First off, you are using many strawman fallacies and this is where this conversation always breaks down. I never claimed any of this shit you are claiming.

Secondly, the US could end Israel's genocide with a single phone call, just like has been done EVERY OTHER SINGLE FUCKING TIME BEFORE!

I would like for you to elaborate on this, I have not heard the argument we can actually stop the war, I would love for you to back that up. I was under the impression we have been and are still trying to get a ceasefire. That has been the written goal for the state department for a while now.

That argument "but we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"

Strawman, never made this claim.

or made in bad faith to argue for continuing the genocide.

Oooh strawman within a strawman. When did I advocate for genocide? When did I say I even support the Democrats ffs? You're making a lot of assumptions here.

If you had half a braincell you would realize that being argumentive and condescending will only drive people away from the Palestinian plight. Bringing up shit you cannot prove also really does not help your cause either.

Again I've made a point you have, yet again, failed to address, so like most lemmy users you find the opportunity to grandstand about your cause instead of having a discussion.

I mean look at your comments man, if the conversation gets even remotely close to that, you drive the conversation toward your own personal issues. I know you're hurting but you aren't helping your cause at all.

Again I want to point out, the points I made have no been addressed.

Well you just gave me three, dumbass.

I'm sorry did I misunderstand a strawman? In the past it meant using an argument a person never stated. I never said half of the shit you claimed, but sure I guess "I'M nOt WORth tHrEe SEnTences"

Moron.

What's wrong with these statements?

Genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

This is exactly what happened, how it happened. The idiot I was arguing with kept going back and forth in his arguing, in some comments he would say there is a state in communism, then two comments later he said communism has no state. So yes, the person I was talking to was an idiot, not uncommon (hello my username.)

If this blurb offends you, maybe I was wrong about the conservatives calling us snowflakes.

Sigh...... You are just a magnet to strawman fallacies and cannot reject any opportunity to grandstand about your feelings. Answer my question or fuck off lol. You keep taking the opportunity to slam on the Dems but you refuse to address the claims you made. Idk why people cannot answer questions and pretty consistently drive the conversation toward what they want to talk about, all the fucking time. So lame lol.

Nice try, yeah let me just prove a negative. Moron. You were the one that made the claim, you fucking idiot,you need to back it up or you're simply just full of shit. Glad I could assist you.

I'm not who you responded to, but they have a good point. The difference being who is favored and who is not. In fascism there are in groups and out groups. The real life forms we have today of communism follow that same rule. I think the distinction is who is being targeted. Try to speak out against the Russian government in Russia, it won't go well. The same thing would certainly happen in a fascist state. Pointing out the small differences between the two is akin to making the distinction between a pedophile and a hebephile. They are both authoritarian in nature.

We're using text as a medium, it generally requires elaboration. If you were actually interested in making a cognizant point, you would have done that by now.

This doesn't really answer any of my questions, only raises more. Unless of course he is making the point that an authoritarian government is the "saving up for the house" but it's clear with his next statements in the interview, that's not the case.

Well this was kinda my opinion going in, so I wanted a different perspective lol.

I see. So there is supposed to be an authoritarian state in the transitionary period, is what you are saying?

Interesting, I was under the impression the real life forms had just failed; one group got into power and just said "naw" and then stayed in that authoritarian 'state.'

That doesn't answer my question unfortunately. In fact kinda muddies the water. Wikipedia says that it strives to be stateless, but how does that contend with the real life versions of communism that most certainly have a state?

Well no to be more accurate, the op was full of shit and couldn't back it up when asked, thus what they said can be ignored. Like if we were in my lab, I would make you do laps for even bringing it up.

That's not how it works tho. If you make a claim, the responsibilities of evidence are on the person who made the claim.

Can't back it up? Then it's bullshit.

This is day 1 scientific method stuff, bud, it's not about holding hands, it's about whether you actually have any repeatable data to backup your claims. If you don't, you probably shouldn't be saying it as fact.

I've just told you how he can make it worse. He can exact a travel ban when refugees are trying to come in (travel bans are based on country of origin, where you were born) How dense can you be??

short of getting more branches of the US military involved directly

How involved do you actually think we are in this conflict??? This comment makes me think I've been talking to teenagers tbh. We have 100 troops in that region and that started about a month ago.

Hahaha yeah, ok. Vibes based analysis is a comment meant to get a rise out of a person while condescendingly dismissing their idea. You can pretend that's not what you're saying but anyone with a braincell will interpret it like that.

Sorry. My bad, the sea lioning is actually occuring in this comment I replied to.

for people pointing out that genociding a requisite party of a winning coalition in a swing state is bad electoral strategy is both pathetically sad, and disgusting.

Yet another bad faith strawman. For fucks sake lemmy, you all can't be this bad at debating, quite amazing.

Genocide is not something that can be sea looked, and if you think

What a stupid thing to say, you can 100% sea lion about anything including genocide (hello? Holocaust deniers, Moron)

And they did answer the question you asked. Perhaps of you weren't lazy and actually wrote out two sentences, it might not have been overlooked. The voter turnout was about 50% (53%) which was less than national average.

You're using a strawman here. Man, why are logical fallacies so pervasive here? Never said you don't need to earn votes. I said that not voting for a candidate in a two party duopoly in a swing state is the same as actually voting for candidate because the race is so close. You're welcome to try again though.

You have not addressed the points that were asked. All you did was a faux putin-esqe history lesson about the history of the Dems and what they did. I want to know why voting for a Republican is better than voting the the democrat. All you did was basically go on a separate rant about a separate issue.

Please try again and actually answer what is being asked.