Are you finally with her? The Hillary Clinton paradox- Ignore Hillary Clinton at your own peril

[Frankfooter]

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.

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.

Like I said.
You don't seem to understand things at all.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Butler1000]

 

[Valcazar]

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.

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.

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.

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.

You keep arguing like my views are unique when you're seeing versions on the fields of universities across the states right now.

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.

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.

Yes.
That you don't seem to understand that is a problem I've given up trying to fix.

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.

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.

 

[Butler1000]

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.

 

[Valcazar]

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.

Yes, you at least are very clear.
More people should suffer until they bow to your political will.
You don't pretend that isn't what you are doing, though.
That's different.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

I don't think you understand what I want or what I actually believe.

You keep acting as if the election is to put someone in place who will end the genocide. The protests and actions are about ending genocide now, the election has to find a way to end long term support for Israel and to foster long term change to the dems.

The genocide is very unlikely to be still ongoing in Nov, though I've also thought it unlikely that its lasted this long. But now there is nothing left to attack but Rafah and that's looking increasingly unlikely. I'd expect by November the fighting would be over, the stories everywhere and support for zionism dropping massively. There are talks that look more positive happening now and the pressure on Biden is getting way stronger.

Protesters shout ‘shame on you’ outside White House correspondents dinner

It’s astonishing. We’ve never seen a White House correspondent’s dinner like this.
At the Washington Hilton, the President is here to speak while being warmly applauded by the national US press core.
But these VIPs are all dressed up in the evening finery, and they have to run the gauntlet of hundreds of protesters out here who are shouting, “Shame on you”.
Shame on you for breaking bread when there are 140 journalists dead as a result of, as far as they say, Biden’s complicity in their murder.

 

[Valcazar]

I don't think you understand what I want or what I actually believe.

You keep acting as if the election is to put someone in place who will end the genocide.

So you don't care what happens in Gaza long term at all?

The protests and actions are about ending genocide now, the election has to find a way to end long term support for Israel and to foster long term change to the dems.

But you've already said the election will have no effect on that.

You're also going to have to say what "stopping the genocide" means to you if you are going to argue that this is what you think you are supporting.

The genocide is very unlikely to be still ongoing in Nov, though I've also thought it unlikely that its lasted this long.

So you no longer consider the occupation of Palestine to be an issue?
It's purely about stopping the military assault going on right now?

Basically, if Biden doesn't stop it, he should be removed, but if he does, he shouldn't?

So from your point of view, Bibi Netenyahau should have the final say over who wins the Presidential election?

But now there is nothing left to attack but Rafah and that's looking increasingly unlikely. I'd expect by November the fighting would be over, the stories everywhere and support for zionism dropping massively. There are talks that look more positive happening now and the pressure on Biden is getting way stronger.

So if Bibi stops attacking, you think Biden should be re-elected?
In other words, you are completely fine with supporting genocide as long as Bibi stops before November?

Protesters shout ‘shame on you’ outside White House correspondents dinner
It’s astonishing. We’ve never seen a White House correspondent’s dinner like this.
At the Washington Hilton, the President is here to speak while being warmly applauded by the national US press core.
But these VIPs are all dressed up in the evening finery, and they have to run the gauntlet of hundreds of protesters out here who are shouting, “Shame on you”.
Shame on you for breaking bread when there are 140 journalists dead as a result of, as far as they say, Biden’s complicity in their murder.

Do people think the White House Correspondents dinner has never been protested before?
How weird.

 

[Butler1000]

Yes, you at least are very clear.
More people should suffer until they bow to your political will.
You don't pretend that isn't what you are doing, though.
That's different.

My will? I'd say its the will of the American People. I'm not out protesting all over. Or suffering economic hardship. I just continue to point out the Uniparty mentality that is causing the problems.

 

[bver_hunter]

"Crooked Hillary" or "Criminal Trump".......... who is the more evil one?

Of course to Trump and his Cult Followers, the answer would be "Crooked Hillary"..... and hence their constant "Lock Her Up" chants.
Trump even accused 26 others that should be in jail, with Hillary, and also including one of the greatest US Presidents of all time......Obama:

As Trump faces criminal charges, here are 27 people he's previously said should be indicted or jailed
From Clinton to Biden, Trump has said numerous foes should be behind bars.

Not too long ago, Donald Trump said both Joe Biden and Barack Obama should "be in jail for 50 years." He also wondered why Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio hadn't faced criminal charges yet.

They are among at least 27 of Trump's apparent political foes that, since launching his 2016 campaign for president, Trump has explicitly stated or otherwise suggested should be indicted or jailed, according to an ABC News count.

Not one of them has been charged with any crimes.

As Trump faces criminal charges, here are 27 people he's previously said should be indicted or jailed

As former President Trump faces criminal charges while seeking another term in the White House, here are 27 people he's previously said should be indicted or behind bars.

abcnews.go.com

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-case-indictment-meaning/story?id=97989449

 

[bver_hunter]

 

[Frankfooter]

So you don't care what happens in Gaza long term at all?

Sigh, now you're just trying to troll and not discuss.

But you've already said the election will have no effect on that.
You're also going to have to say what "stopping the genocide" means to you if you are going to argue that this is what you think you are supporting.
So you no longer consider the occupation of Palestine to be an issue?
It's purely about stopping the military assault going on right now?
Basically, if Biden doesn't stop it, he should be removed, but if he does, he shouldn't?
So from your point of view, Bibi Netenyahau should have the final say over who wins the Presidential election?

Same here, you're not honestly trying to discuss this you are trying to get a 'gotcha' moment, followed by a series of straw man claims.
This is tedious.

Stopping the genocide - ceasefire
That is the biggest issue today, stopping the ongoing genocide right now.
Ending zionism and the colonization of Palestine can't happen until the genocide is over and there is some sort of rule of law and international pressure.

That kind of change will take a long time unless there is a Berlin wall type of moment where it all shifts suddenly, but I don't' think that will happen.

So if Bibi stops attacking, you think Biden should be re-elected?
In other words, you are completely fine with supporting genocide as long as Bibi stops before November?

More trolling for gotcha's.
This is a stupid straw man claim and you can do better.

Netanyahu and Biden should both spend the rest of their days at the ICC and nobody should be arguing for their reelections.

Do people think the White House Correspondents dinner has never been protested before?
How weird.

Please post the event that had a bigger and more direct protest than this one.

 

[Valcazar]

Sigh, now you're just trying to troll and not discuss.

Not really.
I'm trying to point out that your argument doesn't seem to be very consistent.

Same here, you're not honestly trying to discuss this you are trying to get a 'gotcha' moment, followed by a series of straw man claims.
This is tedious.

Then make your argument in a clear way.
Explain what you actually think the goal is here, politically.

I know you don't actually have a vote, so it is all theoretical to you, but my complaint the whole time has been that voting Biden out and putting Trump in accomplishes nothing for the Palestinian cause you claim to support.
You've insisted it is just the opposite, but now seem to be saying that because the immediate violence will have stopped before November, it doesn't matter at all.

Stopping the genocide - ceasefire
That is the biggest issue today, stopping the ongoing genocide right now.

Something you say will happen before the election and therefore the "We have to throw Biden out" position you were taking earlier is irrelevant.
Given that you have also supported Hamas rejecting previous ceasefire positions, by the way, it is pretty clear you do not think an immediate ceasefire is the most important thing, but rather want one that includes certain other conditions.

Ending zionism and the colonization of Palestine can't happen until the genocide is over and there is some sort of rule of law and international pressure.

Probably not true (you can also end it by invading Israel and overthrowing the regime, I would assume) but sure, you want a ceasefire first, then negotiations and international pressure to improve the Palestinian situation.

That kind of change will take a long time unless there is a Berlin wall type of moment where it all shifts suddenly, but I don't' think that will happen.

The Berlin Wall Moment took years to create.
That's just "Very slowly, then all at once" (or "Gradually, then suddenly"), which is the usual way these things happen.

But yes, I don't expect the Isreal/Palestine situation to be resolved in the immediate future.

More trolling for gotcha's.
This is a stupid straw man claim and you can do better.

No.
It isn't gotcha's.
It's trying to reconcile the position you are now claiming with your earlier positions.

Netanyahu and Biden should both spend the rest of their days at the ICC and nobody should be arguing for their reelections.

Ahh.
OK.
So it is done, then.
Biden should be in the ICC and if that means Trump, that's fine.
The election of Trump is - according to you at this time - a net good.

Please post the event that had a bigger and more direct protest than this one.

No idea.
I don't measure how the protests in front of the WHCD.
I know climate activists have done it and there were some back during the Iraq war.
They usually get minimal media coverage, but this one is the hot media ticket right now.
It may well be bigger than any other has been. It's kind of smart - the only people who really care about the WHCD are the press, so it will get their attention at least.

 

[Frankfooter]

Not really.
I'm trying to point out that your argument doesn't seem to be very consistent.

I've been very consistent.
End the genocide, apply the law to everyone involved, work to end the occupation.

Then make your argument in a clear way.
Explain what you actually think the goal is here, politically.
I know you don't actually have a vote, so it is all theoretical to you, but my complaint the whole time has been that voting Biden out and putting Trump in accomplishes nothing for the Palestinian cause you claim to support.
You've insisted it is just the opposite, but now seem to be saying that because the immediate violence will have stopped before November, it doesn't matter at all.
Something you say will happen before the election and therefore the "We have to throw Biden out" position you were taking earlier is irrelevant.
Given that you have also supported Hamas rejecting previous ceasefire positions, by the way, it is pretty clear you do not think an immediate ceasefire is the most important thing, but rather want one that includes certain other conditions.
Probably not true (you can also end it by invading Israel and overthrowing the regime, I would assume) but sure, you want a ceasefire first, then negotiations and international pressure to improve the Palestinian situation.
The Berlin Wall Moment took years to create.
That's just "Very slowly, then all at once" (or "Gradually, then suddenly"), which is the usual way these things happen.
But yes, I don't expect the Isreal/Palestine situation to be resolved in the immediate future.
No.
It isn't gotcha's.
It's trying to reconcile the position you are now claiming with your earlier positions.
Ahh.
OK.
So it is done, then.
Biden should be in the ICC and if that means Trump, that's fine.
The election of Trump is - according to you at this time - a net good.

Same rules and consistent ideals as towards rump, valcazar.
Stop the crimes and apply the law.

The same way that rump has broken enough laws and that he should be held to the law. If the US system weren't so messed up, his wealth allowing him to stall every case and the judges he put in place appearing to work to help him, he should be behind bars before the election. Rather than argue for a butler like tear down the system or your status quo vote for the least evil choice and accept it, I just argue for using grassroots support to try to force systematic change supported by the population.

Same for Israel, charge Israel and Hamas for all war crimes, apply the law. Try to find a way to use US grassroot support and international pressure to stop Biden from using US power at the UN and ICC to stop charges. Try to stop the genocide immediately and work towards ending AIPAC and Israeli influence in US politics to allow international sanctions to force change without invasions or more killing.

That has been my consistent position.

No idea.
I don't measure how the protests in front of the WHCD.
I know climate activists have done it and there were some back during the Iraq war.
They usually get minimal media coverage, but this one is the hot media ticket right now.
It may well be bigger than any other has been. It's kind of smart - the only people who really care about the WHCD are the press, so it will get their attention at least.

140 journalists have been killed by Israel so far, this protest should have hit home. During the awards Biden gave an IDF 'journalist' an award.
I don't think there has ever been anything like this before.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784375796318048507

 

[Valcazar]

I've been very consistent.
End the genocide, apply the law to everyone involved, work to end the occupation.

Then why adopt tactics that are counter productive to that goal?

The same way that rump has broken enough laws and that he should be held to the law. If the US system weren't so messed up, his wealth allowing him to stall every case and the judges he put in place appearing to work to help him, he should be behind bars before the election. Rather than argue for a butler like tear down the system or your status quo vote for the least evil choice and accept it, I just argue for using grassroots support to try to force systematic change supported by the population.

Which is fine, but that's not what you're arguing for.
You have said Biden needs to be thrown out and the GOP put in charge.
How is that " using grassroots support to try to force systematic change supported by the population"?

Unless the systemic change you prefer is more authoritarianism, which isn't what I thought you were aiming for.

Same for Israel, charge Israel and Hamas for all war crimes, apply the law.

Which law, I wonder?

Try to find a way to use US grassroot support and international pressure to stop Biden from using US power at the UN and ICC to stop charges.

But you've already abandoned that goal.
No matter what Biden does, he needs to go and be arrested and taken before the ICC.
You said so yourself.

Try to stop the genocide immediately and work towards ending AIPAC and Israeli influence in US politics to allow international sanctions to force change without invasions or more killing.

That has been my consistent position.

But this position is inconsistent with "Biden must lose because he is Genocide Joe and responsible for what is happening in Gaza".

 

[Valcazar]

140 journalists have been killed by Israel so far, this protest should have hit home. During the awards Biden gave an IDF 'journalist' an award.
I don't think there has ever been anything like this before.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784375796318048507

I do think they are getting more media coverage than any previous protest of the Correspondents Dinner.

So which journalist was given an award and for what?

 

[Frankfooter]

Then why adopt tactics that are counter productive to that goal?

In my opinion it will lead to change towards that goal in the long term.
Do you think there is an avenue for this kind of change short term or another way to accomplish these goals?

Which is fine, but that's not what you're arguing for.
You have said Biden needs to be thrown out and the GOP put in charge.
How is that " using grassroots support to try to force systematic change supported by the population"?
Unless the systemic change you prefer is more authoritarianism, which isn't what I thought you were aiming for.

Again, your view has been stated that you think allowing rump to be elected will be the end of democracy.
My view is that he's too senile, the fact that everyone that aided him is now in jail or massive trouble and that the chances he does anything other than play golf and whine about 2016 are low. On top of that I don't think he'll live through a full 4 years even if wins and pardons himself from all crimes.

Your view is unsupported by any evidence or reasoned thinking that's been presented here.

But you've already abandoned that goal.
No matter what Biden does, he needs to go and be arrested and taken before the ICC.
You said so yourself.

The straw men arguments are boring. You know you are doing it, please stop.

But this position is inconsistent with "Biden must lose because he is Genocide Joe and responsible for what is happening in Gaza".

Its really not interesting, the repeated straw men. Students must hate this as there is no chance to advance an argument as every time a point is made you go back to grand straw man claims that have already been discussed. You refuse to accept any views other than your own so therefore every claim is wrong.

There is an ongoing genocide, genocide being the most evil shite humans can do to other humans. Stopping that from happening should be a priority, not arguing 'but you're being mean and punishing Biden just cuz he sent $26 billion in weapons to aid genocide, that's unfair'. What rump may or may not do is a trolley problem based on your fear of the future. That fear of the future needs to be overridden by the acts happening right now.

Never again is suppose mean you stop it from happening not argue its pragmatic to let go on for maybe just another year or two.

 

[Valcazar]

In my opinion it will lead to change towards that goal in the long term.
Do you think there is an avenue for this kind of change short term or another way to accomplish these goals?

I think putting the people in power who directly oppose your goals is counter productive when democracy is working the way you want it.
That you want to do that in a situation where your long term goals have the slimmest chance of success if the GOP wins is even worse.

Again, your view has been stated that you think allowing rump to be elected will be the end of democracy.
My view is that he's too senile, the fact that everyone that aided him is now in jail or massive trouble and that the chances he does anything other than play golf and whine about 2016 are low. On top of that I don't think he'll live through a full 4 years even if wins and pardons himself from all crimes.

I know you have to tell yourself that in order to justify what you are doing.
That your plan is bad even if "the Dems will get a shot in another cycle" should stop you anyway, but it obviously won't.

Your view is unsupported by any evidence or reasoned thinking that's been presented here.

You wishcast a "everything will be fine" and then say this as if you're presenting evidence?
OK.
Never mind, then.

The straw men arguments are boring. You know you are doing it, please stop.

I'm sorry.
Did you not say that he belongs in the ICC?

Its really not interesting, the repeated straw men. Students must hate this as there is no chance to advance an argument as every time a point is made you go back to grand straw man claims that have already been discussed. You refuse to accept any views other than your own so therefore every claim is wrong.

We aren't talking about the student views.
We are talking about yours.

The students are protesting policy.
They are having a very different conversation from what you are.

Why do you keep pretending I am arguing with the students and the protests?

There is an ongoing genocide, genocide being the most evil shite humans can do to other humans. Stopping that from happening should be a priority, not arguing 'but you're being mean and punishing Biden just cuz he sent $26 billion in weapons to aid genocide, that's unfair'. What rump may or may not do is a trolley problem based on your fear of the future. That fear of the future needs to be overridden by the acts happening right now.

Never again is suppose mean you stop it from happening not argue its pragmatic to let go on for maybe just another year or two.

But you have already admitted that the election will do NOTHING to stop this because you expect it to be over before the election.
So what does your posturing say here?

 

[Frankfooter]

I think putting the people in power who directly oppose your goals is counter productive when democracy is working the way you want it.

You're arguing that the US backing genocide in Gaza is democracy working the way you want it?
Woah.

That you want to do that in a situation where your long term goals have the slimmest chance of success if the GOP wins is even worse.

Again, assuming the genocide ends before the election, you think rump would restart an even worse genocide?
Oh wait, you just argued supporting genocide is the way you want it.

I know you have to tell yourself that in order to justify what you are doing.
That your plan is bad even if "the Dems will get a shot in another cycle" should stop you anyway, but it obviously won't.

Why do you think the plan is bad and why do you think they won't get another shot in the next cycle?

You wishcast a "everything will be fine" and then say this as if you're presenting evidence?
OK.
Never mind, then.

Right, so you will continue to just say I'm wrong without explanation and declare you've won the debate like skoob.

We aren't talking about the student views.
We are talking about yours.
The students are protesting policy.
They are having a very different conversation from what you are.

The genocide is policy, Biden's support of genocide is policy.
The students are protesting for BDS to end support of genocide.
You think that's radically different than what I argue for?

Why do you keep pretending I am arguing with the students and the protests?

So if you have no issue with BDS that means your sole issue with me becomes choosing not to back Biden because he's aiding genocide.
That leaves me as being against genocide and you supporting genocide either because you don't care about the US aiding genocide or you think its moot since both leaders will support genocide so you might as well vote for the genocide that also might cut student loans if he doesn't spend all that cash on bombs.

But you have already admitted that the election will do NOTHING to stop this because you expect it to be over before the election.
So what does your posturing say here?

Never again.

It says genocide should never happen again and you can't support anyone who actively aids genocide anymore than you can support the people committing genocide.

Its like a rump voter saying 'so what if he's a rapist, he said he's lower taxes' so you vote for him. Its like saying you'd vote for a murderer if he said he'd put a progressive SCOTUS in place. You're fitting your own definition of conservatism here.

We've been over this repeatedly.
You have argued that its pragmatic to support genocide, I've argued that's a moral line I won't cross.
Whether you think my views are totally different than every other Palestine rights support is another question, my history at the protests says these views are not

Whether rump or Biden would be worse for Palestinian rights is a trolley problem, whether rump will end democracy and bring about the end of the world is debatable. What isn't debatable is that Biden is aiding genocide and that disqualifies him from my support.

 

[Valcazar]

You're arguing that the US backing genocide in Gaza is democracy working the way you want it?
Woah.

No.
I am saying that even if democracy was fine and not under threat, "vote out the people you might influence and bring in the people who oppose you so that the people you might influence learn to cater to you better next time" isn't a tactic with a great track record.

Again, assuming the genocide ends before the election, you think rump would restart an even worse genocide?

No.
Why do you think that?
We're talking about the long term issues of Israel and Palestine.

Trump isn't going to start genocide just like Biden didn't.
The right wing Israeli government will do what it intends to do based on what it thinks it has support for.
Trump isn't going to be issuing orders to attack Gaza.
Why would he?

Why do you think the plan is bad and why do you think they won't get another shot in the next cycle?

Because there is an authoritarian anti-democratic movement in the US that has made its intentions clear.
Betting on "Don't worry, they will probably just fail if we give them more power" is a bad idea.

Right, so you will continue to just say I'm wrong without explanation and declare you've won the debate like skoob.

You have said, flat out, that you believe nothing bad will happen because Trump is too weak.
There is no logical argument to make against fantasy like that.
It is clearly a firmly held belief of yours. An act of pure faith.
Nothing I say will make the slightest difference here.

The genocide is policy, Biden's support of genocide is policy.
The students are protesting for BDS to end support of genocide.
You think that's radically different than what I argue for?

Yes.
This discussion, specifically, has been whether or not voting Biden out will help.
The student protest is about many other issues.
The students also, quite obviously, have many views on what they are doing.
Projecting absolute alignment with your preferred beliefs is folly.

So if you have no issue with BDS that means your sole issue with me becomes choosing not to back Biden because he's aiding genocide.

Yes.
I made that clear from the beginning.
The discussion I was engaging you on was that the specific electoral tactic of "Biden should lose because of this" isn't an effective one if you want better results in Palestine in either the short term or the long term.
In the short term, the Trump administration and the GOP have made it very clear they want things you don't want and will make US policy in the region worse for what you claim you want.
In the long term, "making things worse to make things better" doesn't have a great track record. (I should clarify that this is from the "heighten the contradictions" point of view.)

That leaves me as being against genocide and you supporting genocide either because you don't care about the US aiding genocide or you think its moot since both leaders will support genocide so you might as well vote for the genocide that also might cut student loans if he doesn't spend all that cash on bombs.

No.
It leaves the situation with both of us wanting the US to do better but one insisting the way to do it is to make things worse.

Never again.

It says genocide should never happen again and you can't support anyone who actively aids genocide anymore than you can support the people committing genocide.

Its like a rump voter saying 'so what if he's a rapist, he said he's lower taxes' so you vote for him. Its like saying you'd vote for a murderer if he said he'd put a progressive SCOTUS in place. You're fitting your own definition of conservatism here.

Yes. But you aren't really making the right comparisons.
You want to punish Biden for his position.
I get that.
The problem is that you don't have a means to do so that doesn't result in someone with a worse position coming into power.

Because you actually can't vote and have no influence on this, you get to say and do whatever you want.
But the people who actually vote have a different issue.
What to do with the situation they are actually in.

Trump or Biden will be in power.
Given that, what is the situation you prefer for the various goals you hope to advance?

The problem is that "He's a rapist, but he will lower my taxes" is only a good analogy if the other guy isn't also a rapist.

I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with that idea.
If Trump was saying he opposed what is happening in Israel and was credibly talking about changing US policy, you would have a much more interesting argument.
But that isn't what the situation is here, no matter how much you keep wanting to skate past that part.

We've been over this repeatedly.
You have argued that its pragmatic to support genocide, I've argued that's a moral line I won't cross.

It isn't a moral line you have to cross, or even consider.
You can't vote.

And, as I've said repeatedly, not voting or voting third party isn't avoiding the moral line.

Whether you think my views are totally different than every other Palestine rights support is another question, my history at the protests says these views are not

Whether rump or Biden would be worse for Palestinian rights is a trolley problem, whether rump will end democracy and bring about the end of the world is debatable.

Your "It's a trolley problem" defense is pretty weak.
Are you trying to say "it's all theoretical" or are you saying "No, actually, killing the 5 people is better than killing the one, because at least I didn't throw the switch"?

What isn't debatable is that Biden is aiding genocide and that disqualifies him from my support.

Thank you for admitting this!
That's all this is about - he did bad, so he must be punished and should lose.
You insist that the consequences of that are irrelevant.
I think they are crucial.

We just have very different ethics, especially when it comes to voting.
I don't believe in voting as an act that's supposed to reflect on my personal morality.
That's a pernicious myth that leads to bad things for people.

 

[y2kmark]

Do people think the White House Correspondents dinner has never been protested before?
How weird.

Give credit where credit is due. I like where they picket munitions plants. Bet they don't do that in freedom of expression paradise Israel, though...