You were just so excited to use this talking point that you couldn't be bothered to note that he was responding to it in the very comment you used it on.
GarbageShootAlt2
joined 2 years ago
As so many Harris-voting lemmitors have instructed me, stopping the genocide is not on the effective ballot as-presented, so no, they are not assisting continuing what is absolutely a genocide. The goal is that they either pressure Harris to not be a ghoul, because they presume she cares about winning more than aiding genocide (this is most likely false) or, if Harris sticks to her guns and either loses or wins by such slim margins that it makes the Dem winning next election without stopping Israel much more hazardous, they (the Muslim/Arab voters) can extract concessions, because even electoral politics doesn't end with one election cycle, and some strategies aimed at maximizing some long term result can introduce a risk or even a guarantee of short-term costs.
I don't believe, like I think those voters do, that Dems would trade Israel slaughtering with impunity even for a guaranteed victory, but I think them demonstrating that unwillingness has its own value, since the DNC needs to be brought down. I don't expect you to agree to this and am not terribly interested in persuading you, I'm just offering an explanation.
It bugs me just saying "the Chinese" did it. It was the Chinese company Ex-Robot.
Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget?
Pure fucking sophistry
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-view-00182883
but quite another to have the most powerful country give their approval to do whatever it takes to end the conflict to Israel’s benefit.
Israel already has approval! The arguments on the phone are kabuki theater
But what’s stupid is when people think that Trump will somehow stop the genocide.
No one thinks this
The term neoliberal encompasses conservatives unless it's from the standpoint of a feudal society
I find it unfathomable how someone can come to that of all conclusions. Obviously she doesn't have a commitment to it religiously or out of ethnic supremacy, but it's just as obvious that she's interested in being the slay kween on top of the bloodiest empire in history, and so she knows it behooves her to take care of all of its apparati for maintaining power.
When you're a top-level politician like Kamala is failing-up into being, Israel's appeal to you in not the chump change from AIPAC (not that you don't take that too), it's Israel's actual use, the reason that AIPAC is allowed to exist when virtually no other foreign lobby is, that being that it spreads chaos and destruction among America's enemies in the Middle East.
The idea that AIPAC effectively authored and single-handedly perpetuates zionism in the US political establishment is both antisemitic and just plain stupid. Where do you think they got the money from?! It didn't just spring from Palestinian blood or from being Jewish or whatever, that money comes from the US initially! Or by proxy from US resources. The money AIPAC has is circling back to the US like in a money-laundering scheme.
I said "setting aside what we think of Hamas" for a reason, if that helps you interpret my meaning, I'm just doing a bad job managing both impulsively responding after the conversation ran its course and also avoiding getting into a useless dispute about the main force of military resistance to an ongoing genocide.
That's interesting. I clearly hadn't been giving those protestors enough credit, but the corollary of that is that Kamala, while an absolute zionist bastard, was still generalizing but not nearly as aggressively as I thought (there are definitely a bunch of triangles). I underestimated the ability of westerners to cut through zionist concern-trolling, even if not all present can.
Aside from the fact that she's clearly using it as an opportunity to make it look like the entire protest (and perhaps all pro-Palestine protest) took such a tact
pro-Hamas messages
If you mean "From the river to the sea" I swear to God
This is question-begging a number of critical elements, e.g. that the "rafts" cannot be influenced by "passenger" input, and that there is only this one, totalizing crossroad of literal, immediate survival.
We can do it too:
You're in a runaway train accelerating toward a cliff and the break only really stops acceleration, it doesn't decelerate. You can sit in the engine room and hold down the break, and you'll live longer, but you aren't changing the fundamental dynamic of the situation, which ends in your eventual death. Conversely, you can jump off the train, surely injuring yourself, possibly crippling yourself, maybe even killing yourself, but it's the only potential way to change the dynamic of being doomed to fall off the cliff.
Does this prove anything? No, it's just a model of how some people think of the problem, not an argument. It would be really obnoxious and disingenuous to present it as an argument.