|
Mormon Star Wars posted:it's not enough to say that you would hold your nose and vote for him, you have to praise him. He has to be the most progressive president ever. He's the most empathetic man in the government who truly does care about Palestinians. He's definitely as sharp as a tack. He's the only one that can save our democracy. I have not seen this argument. People are talking about voting. A vote that is made holding your nose, and a vote done enthusiastically count just the same.
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Were you in such a hurry to respond that you didn't scroll down like three posts under mine to see the one where the guy immediately proved my point by saying that saying bad things about Biden was getting Trump elected? Are we pretending "By buying into bad framing about Biden, you are helping Trump get elected" has not been just as much as the repeating electoralism Discourse as every other repetition? Quote the post that said holding your noise and voting for Biden isn't enough, he must also be praised.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Being "unfair to Biden" (criticising him) makes you pro genocide and pro Trump. It's not enough to vote - you have to withhold criticism also. This is not an acceptable Islamic position. That isn't what that post says at all. Being "unfair to Biden" isn't criticising him. If it's factual, how is it unfair? You're complaining about an argument that isn't being made. We can solve this pretty easily. Pleasant Friend: do you think that it isn't enough to vote for Biden and you also have to praise him as the most progressive president ever and the most empathetic man in the government who truly does care about Palestinians?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It should be noted that the United States is not officially a two-party system. This argument about "realistic possibilities" is doing a lot of assumptions. It would behoove posters to make affirmative cases for their chosen candidate as opposed to pretending a gun is against their head that isn't there. I don't think anyone posting here is under the illusion that the United States is officially a two-party system. It's a first past the post, winner take all system. That arrangement seems to favor two parties. Parties can rise and fall, and have in the past, but we seem to continue to coalesce into two major parties over the history of the country. In the 2024 presidential election, which is the topic at hand, there is not a realistic scenario where the winner is neither the Democratic or Republican candidate. If you think otherwise, I'd be curious to hear why.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I just want to point out that this argument is coming from the Chief Tonal Architect Kagrenek, of the dwemer, whose blasphemous attempts to ensure their victory by meddling with the heart of lorkhan resulted in the disappearance of every dwemer present in the mundus. What does this mean? Probably Magic posted:you are so convinced that there is a significant difference between the two candidates despite us living under both candidates and getting similar results. I'm trans. It's a very real difference to me. Probably Magic posted:Demanding Middle Easterners in this country to "recognize" Biden as the "better option" is about as gross as when it was demanded of rape victims four years ago, so I'm excited to see it be demanded of trans people in 2028. Why would you care in 2028? You clearly don't care about the impact on trans people right now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Do kindly gently caress off with telling me what my own argument is. You clearly don't understand it if you think I mean math-DARE. I also interpreted your argument as math-DARE, or at least close enough that whether or not DARE worked was significant. Maybe rather than get hostile, clarify your argument if people aren't understanding it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I don't have the numbers handy, do we know how many Palestinians were genocided during the Trump presidency vs. during the Biden presidency? Do you think more Palestinians dying during Biden's presidency would make Trump the better candidate for those who don't want Palestinians to die? If not, why even ask?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I would imagine it matters very much to those affected by it. Only if the difference is because of who is in the chair. Do you think the Palestinian body count would have been lower 2016-now if Trump had remained in power? It seems like this is what you're trying to imply without actually saying it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 22:26
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I don't know. The answer is probably yes, by quite a bit, for the reasons below among others: Angry_Ed posted:Also reminder, Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem and tore up the Iran deal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:It's really telling that anyone who displays concern for the Palestinian people here is treated as some kind of traitor to the party / obviously a secret Trump supporter or troll. The lack of empathy is astonishing - but maybe it shouldn't be, guess people here are just following Biden's lead. Does not seem like a very good strategy for bringing those people back into the fold by November (but I guess the consensus here is: "We don't need any Muslims/young people!". Better hope you're right about that!) This is a pretty gross mischaracterization. I don't see anyone being attacked or even really questioned for displaying concern for the Palestinian people. What I do see is a lot of just asking questions about if Trump would be better. Presuming good faith, of course, posters are earnestly answering that no, Trump would be significantly worse. These kinds of posts are what people are reacting to. B B posted:I think we call Genocide Joe "Genocide Joe" because he's the one actively participating in the genocide and preventing the UN from calling for a ceasefire. As far as we know, Donald Trump isn't currently providing any material support in the way that Joe Biden continues to do. I am sure that if Donald Trump manages to win the presidency from Joe Biden and provides material support to the genocide, you'll see people criticizing Donald Trump with similar language. Uncle Boogeyman posted:I don't have the numbers handy, do we know how many Palestinians were genocided during the Trump presidency vs. during the Biden presidency?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I do think it's funny that all the people earnestly (and to be fair, correctly) arguing that Manchin could never be controlled by the executive will turn around and believe that President Girlboss would've gotten Big Mitch to approve her court picks, somehow. Holding a Supreme Court seat open for an entire presidential term is quite different from using the fig leaf of an upcoming election to hold it for a year. I have a few older family members who completely bought the "let the voters decide!" argument, even if everyone here knew Mitch was full of poo poo before he went on to prove it conclusively with Trump. I think it is a bigger stretch to assume Hilary could never fill a Supreme Court vacancy than to assume she could have. But since it's a counterfactual we'll never know.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 21:47
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:As opposed to what, food-grade plutonium? As opposed to reactor grade plutonium.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2024 08:24
|
|
|
Mia Wasikowska posted:Trump can now correctly and honestly say that Biden and the Democrats are where he was on Immigration in 2016, so he really has nothing to lose so long as the conversation is about immigration. That's what he wants. Tbf that's also what a lot of the American people want! It's hosed up. Biden and the Democrats are calling for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and a big wall across the entire border that Mexico will pay for?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Do you think he's done enough? Are you content with half measures that mean that uninsured people with diabetes - at least 2 million people - still have to pay hundreds of dollars? Again, I'm not interested in procedural niceties. I'm asking whether you think he's done enough, and should be happy with what he's achieved. Why not take this argument to the electoralism thread which has been linked for you over and over, rather than poo poo this one up?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Legality is just a question of will You just gave the game away.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:has embraced a border policy that Donald Trump could not have gotten passed at the height of his popularity and Republican control of Congress. Trump's border policy included a ban on Muslims (that he has to water down due to the courts, not Congress), family separation, and of course the big wall across the entire border that Mexico will pay for. How is what Biden is advocating for more conservative?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think it's productive to demean people calling for one. Where in this thread have you seen people being demeaned for calling for a ceasefire?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:MP suggested that people calling for a ceasefire believe that it will put an end to Israel's genocide of Palestinians, and that this is an example of how effective propaganda can be: No, MP suggested that some of the people calling for a ceasefire believe that it will put an end to Israel's genocide of Palestinians. Not that "people calling for a ceasefire" believe it, and when you challenged them on it, he provided examples which you then dismissed as: Majorian posted:As you yourself acknowledge, those are headlines. That's nonsense. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:MP couldn't provide any examples of people who actually believe that a ceasefire means an end to the genocide. Can you? MP did provide examples, you just dismissed them because you didn't like them. You're also moving the goalposts again. Who's being demeaned? Here's the MP comment you are misquoting: Main Paineframe posted:Similarly, the fact that anyone thinks a ceasefire will put an end to the Israeli genocide of Palestinians is a great example of just how effective propaganda has been all this time. You seem to have read "anyone" as "everyone".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not moving any goalposts in any way, shape, or form. The people being demeaned are people calling for a ceasefire and an end to the genocide. How are they being demeaned? How is the implication that somewhere, in the entire space of people calling for ceasefire, there exists someone who thinks a ceasefire will end the genocide, demeaning to everyone else calling for a ceasefire? You are turning "anyone" in MP's quote into "everyone".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Suggesting that they mistakenly believe that a ceasefire and an end to genocide are synonymous makes them seem naive and/or ignorant. Saying that it's an example of propaganda at work makes them seem like dupes. Again, you are acting as if a comment about "anyone" in a group applies to all of that group.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I am doing nothing of the sort. I am asking for an example of this "anyone." You're doing both things. You are asking for examples (which you got, and dismissed as just headlines), and you accused MP of demeaning people calling for a ceasefire. Here's your quote. Majorian posted:As you yourself acknowledge, those are headlines. A ceasefire is probably going to be necessary to end the genocide, so I don't think it's productive to demean people calling for one. Nobody is demeaning people calling for a ceasefire. I'm harping on this because accusing someone fo demeaning those who are calling for a ceasefire is a pretty serious thing. That'd be a lovely thing for someone to do. Since MP isn't doing that, it's a lovely thing to accuse them of. Kchama posted:That doesn't seem to be demeaning anyone in this thread, just pointing out the headlines conflating the two and potentially implanting the idea that a ceasefire will stop the genocide. It's this, precisely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:As I pointed out, the cited headline does not suggest that anyone believes that a ceasefire and an end to the genocide are synonymous. I am asking for an example of someone who actually believes that a ceasefire and an end to genocide are synonymous. Honestly? I think the examples MP provided were sufficient to make their point. If you don't think so, fine. We have a difference of opinion. The reason I am replying to you at all is because you accused MP of demeaning people calling for a ceasefire. I don't think they did so, and I think it's lovely to accuse them of it. So please, don't quote out that part of my post so you don't have to address it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I also said this: You said that about the headlines. Kchama pointed out that the content of the article actually supports MP's point. Why not address that? You're saying "I already answered that" about things you haven't actually addressed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:As I've told you already, neither the cited headline, nor the byline, nor the quote from the article indicate that anyone believes that a ceasefire and an end to the genocide are at all synonymous - just that a ceasefire is likely a necessary precondition. They do not support MP's initial claim. I googled and I found it hosted by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-experts-say-ceasefire-needed-palestinians-grave-risk-genocide-2023-11-02/. Al Jazeera is also hosting it: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/un-experts-demand-ceasefire-warn-gaza-is-running-out-of The Al Jazeera link says "Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies". The Reuters link says "By Gabrielle Tétrault-Farber and Emma Farge" with links that identify them both as working for Reuters. The first paragraph is: quote:A group of independent United Nations experts called on Thursday for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, saying time was running out for Palestinians there who are at "grave risk of genocide". This would imply that the United Nations experts do not think there is actually a genocide, just a risk of one. They also say “The situation in Gaza has reached a catastrophic tipping point" which would imply that it is about to tip into genocide, but they are pushing for a ceasefire, which would prevent it from doing so. So it's an example of people arguing that a ceasefire would prevent the situation from tipping over into genocide.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 00:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The UN is, predictably, trying to be diplomatic so as not to escalate its ongoing war of words with Israel's completely unhinged government and delegation. I expect if the ICJ definitively calls Israel's genocide what it is, the UN will follow suit. So your argument is essentially "yes they said that, but they don't mean it?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 00:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:MP couldn't provide any examples of people who actually believe that a ceasefire means an end to the genocide. Can you? https://steveahlquist.substack.com/...e%20liberation. Jewish Voice for Peace - Rhode Island, quoted in the article posted:Only a permanent ceasefire will stop the genocide of Palestinians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That statement is calling for a permanent ceasefire. It doesn't look to me like it's equating a ceasefire with an end to the genocide, just that it's a necessary precondition. They literally say that only a ceasefire would stop it. "Only a permanent ceasefire will stop the genocide of Palestinians." is unambiguous. They don't say "a permanent ceasefire is necessary to stop the genocide", they say it will stop it. Majorian posted:This is getting off the topic of US current events, though, of course. We should move this discussion to the Israel/Palestine thread. Nah. I think I've made my point. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 05:10
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I think the Hur thing and some leftist going as far as they are to cover for him really shows how far people are willing to go to "own the libs" Probably worth quoting the post you're responding to rather than just make a vague comment about leftists. Wouldn't want to disparage the citizens of China that way :-P
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
Edit: didn't realize I was responding to a post several pages back that was already well responded to
DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 05:37
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Because you engineer to resist accidents too. You can learn a lot from this sort of incident, that you really don't want to learn. You might not be able to stop it from breaking or collapsing, but you could make it harder for a hit to knock it down, or just collapse less dangerously. Engineering bridges to resist getting rammed by fully loaded container ships is not the obvious right answer here. Container ships are also way bigger now than when the bridge was built in the 70s. I'm not saying it couldn't or shouldn't have been done, but I don't agree it's first year engineering stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 04:28
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Everything just snaps into place when the GOP has the presidency. Trump wants to ban Muslim immigrants? Done in an executive order, the whole administrative state moves to that purpose immediately. So quickly that people are trapped in airports because they were approved to fly here and disapproved in the duration of the flight. It was quickly overturned by the courts, as were the next couple attempts, and what he was able to get through in the end was pretty compromised from the initial goal. So it caused a bunch of chaos and was overturned. I'm not sure how this shows everything just snapping into place. https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/appeals-court-declares-third-muslim-ban-unconstitutional
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In the interest of not turning this into electoral strategy chat, I'll keep this brief: If I'm correct and it's not just 100% hate that motivates rural voters, then one probably doesn't need to throw trans people or abortion rights under the bus at all. You court them by giving them something to vote for that will positively, materially affect their lives and then running on it like crazy. Will it work to win over every single voter in those states? Of course not. But it'll peel a good chunk of them off. Enough to win states like Iowa? Who knows, but it's probably worth taking a chance. It'd be worth reading the article that was linked earlier, the thesis is that rural voters are voting GOP out of resentment, not because they are doing more to materially improve their lives. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/05/white-rural-rage-myth-00150395
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:So people should ignore their concerns over the actual genocide, happening right now, because of what you predict will happen in the future? Why are gay and trans Americans more real and more human to you than Palestinians? Nobody's saying this. The post that got people riled up said "A woman’s right to choose and democracy versus the lives of the Palestinian people" which implies that Trump wouldn't support the genocide. That's what people are replying to. Halloween Jack posted:I'm trans. My identity is not a tool for you to whip votes for Genocide Joe. Me too, which is one part of why I think Trump winning would be much worse than Biden. Halloween Jack posted:Also, when did God come down from heaven and write in stone that Trump will be worse than Biden on Israel? I see no reason to believe that's the case. Trump doesn't care about anything but his public image and feeling important; that could well be more responsive to public pressure than Biden, who is a gleefully genocidal advocate for Israel and doesn't appear to care what anyone thinks. Then you haven't been paying attention. Not only was Trump very close to Israel when he was president (moved the embassy to Jerusalem, etc) he's also been nothing but supportive of the ongoing genocide. His only complaint this far has been that they aren't killing people fast enough, and that they need to get on that and wrap it up. What public pressure do you think Trump is going to respond to? The MAGA base people loving love Israel. Do you think Trump is going to say "wow, protesters blocked the golden gate bridge in SF, I should really think about listening to them"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
Edit: nm
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Neat Bee posted:This election should be about having a line we don't cross. You are willing to sacrifice my safety in an effort that will do nothing to help your cause, and potentially will actually make the situation worse, so that you personally feel more morally righteous. You aren't my ally. Edit: also, post on your main. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
Neat Bee posted:I don't think we need to debate why leftist advocacy would combat fascism. Nah, show your work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
Edit: nm
DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Apr 19, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:personally i think it's rude and obnoxious to, when given a source, ask the person providing it to go through it a second time for you and highlight the important bits instead of doing your own homework. but i'm willing to chalk that up to a difference of opinion. It's the next day and you are still dying on this hill. Maybe give this a little bit of thought: Uncle Boogeyman posted:At that point I would probably take a step back and ask myself how committed I am to disagreeing with this person on the internet. punishedkissinger posted:they censured Rashida Tlaib and passed resolutions equating Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism, but they're definitely not calling the antizionist protesters terrorists, that's ridiculous. Who's "they" here? Are we moving on from "Biden called the protesters terrorists" to "someone called the protesters terrorists"? DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:My argument is that the Biden administration has very clearly made statements implying that antizionist protesters are antisemites and terrorists, which they objectively have done. the only counterargument that has been made is that they only believe ~some~ of the protesters are antisemites and terrorists. You haven't provided a source of Biden calling *anyone* a terrorist for protesting. Now you're moving the goalposts to the Biden administration and you still haven't provided a source for that. Saying someone uses the rhetoric of terrorists doesn't mean they're a terrorist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 15:50
|
|