences for the Palestinian people. That's logical and admirable, frankly it's what I'll be doing (I also live in a state where the electoral vote outcome is basically predetermined). But separating the moral and the practical, as if there's some moral dimension of the vote that isn't captured by how it practically affects people's lives - that sort of deontological thinking is disrespectful to the people who will be affected by your vote, because you are worrying about something other than how it will affect them. If you believe that Voting Decision X, compared to the other voting decisions available to you, will be best for the Palestinian people and everyone else who's at risk of dying a horrible death because of US policy, you have a moral obligation to choose Voting Decision X, entirely because of its practical consequences, even if Voting Decision X disgusts or disturbs or demoralizes you. Whether Voting Decision X is voting for Biden or staying home or voting third party or writing in "Gaza" etc. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Apr 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
The trolley problem with trump winning is where the train swings its rear end over to the other track and finds a way to run over both groups
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Watch this sick drift - Trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I guess that depends on what you consider left wing. They definitely support gay marriage and abortion rights, which the other side wants to get rid of completely, for example. Right, but those are ideas which are already part of the platform, they're not currently unique to the left. To be clear, my point is that the not voting option probably doesn't have any good policy outcomes from a left wing perspective; obviously a Trump win would mean him attempting to inflict the maximum amount of damage possible in a minimum of the next 4 years. But not voting and Biden wins probably damages longer term prospects of getting policies currently unique to the left into more mainstream Democratic party acceptance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I'd say "must" - it *must* view those lives as just as valuable, or it's neither modern nor liberal, it's barbaric tribalism. Sadly, both options made available to the US Electorate will provide material support for the genocide of the Palestinians. Party control of government changes... loving over Palestine is evergreen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
single-mode fiber posted:Right, but those are ideas which are already part of the platform, they're not currently unique to the left. To be clear, my point is that the not voting option probably doesn't have any good policy outcomes from a left wing perspective; obviously a Trump win would mean him attempting to inflict the maximum amount of damage possible in a minimum of the next 4 years. But not voting and Biden wins probably damages longer term prospects of getting policies currently unique to the left into more mainstream Democratic party acceptance. On top of that, let's say Trump wins and Democrats have this "come to Jesus" moment. "Oh man! We totally hosed up! We should have listened to those non-voters who wanted changes to our I/P policy! From now on, we will be pro-Palestine!" What now? It'll be two years before the now out-of-power Democrats in the House/Senate can implement your changes and four years until the new Democratic president can do them. Do we tell the Palestinians "You're welcome y'all! I know the next two, maybe four years, are gonna be super devastating. But after that, you're going to be doing much better!" That is, of course, if Republicans don't gently caress with your ability to put these new pro-Palestine Democrats into power. And assuming that the new pro-Palestinian candidates aren't lovely campaigners and lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
tbh while I appreciate the moral and emotional value of “protest voting”, I think history has shown us that not only does it not work, it has an adverse effect on getting anything achieved. Like you talk about how you are one person in a blue or red state, but a vote goes far past that. Voting habits matter and consistent voting matters more than anything. A group that predominantly votes every election is one that has a larger amount of sway over the politics of a party. One of the big problems with leftist action is people who skew leftist don’t vote consistently. Last I checked it was roughly .2 or .3 ish, which translates to they vote maybe a quarter of the time. Embracing values leftists hold don’t really materially increase the voting rate, and leftist candidates frequently underperform in the polls/actual elections. So “oh well I’ll protest vote and that’ll show them” is frankly just noise, because according to their data people who care about Palestine enough to protest vote aren’t worth chasing. And you can see this over the last 20 or so odd years. We had a protest vote cause Clinton was a warmonger. We had a protest vote because of Obamas drone strikes. We had a protest vote because Kerry’s running mate cheated and he had awful Gaza policy. We had a protest vote for Gore because his inner city policy was awful and his wife sucked. Most Democrats don’t value things the same way we do. Yes polls for a ceasefire are at like 60%, but polls for a Palestinian state are at about 13%. Most dems just want to go back to the status quo. Which isn’t to say a minority group can’t take power, but not voting isn’t the way to do it. The Tea Party is a great example of this. They voted consistently every single election as a solid bloc, and even voted for things against their core interests for the sake of the party. Until something came up they were so strong against they did a protest vote over it. And guess what? They won that battle. Republicans lost an easy win because they didn’t vote, and they had to beg on their hands and knees to get them back. They single handily shifted the Overton window to the right quite a bit further. This is why people like Fetterman have “betrayed” their ideals by the way. Because guess what, American Jews have the highest percentage of actual voters of any core group. And while they don’t support genocide, they do support weapon shipments to Israel, and a kid gloves approach. Even a 5% drop in votes would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. Compare that to some of the people in this thread and the I/P thread who have openly said they won’t vote Biden at this point even if he does achieve a full ceasefire. Because he didn’t stop this earlier, and too much has happened. Ok then, I guess what motivation does the DNC have to appeal to you? I’ve been doing this for awhile, and I’ve never seen the protest vote do jack poo poo to change DNC policy. But I’ve seen Republicans use consistent voting to force major changes to their party again and again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Then what's the plan? What is the outline that will get us to this glorious genocide-free outcome? (by the way, when I said "genocide-free", do you mean the genocide stops or it keeps going, we're just not supplying it?) Are you hoping for a 10 point plan on how to dismantle and replace the two party system? There's no roadmap. There are plenty of theories ranging from elevating 3rd parties to mass sustained protests to general strikes. This is a problem which will need to be confronted eventually, because the Democrat plan for stopping Republicans is: "Never ever lose an election." The plan for regaining the courts is: "Wait decades until SCOTUS justices die and pray they're in power when it happens." Given that Democrats rarely undo any institutional changes Republicans put in place, this is not sustainable, so even if Biden wins (a long shot), all that you've accomplished is normalizing genocide and kicking the can four years down the road. I can tell you what won't result in a genocide-free outcome, and that is voting for the people carrying out the genocide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Can you be more specific on what you mean here? It's not very helpful to wave your hand and say "you're assuming things I don't believe". I don't know what you believe because you haven't articulated anything really. Do you not believe what Israel is doing constitutes genocide? Do you not believe Biden has taken deliberate action to provide Israel with arms during this conflict [that I believe constitutes an attempt at genocide]? If you take issue with these specifically that's fine, but it would be helpful for you to state that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:The trolley problem with trump winning is where the train swings its rear end over to the other track and finds a way to run over both groups Nah, if you want to transpose it into the trolley problem the analogy is much simpler. There's someone tied to the main line before the switch, and someone tied to the Republican line after the switch. If there was anyone tied specifically and uniquely to the Democratic track you'd hear about it instead of endless fumbling "Well Chaos Trump, you know, maybe someone will piss him off on Twitter and he'll run to the left of the Dems out of spite" like we've heard since 2016. Same way that there's always so much mockery of a "Vote blue no matter who" strawman that apparently implies some theoretical "even when it's a Democratic Nazi vs a Republican centrist" that's not going to happen in the real world. It's a lot like what you see from every "smart kid" Gen-Xer who grew into a South Park moderate or other both-sideser contrarian. They'll happily criticize real failings of the Republican party since that's easy to do, while making sure they also have an equally long list of things they hate about the left too. Some of them are just chuds who don't want to admit it or aren't into the culture so their big criticisms of Democrats/"The left" will be vague conservative framings like high taxes or too much regulation. But when they're more good-faith and substantive, the criticisms of Democrats always end up being "Something Republicans do just as much or openly say Democrats aren't doing hard enough." It's anyone's guess whether a given such person just doesn't think hard about why that doesn't make sense, or whether they understand but value keeping the lists the same size over acknowledging that society can improve somewhat even in our existing binary system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
Neat Bee posted:Are you hoping for a 10 point plan on how to dismantle and replace the two party system? There's no roadmap. What you’re asking for (not voting or protest voting) puts lots of people at risk. People in this very thread. You’re asking us to risk Trump putting in anti-trans judges. Republicans appointed to cabinet positions to dismantle labor laws, higher education, consumer safety, climate change, health care, etc. I’m going to need a really detailed plan if you want me to sign up because I do agree with your goals. But you’re asking us to risk our basic rights, even our existence, on a plan that seems half baked at best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:33
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:What you’re asking for (not voting or protest voting) puts lots of people at risk. People in this very thread. You’re asking us to risk Trump putting in anti-trans judges. Republicans appointed to cabinet positions to dismantle labor laws, higher education, consumer safety, climate change, health care, etc. To be fair you can protest vote with no downside by voting uncommitted in a Democratic primary. It's also more likely to send a message to the party, since uncommitted has a whole campaign to associate it with ending support to Israel and there's no real way to tell why people protest voted in the general election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
Digamma-F-Wau posted:Ultimately this election is gonna be about seeing which group has more electoral weight: people disgusted at Joe's complicity with what's going down in Gaza, or suburban normies (many of whom would've easily voted R just a mere decade ago) who are being scared off into the Dem's arms due to conservative culture war bullshit The vast majority of people will not vote based on Israel or Gaza at all. People are going to vote for who they think will benefit them personally more overall. Very few American needles are moved by anything that happens overseas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
Morrow posted:I appreciate your work and knowledge injecting actual content and news into this undeserving cesspit. Don't talk about yourself that way! You have value! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:The vast majority of people will not vote based on Israel or Gaza at all. People are going to vote for who they think will benefit them personally more overall. Very few American needles are moved by anything that happens overseas. In polls, at most about 7% of people see any type of foreign policy as the most important issue facing the country. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
I'd introduce the idea that it's not about whether you vote (or in many ways who you vote for), but more if we can continue lookikg at that as the fight. If it's worth what we attribute to it, or even perhaps if it just redirects and steals passionate effort from actually changing things. I don't have an answer that's necessarily less unrealistic than "US politics drastically change in a
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:16
|
|
|
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-signals-venezuela-oil-sanctions-relief-risk-deadline-looms-2024-04-17/ The US is imposing sanctions on Venezuela again over election concerns. I wish Joe Biden had genocide concerns and do something about Israel
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
Alejandro Mayorkas has a new name and a second impeachment attempt
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:If it's worth what we attribute to it, or even perhaps if it just redirects and steals passionate effort from actually changing things. Voting for all the federal offices takes like 60 seconds every two years (the full voting process takes longer because of ballot measures and local candidates where you can't just look at the party). Maybe an hour if you can't vote by mail. That's not a lot of passionate effort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
single-mode fiber posted:I think the lesson that the Democrats would learn if/when Biden wins (which I think is the most likely outcome) is that they don't need to pay any attention, not even cursory lip service, to anything under the left wing idea umbrella. After all, many said they would stay home and not vote for him, and it turned out they were unnecessary for victory, so they will probably continue to be unnecessary for future elections. To flip this around, why are the Republicans stuck with the religious fanatics? Because their voting patterns, number, frequency, etc., have made them an indispensable bloc. If they tried to ditch the crazies, and be a party solely dedicated to being big business friendly, they would just straight up lose too many elections. They're going to be stuck pandering to them until they lose enough elections even with maximum crazy people turnout. The reason the Republicans have been stuck with the fanatics is because the religious fanatics turn out in massive numbers in primaries. They'll Vote Red No Matter Who in the general election, but when the next primary comes around, they'll rally behind some absolute maniac nobody with enough devotion to seriously threaten even well-respected incumbents with tons of political connections, and no amount of money or political fuckery has proven capable of holding back that tide. Moreover, their ability to mobilize huge, devoted numbers in support of outsider candidates who appeal to them attracts people who otherwise wouldn't bother to run, like Ramaswamy. The business Republicans might very well be able to win general elections even without the support of the fringe wings, but they can't run in the general unless they survive the primary, and the fringe makes up a much bigger part of that electorate. The left has been unable to mobilize that same level of support outside the bluest districts. Moreover, it's proven to be quite fickle, with nowhere near the same cult-like devotion that the right-fringe has been able to mobilize. Putting that aside, if Biden loses in 2024, the lesson the Dems are going to take away is that voters don't like left-wing economic policies, do like right-wing policies on immigration and crime. Those are the three things that polling consistently finds are the electorate's top issues, and those are the things that are consistently found to be driving the most opposition to Biden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
I'm of the mind that "Genocide Joe" is just a convenient way to peel away voters. Do you see any candidate who would have committed US troops to lie-down to protect hospitals or stop Israeli bulldozers? Do you see this current conflict in any way but inevitable given the politics of the region over the last 20 years? There is no protest vote. There are people looking to peel away voters using very specific language and framing, and there are the people who follow that Pied Piper song, never thinking beyond the end of their noses. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
Personally I showed up for my local convention and tried to move the needle on state convention level support for Gaza / opposition to Israel (and also "what if Biden dies before the convention" but I think that's a low probability scenario). Seemed to make an impact, we'll see what the state decides in aggregate in June, the executive committee didn't have the worst opinions on it some months ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:I'm of the mind that "Genocide Joe" is just a convenient way to peel away voters. This post makes it seem like you're trying to cast people who have legitimate complaints about Biden's unwavering material support for Israel as bad faith wreckers who don't actually care about the genocide, and only want to hurt Biden's chances of winning. Is that an accurate summation of your position? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 01:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This post makes it seem like you're trying to cast people who have legitimate complaints about Biden's unwavering material support for Israel as bad faith wreckers who don't actually care about the genocide, and only want to hurt Biden's chances of winning. Is that an accurate summation of your position? If those legitimate complaints are intermingled with any sort of "Trump will do more to stop the genocide" then yes. Failboattootoot fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:If those legitimate complaints are intermingled with any sort of "Trump will do more to stop the genocide" then yes. I do not think that anyone here is actually making that argument. If anyone is, feel free to quote their posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 01:14
|
|