I love it when you flip out when forced to try and course correct your bullshit.
Ah well.
That was fun, I guess.
If you are going to pretend to believe the world is complex now, I consider it a win.
Are you finally with her? The Hillary Clinton paradox- Ignore Hillary Clinton at your own peril
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
Ah well.
That was fun, I guess.
If you are going to pretend to believe the world is complex now, I consider it a win.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
I consider you more often delusional than lying.
Yes, you're pushing the same argument again, that your reasoning is superior and supporting genocide is 'pragmatic'.
Votes are earned, if Biden supports genocide lots of people will say he hasn't earned their trust and vote.
Lots of voters think they are being punished while Israel are being rewarded for genocide, if you really want to use that language.
Personally, I find it rather anti democratic that you say you don't choose to support a politician, you can only choose to punish them or not.
At the start of the pandemic he downplayed the threat of the virus, Trump admitted it himself. He put his son-in-law in charge of procuring PPE which culminated in a bunch of companies that have no business getting government contracts getting government contracts, this was where Pillow Man got a government contract and made his grand entrance into MAGAland. He gave Kodak 900 million to make HCQ. He told his supporters to vote in person and then he got Covid so bad that he had to be on oxygen which basically put the nail in his own coffin. He made fun of Joe Biden saying he is hiding in his basement while Trump was going around catching and spreading Covid. After Trump got Covid he did not isolate himself and instead just spread it around. That is just the stuff off the top of my head, there is a lot more that I forget.
Congress approves all spending. Its amazing how many think the President is a dictator when it suits their politics.
As to the rest I agree. But again it is governors that decided and implemented policy. On both sides. And would have done the same policies despite who was in charge. Just like Democratic States degied Trump, GOP states eould have defied Clinton.
Trump did fund the research. And really did give Fauci power.
You mean congress funded the research.
When convenient blame congress, when convenient blame the president, you live in a very convenient fantasy world. I am envious.
And if they understand that's their choice, fine.
It's the one pretending this means they aren't electing Trump in a two-party system that I am objecting to.
If you are clear - "I prefer Trump in charge because Biden has lost my trust" then while I disagree with you, I won't mock you.
It's the people who pretend that isn't what they are doing that I am critiquing.
Because pretending reality isn't what reality is doesn't help anyone.
That's not what I said.
I pointed out that your Australian said that was the motivation.
Biden did something bad, so he must be punished.
What he is upset by is people pointing out that this means putting Trump in.
I've told you repeatedly, if you are saying that Trump winning is your preferred outcome because Biden has "lost your vote" then while I think that's a terrible decision, that's one that shows you know what you are doing.
It's the deluded idea that your vote is about "who you support" and not "who you prefer to be President" that is the problem.
Congress funded the research.
But OWS as a goal-setting approach, emphasizing private-public partnership, and coordinating the money was primarily an executive branch thing and the Trump Administration should get the kudos there.
Your political worldview is pretty bleak, valcazar.
It seems to operate under the assumption that political change is impossible so you have to actively vote for the least evil of the likely winners every time. That the short term is more important than long term change to the system. As if having the choice between voting between two evil choices means you still have to vote for evil instead of not voting or voting for an independent that won't win. Even using your 'punishment' narrative is based on the concept that you can change party policy by not supporting evil, which is way more positive than its 'pragmatic' to vote for evil.
I understand you think rump is still competent enough to destroy US democracy and you think that justifies voting for genocide elsewhere.
What you are missing is the massive movement that is trying to implement change and trying to support that change instead of voting against it.
Even while this shows support for Israel it also signals massive change to US policy.
What you fail to recognize here is that his Frankys love for hamas is far greater than who will be the next POTUS....his hate fore the Jews is far greater...he will vote Trump tomorrow if Trump will guarantee Israel will not get any support and will be on their own...
Keep your love of genocide to the proper threads, rich.
This is about choosing which 80 year old is slightly less evil and whether the wife of another ex POTUS would have been a better choice than the farty old codger who spends all his time in court.
You know you would be in bed with Trump in a heartbeat if he will support Hamas...that's just how it is...accept it...
Wow.
You misunderstand how political systems work even more dramatically than I thought.
That's sad.
But not unexpected.
I don't miss that at all.
I am the one who advocates actually doing things that will accomplish that change instead of working against it.
What part of that signals a massive change to US policy, exactly?
How, in particular are you going to argue that I'm not understanding how the US system works?
Really?
I haven't heard you advocate for any change, only that its pragmatic to vote for some genocide and the dems as they are now.
Maybe not massive, but this is a shift to see so many vote against funding weapons for Israel.
Because you don't.
You don't seem to understand electoral systems very well and your view of politics in general seems naive.
But I'm not going to do an entire course on the subject just to catch you up.
I accept you have an unrealistic view of things and it just is what it is.
Like I said.
You don't seem to understand things at all.
So no change in policy at all since they lost the vote, is what you are saying.
You aren't talking about what was actually approved as policy - that just isn't something you care about?
I don't teach college courses on US politics, true, and that system is messed up in a rather unique way. But I understand politics and human nature.
Its about as messed up as the tenure system, its own feudal system, with people who spend years talking themselves into a belief their particular research is much better than the person across the hall. That only their SSRC research has nailed the subject, while missing major points.
You claim I'm unrealistic but then haven't acknowledged that I'm also likely right that Biden may lose because of Israel. Instead of arguing that something should be done you've only argued that everyone else is naive. You keep arguing like my views are unique when you're seeing versions on the fields of universities across the states right now.
Vague, what do you mean by 'things', what is your basis of 'understanding'? Where have you advocated for anything other than your fear of rump and therefore the necessity of backing genocide.
Is that what they said when the first brick came out of the Berlin wall, that the wall still stood and nothing had changed?
Were you expecting Netanyahu to announce a ceasefire immediately and Biden to stop funding Israel?
Dems making a group and public statement saying they don't want to pay for weapons for Israel is a shift worth noting, its a sign that the ground has shifted and Israel support can now be questioned through the party.
You may.
But you pretty clearly don't understand the system and what it actually produces.
You're not alone in this.
Lots of people think voting in FPTP elections is supposed to be about "who or what you support" as if it is some kind of emotional, consumerist choice, and those are the myths people are raised on so it makes sense.
It's just wrong, though.
I have argued that the tactic you propose won't produce the result you claim to want.
And I'm right about that.
Of course, what I actually believe is that the result you claim you want isn't actually the result you want, but you insist that's not true.
What's interesting is that you seem to insist it isn't true even for people who claim it is true.
Your views aren't unique.
They are quite common.
But I'm addressing you here, not the students at the universities.
Of course you would be unbelievably arrogant to think that all the students protesting share all your views, but I don't think you're claiming that.
Yes.
That you don't seem to understand that is a problem I've given up trying to fix.
That's not new.
You know that, right?
You claimed it was a shift in policy.
Rhetoric isn't policy.
This seems to be a source of major confusion for you.
If the only result that can be achieved is sending a message to the Democratic party that some votes aren't safe without results then that is all that is left. And perhaps can result in leadership that will. But keeping a party in power isn't productive if they don't listen to voters.
As I keep saying, it's going to have to get worse before it gets better.
