It would be incredibly stupid to switch out Biden now. Who would we replace him with thar we’re so sure would beat Trump with this little time left until the election? If the plan was ever going to be to replace Biden, he would have had to step down at least 5 months ago.
Fuck the genocide deniers. Block all the info you want. Those of us who are sane, and aren’t bought by AIPAC money see through it all. All your attempts are transparent and ultimately futile. We know what Israel is doing, what info we do have clearly paints them as genocidal. Innocents dont murder journalists. Your reputation is shredded, Israel. Hopefully we can stay mad at this and AIPAC long enough to end lobbying. Destroying a lot of the incentive to be a complete piece of shit.
If Hamas killed 4 on Oct 7, that puts the ratio at 26:1.
Israel estimates that 1200 were killed on Oct 7.
A recent estimate puts Israel at 34,900 killed.
Thats a ratio of about 29:1. Is that acceptable to you?
I’m doing this not because there is any acceptable level, but to highlight the absurdity of the idea that there even is one. Hamas needs to be held accountable for its crimes. Israel needs, at a level about 29 times more so, also needs to be held accountable for their crimes.
The idea that any level of incidental murder is acceptable is absurdist, and you are a terrible person if you think there is one.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit to the ratio I would be willing to accept to get them back.
Hamas still has hostages captured that day they are tying to use for negotiations.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war that Palestinians are losing. War kills people, and acceptable casualties (enemy, friendly, and even innocents) are literally part of the calculations made by every single country that has ever participated in a war.
And how many hostages does Israel have? Do Palestinians not have the same right, that if their family has been taken hostage, to do anything to get them back?
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven’t found an argument to convince them otherwise.
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven’t found an argument to convince them otherwise.
Exactly. This is the fundamental lesson you (the royal “you”; as ‘one’) needed to learn from BLM. The history and legacy of settler colonialism and white supremacy leaves us with inherent and structural biases that means some “lives” are valued higher than others.
When you attack someone stronger than you, it usually does not end well. They can try, but there will be further consequences.
It took a few hundred thousand middle eastern civilians dying after 9/11 before anyone started complaining and even that did not lead to this level of protest.
People are ok with violence if its their country that has been attacked.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit…
So then, when about all those people killed in the process. What about the mothers and children dying? The ones that are not directly involved in this fight either. Do their spouses get the chance for the same level of revenge once they’re killed?
Do I should let them take my family with no consequence because they’re using human shields?
No, my side is strong enough to get them back. Screw the terrorists and those that harbour them. They can try to retaliate, and they can die until they won’t fight back anymore.
People these days seem to think there’s a diplomatic solution for everything. They need to go read a nonfiction history book, because they are currently in the fiction section.
What if you were born in the wrong place and your family got gunned down or buried under rubble because the enemy thought a hostage (or their dead body) was in a building at the end of your street?
You can’t always assume you’re the one who is both on a righteous quest and in possession of superior firepower.
Well, the biggest problem with this situation and using the term “innocent” is that the vast majority of Gazans support Hamas and supported the attack on Oct 7th.
The first thing I’d do is find a dozen people of the same ethnicity as the hostage taker and kill them. Then I’d send in a strike team to grab anyone I believed was affiliated with the hostage taker - coworkers, family members, social media contacts - and imprison them indefinitely. Finally, I’d bulldoze someone’s house. Doesn’t really matter whose. Just to show people I mean business.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war
It’s important to stop for a moment here and take note of the fact that Friedman’s idea wasn’t that we specifically needed to attack Iraq. Friedman didn’t even bother to claim to Charlie Rose that there was, for example, a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, he said that the problem is that “they” needed to see that Americans didn’t care so much about our “stock options and Hummers” that we were unwilling to make sacrifices.
What was the “they,” exactly? Muslim extremists? Muslims in general? The Middle East as a region? Friedman casts a very wide net:
“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house—from Basra to Baghdad—and basically saying:
“Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?: You don’t think we care about our open society? You think this fantasy—we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, suck. On. This. That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We coulda hit Saudi Arabia… We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.”
How many people are they allowed to kill in retaliation for Oct 7th? Zero? 1:1? 10:1?
Per the Dahiya Doctrine the general rule is 30:1. If a single Israel is injured or killed, the state has the authority to kill up to 30 Palestinians.
Commentators for The Guardian, The Washington Post, and Mondoweiss have noted that the attacks of the Israeli Defense Forces on the civilian infrastructure of the Gaza Strip during the 2023 Hamas-Israel war may constitute an extension of the doctrine. Haaretz reported that IDF had dropped “all restraint” in its war: killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure at an unprecedented rate.
Writing in The Guardian, Paul Rogers of Bradford University argues that Israel’s goal in the 2023 war is to “corral the Palestinians into a small zone in the southwest of Gaza where they can be more easily controlled,” and that the long-term goal is to make clear that Israel “will not stand for any opposition.”
Anyone that’s surprised that Trump would make matters 100x worse for Palestine is hopefully re-evaluating their media-intake
That much was clear from when he was president - he basically put Hamas with their backs to the wall by destroying any hope on a two state solution during his term…
Seriously, for all the “genocide joe” rhetoric I see here and other sites, it’s abundantly clear the other option is "He’s weak, Israel should be allowed to ‘finish the job’ ".
Voters, do you prefer a level headed voice trying to minimize palestinian casualties, or would you prefer Israel get the all-clear to steamroll Gaza indiscriminately, likely annexing it wholesale? Very clear choices.
The answer from the people saying “Genocide Joe” will be “But BOTHSIDES” and “I refuse to vote for…” because they’re privileged enough or deluded enough to think they’ll be safe from the consequences of a Trump administration.
I think you’re ignorant of history and naive. I remember being like you. Then I realized what a shitty country we live in and how powerless I am to stop a trillion dollar war machine. Now I’m just sad.
the mental gymnastics to twist "I refuse to vote for genocide" into a question of privilege
i feel like the real privilege is "not being bombed to death", did you check your "not being bombed to death" privilege recently?
some of the most vocal "genocide joe" rhetoric i've seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
some of the most vocal “genocide joe” rhetoric i’ve seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
Cool, either they’re not taking the election seriously or they’re letting their own self-destructive urges chart the course for millions of other people, way better.
People who think that letting the greater evil win is some sort of moral stand are fucking beyond help.
the absolute clown show of starting off talking about privilege, and finishing off talking about how those without it don't know how to vote properly because they don't agree with you
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
and finishing off talking about how those without it don’t know how to vote properly because they don’t agree with you
Yes, sorry for saying that fascism is actually a bad thing to vote for, I guess that’s too much for me to say. You vote for fascism to your heart’s content. Better?
sorry are we talking about my vote now, or the people who you pretended to care about a minute ago?
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
sorry are we talking about my vote now, or the people who you pretended to care about a minute ago?
The people I care about being… me and the rest of the vulnerable demographics in the US, for whom a fascist regime would be ruinous? Yes, it’s kind of important that one votes AGAINST the fascist. The two things, fascism losing the election, and people voting against fascism, are very closely related. Sorry if that’s news to you.
weird how you opened this talking about the privilege of others and now it's somehow boiled down to being about you
and the rest of the vulnerable demographics in the US
some of the most vocal "genocide joe" rhetoric i've seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
kind of wild that we're still going for the pantsuit lady strategy of "just blame the voters that don't like her" as if we've learned absolutely nothing from 2016
i guess if we just intentionally misrepresent criticism of biden then said critics will be forced to vote for him
let me know how that works out, i guess
in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?
weird how you opened this talking about the privilege of others and now it’s somehow boiled down to being about you
What an absolutely bizarre take.
some of the most vocal “genocide joe” rhetoric i’ve seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election
Didn’t I already mention that voting for fascism is actually bad? That engaging in self-destructive behavior for oneself and one’s fellow vulnerable demographics is… bad even if you’re one of those demographics?
I don’t know why “Voting for fascism is bad” is such a hard concept for you to grasp.
The way the same phrases are constantly woven into the posts sure make it seem like either a clear Trollfarm account that got the instructions to drop those phrases or like an ai bot that got caught in a loop
level headed voice trying to minimize palestinian casualties
Biden isn’t doing that though, you can’t send someone the bombs they’re using to cause those casualties and say you’re trying to minimize it. Minimizing Palestinian casualties would be using all tools at your disposal to make Palestinian casualties the as low as possible.
The question is would you rather a president who openly facilitates the slaughter of Palestinians or pretends to oppose the slaughter of Palestinians while facilitating it.
The answer is it doesn’t fucking matter, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.
The answer is it doesn’t fucking matter, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.
So if there is going to be a drought anyway and people are dying in a city no matter what you do and one politician says that showers and even using the Bathtub are okay but we should stop using water for the pools and gardens and another is just giving everyone the go to use whatever they want then “both are bad” because the first option is not perfect is just childish
By not choosing and enabling the 2nd option you are making matters 100 times worse…
They both suck. But one is for sure getting the job. Which one do you want? You have to pick one. You can protest it and hope to change it, but nothing like that can happen in time, you will be stuck with one of these two people. Please at least try to pick the one that has less terrible things on their resume and then actually protest for proper change. If you pick the wrong guy, you also won’t be able to protest for any kind of change.
That’s how Trump won in the first place. You cannot message your way to winning an election. This is not a problem with voters, it’s a problem with democrats passing right-wing policy, and can only be solved by the democrats.
If you pick the wrong guy, you also won’t be able to protest for any kind of change.
You don’t get to say that while cops are beating the shit out of students for protesting. You shouldn’t be pissed at me, you should be pissed at the guy doing things that lose the election.
Cry about messaging all you want, that’s how the election system in the US works.
One of these two people will be president this time next year. Only one of them has promised to be a dictator and attempted to forcibly stay in power after losing an election.
You really don’t understand what I’m saying do you?
No amount of messaging or vote shaming or self delusion can override the dogshit policies Biden has enacted trying to appeal to “moderate republicans”.
But if you learned nothing from 2016, I’m sure in November you’ll blame everyone but the people with power.
do you prefer a level headed voice trying to minimize palestinian casualties, or would you prefer Israel get the all-clear to steamroll Gaza indiscriminately, likely annexing it wholesale? Very clear choices.
Would greatly prefer the former, but unfortunately no such candidate was on the stage.
There was one guy lying about whether Israel wants to end the genocide while sidestepping the fact that he’s the one supplying the weapons and political cover.
And then there was the guy telling the truth for the first time in years by pointing out that Israel very much DO want to keep the hostilities going…and then bemoaning that the other war criminal on the stage wasn’t being gleefully bloodthirsty in public about it.
It was unrealistic but there was some hope still left - he buried that hope for good though and now Hamas is doing whatever they can to bring that discussion back on the table…
Personally, I’d like to see the public rally around a 3rd party candidate who’s focused on getting money out of politics (stop the legalized bribery), and ending FPTP in favor of ranked choice or star voting. Then we could actually let democracy play out, and wouldn’t have these terrible candidates foisted upon us time and again.
I strongly believe both the major parties would crumble within 1-2 election cycles if this happened, and it could lead to the dawn of a new age of prosperity for our people.
It’s almost impossible to get a 3rd party to win in the US. Their system is rigged so that voting for a 3rd party means throwing away the vote.
You also have to take into account that it is a country in which almost 50% believe Donald trump to be their best option as a president, there’s no way you’re gonna convince enough people to vote 3rd party.
I don’t think you understood my reply. You asked how, and I gave a solution that would work.
As an aside, especially if you aren’t a US citizen, you might fall victim to some of the same liberal propaganda that many Americans do concerning the motivations of Trump voters. The vast majority of Americans of all political stripes are simply fed up with lack of representation. Give them a candidate who puts the people’s interests before those of corporations, and you might be surprised by the broad coalition of support which emerges from the woodwork. This is why any time a leftist outsider enters the political arena, they’re immediately subjected to bipartisan dogpiling. Trump is accurately considered an outsider, it’s just that he’s a right wing grifter and thus a fake populist. Consider that 2020’s record voter turnout was comprised of only 2/3 of eligible voters, and imagine a better world with a better candidate leading the charge. This is how we dispense with the “lesser of two evils” Hobson’s choice
Part of the problem is that people are sold on these guys as “Less Evil” every time. Clinton was the less-evil replacement for Bush. Bush Jr was the less-evil replacement for Clinton. Obama for Bush. Trump for Obama/Hillary. Biden for Trump. Maybe now Trump for Biden.
Evil is necessarily subjective, and a great deal of what we see as “evil” varies starkly based on where we’re getting our news and our values. What do you tell to the people who are doggedly convinced a mob of hispanic/arabic/chinese fentanyl fueled rape gangs are charging across the border to steal American children and murder them for their adrenochrome? What do you say to the folks doggedly convinced that the wrong President will bring about a thermo-nuclear holocaust or a dozen new 9/11s? How do you reason with a person who believes Plan B is no different than strangling a baby to death with your own two hands?
So much of the conversation about “Lesser Evil” is justifying a new and more brutal police state as a defensive measure against some horrifying phantom menace - be it J6 Groypers coming to lynch everyone to the left of Mitt Romney or Chinese TikTok dancers tricking American teenagers into perpetuating a Uyghur genocide.
When you’ve got Israeli Genocide versus Palestinian Islamic Jihad as your baseline for debate, there’s an endless capacity for evil even in the “Lesser” branch.
Absolutely. There are limits and gray zones in everything. But sometimes you just have lying demagoges on one side and reasonable (but far from perfect and oftentimes really shitty) people on the other side. I wish more people could tell the difference.
There is a difference between spin and lies. Truth and false. Garbage and near-garbage.
Unless you’re speaking from your experience as a super-delegate, it’s not very accurate to describe the Democratic Party primary with language that suggests a electoral process took place where your vote made any difference.
Moderation was the biggest issue with the debate. Everyone knows how Trump doesn’t believe in objective reality, so not pushing back on lies is harmful and dangerous.
I know it’s not new that our two options are Genocide Denier, and Guy the Agrees there is a Genocide, but wants to Help Genocide Harder, but it hurts every time they bring attention to it
theintercept.com
Active