It's okay, tankies love fascism, so they're not put out by the result

您正在查看单个线程.

565 留言

Oh, the massive hypocrisy of Biden refusing to swallow his Zionist principles and stop their Genocide, whilst at the same time sending his tribe's peons around to try and convince millions of people to swallow their Humanist principles and vote for a guy who supports Genocide.
Biden could pretty much guarantee a win tomorrow by announcing that it has been determined that Israel is indeed committing war crimes, followed by cutting support for them as per the Law when the recipient of help is committing such crimes, ideally followed by sanctions.
Yet he doesn't and instead there's a clear propaganda op with repeated variations of the claim that "Not being for Biden is being for Trump" (which, curiously, is just the authoritarianist argument "those who are not with us are agains us").
Why does the supposedly elected representative of all Americans firmly refuse to follow Americans as they turned against the Zionist Genocide and instead acts like all dictators by doing what he himself wants disregarding the will of those he is supposed to represent?
The argument of this and other similar posts which have innundated Lemmy would be a lot stronger if Biden wasn't an example of doing the exact opposite of what these posts demand from others, both the part of doing whatever it takes to stop Trump (which, as I explained above. Biden is not) and swallowing one's principles to stop something worse (i.e. Biden stopping acting as a Zionist in order to secure the votes to guarantee that Trump is stopped).
- Biden could pretty much guarantee a win tomorrow by announcing that it has been determined that Israel is indeed committing war crimes, followed by cutting support for them as per the Law when the recipient of help is committing such crimes, ideally followed by sanctions.
  I wish this was true but it very much isn't. He'd immediately lose Pennsylvania, at a minimum.
  
  There are more jews against the Israeli government at this point than for it. Yes he'd need to walk a line but that's true of any campaign. The line he's on right now sure as hell ain't working.
  
  The line he’s walking right now definitely isn’t working but saying that cutting support to Israel and sanctioning them “would pretty much guarantee” him the election just is not true at all (unfortunately). It’s not even close to true.
  
  You're right and that was an exageration.
  That said, given the polls I saw mentioned here a few weeks ago, a majority of American is against what Israel is doing in Gaza, especially amongst Democrats.
  Surelly a strategy of "ultimate neutrality" would do a lot more to hold Democrat and Democrat-leaning votes than a strategy of "Zionist all the way plus symbolic things like holding a single ammo shipment for a few days" (especially considering that every symbolic act that innevitably turns out to be bullshit slowly but surelly undermines trust in Biden, not just for this but for all messaging from him and his campaign, which whilst not affecting tribalists - who are true believers no matter what - most definitelly affects people for whom "I'm a Democrat" is not at the level of personal identity).
  That would mean the first part of what I suggested: "announcing that it has been determined that Israel is indeed committing war crimes, followed by cutting support for them as per the Law when the recipient of help is committing such crimes". I confess I tackled sanctions there out of wishful thinking (hence prefixing it with "ideally").
  Please help me understand how "keep sending Netanyahu 2000lb bombs which he is using to kill children, doctors and journalists" is supposed to secure more votes than it loses. Which votes exactly does he expect to get from it that would otherwise not vote for him or vote Trump and how exactly are those such a huge fraction of votes that they can offset the votes he risks losing from people with even just some basic human empathy (they don't even need to be lefties)? Does the Biden Campaign team actually expects that Republicans will vote for him instead of Trump if he's pro-Genocide or that people's revulsion at seeing pictures of dead children will be easily forgotten at the pools and they'll vote for a guy helping it happen?
  Rationally, is it really the strategy that maximizes the chances of "Stop Trump" (as everybody else is being told by Biden they have to do) to keep on sending Weapons & Ammo to Israel and providing them with Intel whilst they keep on murdering civilians shamelessly and the cabinet members over there utter some of the mosts vile ultra-racist Nazi-like stuff since, well, the actual Nazis, and relying on an astroturfing campaign to convince the people with more Humanist leanings to overcome outright disgust and revulsion to vote for the guy helping the murders murder more?
  In my opinion, the safest strategy for a Democrat is then one I called above "ultimate neutrality". That being so, the possible reasons for Biden to do otherwise would be all kinds of shady (one can even say "sociopath" and maybe even "evil") and in direct confrontation with the stated objective of "Stop Trump", which is why I started my original post by pointing Biden and his peon's hypocrisy why demanding that others swallong their principles and vote for him to do just that.
  Does Team Biden really expect that fear for LGBT people being treated like second class citizens in America will be a stronger emotion for most people than images of little corpses wrapped in sheets amongst the bigger corpses after Israel bombed a refugee camp lilke I saw yesterday on TV???!
  
  Please help me understand how "keep sending Netanyahu 2000lb bombs which he is using to kill children, doctors and journalists" is supposed to secure more votes than it loses.
  I definitely do not think it does, and I agree with the rest of your post that neutrality would be a better path forward
- Biden could pretty much guarantee a win tomorrow by announcing that it has been determined that Israel is indeed committing war crimes, followed by cutting support for them as per the Law when the recipient of help is committing such crimes, ideally followed by sanctions.
  My favorite part is where no amount of evidence that the US electorate doesn't actually back this idea up doesn't stop Very Serious Leftists(tm) from parroting it over and over and over again.
  
  Ah, an Ad Hominen: hadn't seen one of those in at least 5 minutes.
  How about you address my point that Biden isn't willing to abdicate just one of his principles (support for Zionism, which is not even an especially moral one) to "Stop Trump" whilst sending peons of his tribe around demanding that millions abdicate their principles (and Humanist ones, which are about the most Moral principles one can have) and vote for him - somebody supporting an ongoing Genocide - to "Stop Trump".
  
  Ah, an Ad Hominen: hadn’t seen one of those in at least 5 minutes.
  An Ad Hominem, clearly, is when you claim that the evidence doesn't back a talking point up, and the more you claim the evidence doesn't back a talking point up, the more Ad Hominem it is.
  
  doesn’t stop Very Serious Leftists™ from parroting it over and over and over again.
  Mind you the cartoon is already heavilly Red Scare "anybody that disagrees is a Communist" so I'm not suprised with the whole implying that I'm a "commie" for disagreing with your political tribe.
  By the way, you're still refusing to answer the question of why Biden won't do himself what he demands from others...
  
  doesn’t stop Very Serious Leftists™ from parroting it over and over and over again.
  Wait a minute - does 'ad hominem', to you, mean 'someone said something mean about me'?
  Is that what you're saying?
  By the way, you’re still refusing to address my point about why Biden won’t do what he demands from others…
  About why he won't give up 'a principle' that is currently popular amongst the majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, to appeal to a minority of voters, who are not even particularly reliable voters at that?
  Huh. I guess it's a mystery why a politician in a democratic system wouldn't do that.
  I guess we'll never know.
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  
  All of them are similar to the general scheme of ad hominem argument, that is instead of dealing with the essence of someone's argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor is attacking the character of the proponent of the argument and concluding that it is a sufficient reason to drop the initial argument.
  Don't worry, sweetheart, I addressed your argument just fine; that you want to play tone police is on you. :)
  
  Now you're ad-homineming me as if I was that other guy you were having a fight with. If your refutation is sound, why do you need to attack someone's character anyway?
  
  People who come into the middle of a fight and are surprised they got punched are the worse.
  In case you can't read between the lines, that means you
  
  I'm surprised you can't tell people apart, not that you'll lash out any which way

565 留言