France To Recognize The Palestinian State. Vive la France

[Valcazar]

And Harris lost because dems stayed home or wouldn't vote dem.
Your claim it wasn't on the table is your own bias, for lots of people it was a real issue.

Not voting did nothing to stop the genocide.
Not voting as a strategy served no purpose if that was your purpose.

You keep mistaking the fact people don't vote or vote third party versus advocating a strategy of not voting (or voting third party).

No, you just called the other options wasted votes, including voting for Stein or staying home.

Because they were.
What was accomplished by this, if the goal was to change the situation in Gaza for the better or change the USA relationship to Israel?
Nothing.

Those were options, just options you needed to claim weren't real in order to not accept that support of the genocide could change the election.

I never said they weren't real.
I said they were dumb.

"If we can get people to stay home, we can make the Democrats lose" was dumb to work for if you wanted things to be better for Gaza.
It was even dumber if you wanted things to be better for Gaza and you thought Trump was dangerous.

My belief in 'never again' means there is no justification for genocide and I would never support it or a politician backing or aiding genocide.

And so you advocated for a political tactic that would more likely result in the ascent to power of someone who said he wanted to aid and back the genocide MORE.
That was... say it with me... dumb.

Your belief is that aiding genocide wasn't an issue.

Not at all.
My belief is that going about addressing it the way you thought it should be addressed was dumb and ineffective.

That is your moral choice, a very Wilhoit decision that you accept voting for someone who breaks the biggest moral rule in order to gain power over another group you don't like.

That isn't what the Wilhoit quote means.

If you want to argue that you are at core a deontologist, then sure, knock yourself out.
I'm skeptical that you actually are, but maybe so.

The dems have not shown they don't back everything that trump is doing and wouldn't be doing it now if they were in power.

You yourself presented evidence to the contrary.
And, once again, if there was absolutely nothing your vote could do to change the situation, then voting along other priorities was clearly a better choice than abandoning the field.

Yes, which is why some dems tried to get her to stop supporting the genocide so they could vote for her, like Uncommitted.
Straw man, but yes, that would be a stupid argument.
My argument was that unless the dems forced Harris to change they would lose the election and put trump in power. So ending her support for the genocide was in opinion the most likely path to dem success and the best path to stopping genocide.

No.
That wasn't your argument.
Your argument was that if you couldn't force Harris to change, she should lose and it was proper to make that happen.

There is a big difference between "I think she is blowing it on this issue and it is going to cost her votes" and "if she doesn't shift on this issue, we should bring her down".
You were the latter.
Uncommited, for instance, was the former.

A reminder, your argument was proven to be stupid through its failure.

My argument turned out to be correct.
Adopting the strategy you advocated was likely to put Trump in power.

c - work your ass off to get the dems to change now or in the future

No.
You can't do c for this election, because you put in the future.
You presume c is ongoing.

You still have to vote or not vote in the election at hand and c has not yet resulted in change.
You chose b, quite clearly saying that it would be better and that the long-term future was worth it, no matter who got hurt in the meantime.

Hell, you were close to these kinds of statements at the time.

Nope, straw man argument again.

Not a straw man.
It's what you argued. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" isn't really useful.
The best that can be said of you is that you were stupid enough to believe Trump would be ineffective.
In that case, you just read the situation wrong and made a choice that turned out badly.
But, if that were the case, you would express contrition for having fucked up.

In the end I backed a strategy that I can live with and continue to support.

As I said.
No contrition at all.

I backed working to change the system instead of voting to continue to back genocide.
That trump won is a testament to the failure of your plan and with it you lose any moral arguments and standing. You are willing to accept backing genocide. That lives with you along with trump's election.

Maybe there is some guilt there, or you wouldn't be so desperately flailing to deny your own agency in this.
That would be nice to think.

Again, you refuse to clearly state your views and are here to try to mischaracterize mine to make you feel better about backing a losing strategy, your moral standing and watching zionism kill itself along with Palestinians. I back holding those who commit genocide, terrorism and war crimes to the law. Only hardcore zionists have declared that means calling for the destruction of Israel and its an admission that they believe Israel cannot exist without apartheid, genocide and terrorism.

[...]

I back Israel and their leaders, along with the leaders of Hamas, being held to the law for all war crimes. That includes the illegal occupation, apartheid, terrorism and genocide. If you want to argue that Israel cannot exist without those acts, go to it.

So, let's be clear.
If the ICC went in and arrested Bibi and his entire cabinet, and the military withdrew, but nothing else immediately changed about the political situation in terms of a two-state or one-state solution, you would be fine, since the only thing you are calling for is bringing the criminals to the law.
Do I understand you correctly?

As part of option c above, acting to change the dems was the best solution.

Did you?
Oh wait.
No.
In fact, you insist you failed completely and that the Dems are no different in any way from Trump on this issue.

Acting to change the dems is perfectly good behavior. As I've told you repeatedly, it is part of the whole point of democracy, which isn't limited to voting.
But then you have the part where you get to the vote and need to decide who is going to be in power and how - given the system you have - you can influence that.
That's the part you seem not to be able to fathom.

That your plan was enacted and they didn't win means the best path forward now is to continue to get the dems to change.

Your plan was enacted and you got what you wanted.
We completely agree that the best path forward is to continue to try and get the dems to change.

I, mind you, argue that Gaza, the US, and the rest of the world would be in a much better position to enact these changes we want to see if Trump was not in charge and making things worse, thus making it harder to move forward on anything.
You insisted that this wasn't a problem, and working forward from this position is absolutely the same, if not better.

trump won't live to the end of his term. Vance may be better or worse but the dems should be at a crossroad. Do they continue to support those who are funding them or those who will vote for them. That is more important to democracy now.

Campaign funding and donors is more important than whether or not Trump survives 3 years?
Sure.
That's a pretty low bar. No argument there.

 

[Frankfooter]

Not voting did nothing to stop the genocide.
Not voting as a strategy served no purpose if that was your purpose.

You keep mistaking the fact people don't vote or vote third party versus advocating a strategy of not voting (or voting third party).

In a democracy you can vote on issues and not just 'strategy'.
Never again is an issue worth voting for.

Because they were.
What was accomplished by this, if the goal was to change the situation in Gaza for the better or change the USA relationship to Israel?
Nothing.

Nothing was accomplished by your vote so your vote was wasted and you lost all moral footing at the same time.
What did you accomplish?

I never said they weren't real.
I said they were dumb.

"If we can get people to stay home, we can make the Democrats lose" was dumb to work for if you wanted things to be better for Gaza.
It was even dumber if you wanted things to be better for Gaza and you thought Trump was dangerous.

Zionism is a movement filled with racial supremacists.

And so you advocated for a political tactic that would more likely result in the ascent to power of someone who said he wanted to aid and back the genocide MORE.
That was... say it with me... dumb.

No, that was dumb of the dems to offer a candidate who spoke for AIPAC instead of voters.
Its not dumb of voters to not vote for AIPAC.

Not at all.
My belief is that going about addressing it the way you thought it should be addressed was dumb and ineffective.

How has your way of addressing it worked out?

That isn't what the Wilhoit quote means.

It most certainly is, which is why you will state this over and over again but never venture explaining your reasoning.

If you want to argue that you are at core a deontologist, then sure, knock yourself out.
I'm skeptical that you actually are, but maybe so.

If you want to argue that genocide is justifiable in certain circumstances knock yourself out.

You yourself presented evidence to the contrary.
And, once again, if there was absolutely nothing your vote could do to change the situation, then voting along other priorities was clearly a better choice than abandoning the field.

That's not what that xitteer post stated. And I repeat, the dems just voted to send more weapons to Israel. Marge voted against it but all the dems voted to spend american money on more genocide.

No.
That wasn't your argument.
Your argument was that if you couldn't force Harris to change, she should lose and it was proper to make that happen.

There is a big difference between "I think she is blowing it on this issue and it is going to cost her votes" and "if she doesn't shift on this issue, we should bring her down".
You were the latter.
Uncommited, for instance, was the former.

Stop trying to tell me what my argument was and keep to articulating your own views as your own views.
I argued that the dems should work towards getting her to change her stance and respect voters first and most importantly.

My argument turned out to be correct.
Adopting the strategy you advocated was likely to put Trump in power.

No, the dems most definitely did not try to pressure Harris to change her support of Israel. You had groups of voters and 70% of dems calling for a ceasefire but the party did not pressure her to change.
Your strategy was in effect and it put trump in power.

No.
You can't do c for this election, because you put in the future.
You presume c is ongoing.

You still have to vote or not vote in the election at hand and c has not yet resulted in change.
You chose b, quite clearly saying that it would be better and that the long-term future was worth it, no matter who got hurt in the meantime.

Hell, you were close to these kinds of statements at the time.

You said that people could but that it would be stupid, a bad strategy and a waste of a vote. In a democracy people can still vote for things you think are stupid.

View attachment 470743

We did not discuss this.

Not a straw man.
It's what you argued. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" isn't really useful.
The best that can be said of you is that you were stupid enough to believe Trump would be ineffective.
In that case, you just read the situation wrong and made a choice that turned out badly.
But, if that were the case, you would express contrition for having fucked up.

Then prove it. Until then its a straw man argument.

As I said.
No contrition at all.

Same to you. Your strategy put trump in power, aided genocide, will destroy zionism and left the dems in chaos.
And you have expressed no contrition at allowing this to happen or for the continuing genocide.

Maybe there is some guilt there, or you wouldn't be so desperately flailing to deny your own agency in this.
That would be nice to think.

If you need nice thoughts right now go for it.

So, let's be clear.
If the ICC went in and arrested Bibi and his entire cabinet, and the military withdrew, but nothing else immediately changed about the political situation in terms of a two-state or one-state solution, you would be fine, since the only thing you are calling for is bringing the criminals to the law.
Do I understand you correctly?

No, you do not.

Did you?
Oh wait.
No.
In fact, you insist you failed completely and that the Dems are no different in any way from Trump on this issue.

Acting to change the dems is perfectly good behavior. As I've told you repeatedly, it is part of the whole point of democracy, which isn't limited to voting.
But then you have the part where you get to the vote and need to decide who is going to be in power and how - given the system you have - you can influence that.
That's the part you seem not to be able to fathom.

I see, so you support putting a little pressure on the party but when push comes to shove feel that you would still have to vote for the worst crime known to humanity to happen to another group of people to hopefully keep your group of people a little safer. Wilhoit.

Your plan was enacted and you got what you wanted.
We completely agree that the best path forward is to continue to try and get the dems to change.

I, mind you, argue that Gaza, the US, and the rest of the world would be in a much better position to enact these changes we want to see if Trump was not in charge and making things worse, thus making it harder to move forward on anything.
You insisted that this wasn't a problem, and working forward from this position is absolutely the same, if not better.

No, my plan was not enacted. People like you felt the dems didn't need to change and just needed to beat trump even if it meant a little genocide as well. My plan would have had enough political action to force Harris and the dems to listen to them. That didn't happen.

The dems continue to vote for aiding the genocide, even in opposition. There is zero evidence that they would be any better.

 

[Valcazar]

Please list the options you think should be considered instead.

Advocating for a disentanglement from Israel and a re-assessment of American foreign policy.
Pushing support for those politicians who will move those changes forward.

No, that tweet only shows that dems are still not listening to their voters.

And right there is your problem.
That's what you see, and it's blinded you.

During the election dem polls said 80% supported ceasefire. Now about half of americans and Canadians say its genocide yet the politicians in both countries are waffling and not making clear actions to end support of Israel. Your claim the dems have changed is just not born out in reality, they are still voting to send bombs to Israel.

Well then why are you advocating for change for the Dems if you think it is hopeless?
You should be pushing for an entirely new party or possibly overthrow of the government if democratic means won't work.

No, I worked to end support of genocide and enact change and continue to do so. I can stand firm and defend my actions through this genocide.

I can perfectly believe that you're comfortable with your decisions.

I did not say 'vote for genocide cuz trump' or any other lame justification for aiding genocide.

And yet you advocated people take a path that would aid genocide nonetheless. Increase it, even.

You actively argued here to not pressure the dems but to instead just vote for them.

I advocated pressuring them AND voting for them.

You were wrong, the dems did not win backing genocide and now you are someone who has justified supporting genocide.

It really is Satanic Baby Killers with you, I see.
Shame.

 

[Frankfooter]

Advocating for a disentanglement from Israel and a re-assessment of American foreign policy.
Pushing support for those politicians who will move those changes forward.

You mean the things I was advocating but that you said were dumb and you needed to just vote for Harris despite her active support of genocide?

And right there is your problem.
That's what you see, and it's blinded you.

Prove this argument, right now you are just making vague allegations.

Well then why are you advocating for change for the Dems if you think it is hopeless?
You should be pushing for an entirely new party or possibly overthrow of the government if democratic means won't work.

Right now I'm still a weaver, not ripper. They didn't listen and lost and still aren't listening. But that doesn't mean that change is impossible.

I can perfectly believe that you're comfortable with your decisions.

As I can about yours.

And yet you advocated people take a path that would aid genocide nonetheless. Increase it, even.

As you noted, both paths aided genocide.
I advocated for changing the path to give a non genocidal option.

I advocated pressuring them AND voting for them.

Not here you didn't.
You said it would be naive and dumb.

It really is Satanic Baby Killers with you, I see.
Shame.

Are you feeling that genocide is not the worst crime known to humanity today?
Do you really think the dems are better right now?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1953843797017710660

 

[Valcazar]

In a democracy you can vote on issues and not just 'strategy'.
Never again is an issue worth voting for.

A Presidential vote is a vote for a representative. (It's actually even more indirect than that.)
You are not voting on "the issue" other than indirectly.
We are not discussing a direct democracy situation here.

Nothing was accomplished by your vote so your vote was wasted and you lost all moral footing at the same time.
What did you accomplish?

I accomplished trying to put Harris into power and keep Trump out.
It failed.
Losing elections is a normal, if frustrating, part of democracy.

Zionism is a movement filled with racial supremacists.

Which has nothing to do with my statement.

No, that was dumb of the dems to offer a candidate who spoke for AIPAC instead of voters.
Its not dumb of voters to not vote for AIPAC.

It is when you firmly believe (as you do) that there was no one who could win who wasn't controlled by AIPAC.

How has your way of addressing it worked out?

Slow progress with a long, long way to go.

It most certainly is, which is why you will state this over and over again but never venture explaining your reasoning.

I _have_ explained it to you repeatedly.
I've provided the quote repeatedly as well.
It doesn't sink in.

If you want to argue that genocide is justifiable in certain circumstances knock yourself out.

I don't and I haven't.

That's not what that xitteer post stated. And I repeat, the dems just voted to send more weapons to Israel. Marge voted against it but all the dems voted to spend american money on more genocide.

Yes, it is what that post stated.


More than half (22 vs 20) of the dem senators voted to disapprove of the arms sales. (That is what SJ Res 34 is.)
ALL of the GOP senators voted against disapproval. (53-0)

Marjorie Taylor Green isn't in the Senate and did not vote on this.
That means you are probably talking about the Defense Appropriations bill for FY 26.
And you are correct, MTG was one of three (3) GOP house members who voted against it.
They joined the 206 Democrats who voted against it.

Roll call here:

No, the dems most definitely did not try to pressure Harris to change her support of Israel. You had groups of voters and 70% of dems calling for a ceasefire but the party did not pressure her to change.

I will let the self-contradiction of this statement live on its own.

You said that people could but that it would be stupid, a bad strategy and a waste of a vote. In a democracy people can still vote for things you think are stupid.

Of course they can.
People vote stupidly all the time.
Pointing out voting that way is stupid isn't saying they can't do it.
It's saying they shouldn't, because it is stupid.

We did not discuss this.

Yes, we did.
This particular tweet? Probably not.
But "Actually, Trump can't be worse than Biden and might be better".
Yes.

Same to you. Your strategy put trump in power, aided genocide, will destroy zionism and left the dems in chaos.
And you have expressed no contrition at allowing this to happen or for the continuing genocide.

I'm all kinds of mad about the election, about choices in campaign strategy (both those that I agreed with and those I did not).
The difference is my strategy didn't have putting Trump in power as one of its direct goals.

No, you do not.

OK. So when you say " I back holding those who commit genocide, terrorism and war crimes to the law." you don't actually mean just that.

I see, so you support putting a little pressure on the party but when push comes to shove feel that you would still have to vote for the worst crime known to humanity to happen to another group of people to hopefully keep your group of people a little safer. Wilhoit.

LOL.
One day you will understand Wilhoit.
I really hope so, anyway.

No, my plan was not enacted.

Yes, it was.
I'm not sure why you are backing off of it now.

People like you felt the dems didn't need to change and just needed to beat trump even if it meant a little genocide as well. My plan would have had enough political action to force Harris and the dems to listen to them. That didn't happen.

No. Your plan accounted for that pressure failing.
Your plan was to threaten to withhold votes as a way to apply pressure.
And you were quite clear that if the pressure didn't work to get the shift you wanted, that following through on that threat was important.
The Dems would lose, things wouldn't get worse (because they couldn't according to you) and then the Dems would learn their lesson long term and come around.

That was your plan.
Put the pressure on, and if it didn't move them, bring them down.

Your plan was enacted and enacted successfully. (The only way you can say it wasn't successful was if you want to say that the witholding of votes over Gaza isn't what caused the Dems to lose and I know you are committed to that position.)
Your plan had an A and a B result.
I freely admit you wanted the A more than the B.
But pretending your plan didn't have a B component is silly and would be lying on your part.

The dems continue to vote for aiding the genocide, even in opposition. There is zero evidence that they would be any better.

You, yourself, have presented evidence to the contrary.

 

[Valcazar]

You mean the things I was advocating but that you said were dumb and you needed to just vote for Harris despite her active support of genocide?

I never said those things were dumb.
I said the tactic of "we will withhold the vote and risk Trump winning" to try and get them before the election was dumb.

Prove this argument, right now you are just making vague allegations.

You can't see a difference between 50% support of Dem senators versus 0% support from GOP senators as anything other than "Dems aren't listening to voters".
Instead of seeing movement in your direction and building on it, you see failure and want to shoot it down.

Right now I'm still a weaver, not ripper. They didn't listen and lost and still aren't listening. But that doesn't mean that change is impossible.

You sure as hell don't sound like a weaver.

As you noted, both paths aided genocide.
I advocated for changing the path to give a non genocidal option.

By adopting a tactic that pushed towards more genocide as part of its plan.

Not here you didn't.
You said it would be naive and dumb.

No.
I said pressuring them and then NOT voting for them would be naive and dumb.
Which it is.

Are you feeling that genocide is not the worst crime known to humanity today?
Do you really think the dems are better right now?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1953843797017710660

The Dems are better right now.
They aren't nearly where they need to be.
They are obviously better than the GOP on this and on a host of other issues.

Why you think that means the GOP should be put in charge so that any goal you claim to want is harder to achieve escapes me, but you seem very dedicated to it.

 

[Frankfooter]

A Presidential vote is a vote for a representative. (It's actually even more indirect than that.)
You are not voting on "the issue" other than indirectly.
We are not discussing a direct democracy situation here.

Oh look, a new justification for voting for genocide.

I accomplished trying to put Harris into power and keep Trump out.
It failed.
Losing elections is a normal, if frustrating, part of democracy.

Your vote was wasted.
Same as if you voted for Stein.

Which has nothing to do with my statement.

You called a majority of voters 'stupid'. Think about it a bit more.

It is when you firmly believe (as you do) that there was no one who could win who wasn't controlled by AIPAC.

Oh look, you think you know my views.
Do I not need to continue this thread then, you can continue this debate on your own?

Slow progress with a long, long way to go.

What progress has happened?

I _have_ explained it to you repeatedly.
I've provided the quote repeatedly as well.
It doesn't sink in.

Repeating something that is wrong over and over again won't convince me.

Yes, it is what that post stated.

View attachment 471007
More than half (22 vs 20) of the dem senators voted to disapprove of the arms sales. (That is what SJ Res 34 is.)
ALL of the GOP senators voted against disapproval. (53-0)

Marjorie Taylor Green isn't in the Senate and did not vote on this.
That means you are probably talking about the Defense Appropriations bill for FY 26.
And you are correct, MTG was one of three (3) GOP house members who voted against it.
They joined the 206 Democrats who voted against it.

I'm still seeing bills passed and almost no public censure of Israel, other than Tlaib or MTG right now.
If there is, that's good news.

I will let the self-contradiction of this statement live on its own.

I could have clarified the difference between dem voters and party leaders.

Of course they can.
People vote stupidly all the time.
Pointing out voting that way is stupid isn't saying they can't do it.
It's saying they shouldn't, because it is stupid.

Its one thing to call MAGA stupid its another to call a good portion of your party stupid.

Yes, we did.
This particular tweet? Probably not.
But "Actually, Trump can't be worse than Biden and might be better".
Yes.

I don't see much difference between the two of them on this issue.

I'm all kinds of mad about the election, about choices in campaign strategy (both those that I agreed with and those I did not).
The difference is my strategy didn't have putting Trump in power as one of its direct goals.

Right, the difference is you take your anger out on someone like me that wouldn't support Harris (if I could vote there) instead of voicing your anger with Harris or the dems themselves. That's what I see from you here.

OK. So when you say " I back holding those who commit genocide, terrorism and war crimes to the law." you don't actually mean just that.

Do you need to tell yourself this kind of line to try to feel better about yourself?

LOL.
One day you will understand Wilhoit.
I really hope so, anyway.

My point is once again made.

Yes, it was.
I'm not sure why you are backing off of it now.

No, there wasn't enough pressure to get Harris to change, it was your plan that went through.
The vote for Harris and genocide or else you'll get trump.

No. Your plan accounted for that pressure failing.
Your plan was to threaten to withhold votes as a way to apply pressure.
And you were quite clear that if the pressure didn't work to get the shift you wanted, that following through on that threat was important.
The Dems would lose, things wouldn't get worse (because they couldn't according to you) and then the Dems would learn their lesson long term and come around.

My plan is clear.
Never again.
There is no justification I will accept to back genocide.

That was your plan.
Put the pressure on, and if it didn't move them, bring them down.

Your plan was enacted and enacted successfully. (The only way you can say it wasn't successful was if you want to say that the witholding of votes over Gaza isn't what caused the Dems to lose and I know you are committed to that position.)
Your plan had an A and a B result.
I freely admit you wanted the A more than the B.
But pretending your plan didn't have a B component is silly and would be lying on your part.

You keep saying that but it was clear that Harris went to the election backing genocide, which was your plan.

You, yourself, have presented evidence to the contrary.

You mean that Harris losing has lead to the dems feeling some pressure to change?
Something you said wouldn't happen?

 

[psykick456]

I think that's a hell of a theory.
Why, exactly, would they want to be doing this?

It allows the US to conquer europe and subsume all ethnic identities of european descent under a aingle monolithic "white" american chosen identity

 

[Valcazar]

Oh look, a new justification for voting for genocide.

Oh look, you still don't know how voting works.

Your vote was wasted.
Same as if you voted for Stein.

Ahh.
Everyone who votes and doesn't win has "wasted" a vote?
I see you are moving ever-more-quickly down the " Democracy is bad, actually" path.
(Yes, there is a more subtle argument to be made that every vote after the one that wins you the plurality is "wasted" in a first-past-the-post system, but I'm pretty confident you weren't making that argument.)

You called a majority of voters 'stupid'. Think about it a bit more.

This has even less to do with you answering " Zionism is a movement filled with racial supremacists" than that answer did with what it was replying to.
Are you feeling ok?

Oh look, you think you know my views.
Do I not need to continue this thread then, you can continue this debate on your own?

We can continue the thread as long as you like.
There remains a slim possibility you will gain some insight from it.
But are you now saying both sides _aren't_ under AIPAC's thumb?

What progress has happened?

I thought you were paying attention to public sentiment on the state of the US and international relationship with Israel, as well as the moods of the public and politicians in those countries?

Repeating something that is wrong over and over again won't convince me.

It's not wrong that you don't understand Wilhoit.
Or, I should say, the way you try and apply it shows you don't understand it.
I suppose I could be persuaded that you do understand it and are deliberately trying to misapply it as a rhetorical strategy, but I would prefer not to think ill of you that way.

I'm still seeing bills passed and almost no public censure of Israel, other than Tlaib or MTG right now.
If there is, that's good news.

Maybe you should try paying attention.

I could have clarified the difference between dem voters and party leaders.

You actually have no idea how much pressure or not there was among "party leaders".
Do I think - especially back in 2024 - that most of the established leadership was pressuring her? No, I do not. But we actually don't know what conversations were being had and by whom and how strenuously with any certainty.
What is very clear is that there has been pressure on Democrats about this issue for years and it continues to work, if not as quickly as you may like.

Its one thing to call MAGA stupid its another to call a good portion of your party stupid.

I called a good part of the entire electorate stupid.
People vote on a bunch of stupid things.
They also vote on things they've actually thought about seriously.
Both of those things have always been true.
It is their right to do so in a free system.

I don't see much difference between the two of them on this issue.

I know.
Your entire pitch was based on "I don't see much difference", which is one of the reasons it was so self-defeating on its face.
Probably why you shifted to dabbling with "actually, Trump might be better" and "actually, Trump won't do anything bad because he's incompetent" to try and justify your reasoning.

Right, the difference is you take your anger out on someone like me that wouldn't support Harris (if I could vote there) instead of voicing your anger with Harris or the dems themselves. That's what I see from you here.

Right. Because tanking Harris was bad.
Remember, you weren't arguing "fuck, I think she's blowing this", you were arguing "The Dems should lose".
Since the Dems losing in this instance makes everything worse, you rooting for it (and doing your part to contribute to the social media environment that tried to get it to happen) was a thing I have no problem being mad at you about.

Do you need to tell yourself this kind of line to try to feel better about yourself?

No.
I just find your contradictions fascinating.

No, there wasn't enough pressure to get Harris to change, it was your plan that went through.
The vote for Harris and genocide or else you'll get trump.
{...}
My plan is clear.
Never again.
There is no justification I will accept to back genocide.

So you're just going to pretend that never happened?
Wow.
Interesting.

You keep saying that but it was clear that Harris went to the election backing genocide, which was your plan.

My plan wasn't "Harris should back genocide".
What a deeply stupid thing to say.
My plan was "Harris is better than Trump and people should not be working towards making a Trump result acceptable".

It failed.

You mean that Harris losing has lead to the dems feeling some pressure to change?
Something you said wouldn't happen?

Dems were already feeling pressure to change.
Dems also respond to changing situations, as you know.
Your theory is that this loss is specifically leading to this change.
That's wildly over-simplified and not very convincing.

(Also, that all the damage Trump is doing is justified and worth it if it leads to this change, which is pretty vile.)

 

[Valcazar]

It allows the US to conquer europe and subsume all ethnic identities of european descent under a aingle monolithic "white" american chosen identity

That's one I haven't heard before.

 

[Frankfooter]

Oh look, you still don't know how voting works.

I see you are back to saying your views are superior.

Ahh.
Everyone who votes and doesn't win has "wasted" a vote?
I see you are moving ever-more-quickly down the " Democracy is bad, actually" path.
(Yes, there is a more subtle argument to be made that every vote after the one that wins you the plurality is "wasted" in a first-past-the-post system, but I'm pretty confident you weren't making that argument.)

Not at all, I was mocking your argument that voting for Stein was wasting your vote since she couldn't win.
Your vote was just as wasted.

This has even less to do with you answering " Zionism is a movement filled with racial supremacists" than that answer did with what it was replying to.
Are you feeling ok?

I'm feeling fine, if you don't want to make the connection that's up to you.

We can continue the thread as long as you like.
There remains a slim possibility you will gain some insight from it.
But are you now saying both sides _aren't_ under AIPAC's thumb?

There are signs of movement from the dems, we'll see if that gets quashed.

I thought you were paying attention to public sentiment on the state of the US and international relationship with Israel, as well as the moods of the public and politicians in those countries?

Public sentiment is different from political progress, as you know.

It's not wrong that you don't understand Wilhoit.
Or, I should say, the way you try and apply it shows you don't understand it.
I suppose I could be persuaded that you do understand it and are deliberately trying to misapply it as a rhetorical strategy, but I would prefer not to think ill of you that way.

The law is protecting but not binding dems (as we see with the genocide, there is no court in the US that will charge them), nor is it protecting Palestinians while it does bind them.

You actually have no idea how much pressure or not there was among "party leaders".
Do I think - especially back in 2024 - that most of the established leadership was pressuring her? No, I do not. But we actually don't know what conversations were being had and by whom and how strenuously with any certainty.
What is very clear is that there has been pressure on Democrats about this issue for years and it continues to work, if not as quickly as you may like.

Wait, are you accepting my argument that having lost the election over support of genocide the dems are finally starting to change?

I called a good part of the entire electorate stupid.
People vote on a bunch of stupid things.
They also vote on things they've actually thought about seriously.
Both of those things have always been true.
It is their right to do so in a free system.

Just a touch supremacist.

I know.
Your entire pitch was based on "I don't see much difference", which is one of the reasons it was so self-defeating on its face.
Probably why you shifted to dabbling with "actually, Trump might be better" and "actually, Trump won't do anything bad because he's incompetent" to try and justify your reasoning.

I didn't say trump would be better. It was genocide before and its genocide now. As much genocide as Netanyahu thinks he can get away with, and every day he gets away with it he thinks he can go further.

The main reasoning was 'never again', don't vote for genocide. Never.
We are half a year into trump and he's imploding and looking more and more unwell.
Would Harris have done anything different now?

Right. Because tanking Harris was bad.
Remember, you weren't arguing "fuck, I think she's blowing this", you were arguing "The Dems should lose".
Since the Dems losing in this instance makes everything worse, you rooting for it (and doing your part to contribute to the social media environment that tried to get it to happen) was a thing I have no problem being mad at you about.

I was arguing she's blowing this, that voters had made their views clear but she made her choice. You argued that voters owed her their votes and that the problem was with voters, not with the Harris herself.

No.
I just find your contradictions fascinating.

As I find your attempts to poke holes in my posts both sad and pathetic.
You are here to find ways to justify defending liberal zionism, not to find ways to change the dems, zionism or anything for the better.

So you're just going to pretend that never happened?
Wow.
Interesting.

As you say, its all on the internet.
Feel free to prove what you say for once.

My plan wasn't "Harris should back genocide".
What a deeply stupid thing to say.
My plan was "Harris is better than Trump and people should not be working towards making a Trump result acceptable".

It failed.

Your plan was that it was ok to vote for genocide because reasons.

Dems were already feeling pressure to change.
Dems also respond to changing situations, as you know.
Your theory is that this loss is specifically leading to this change.
That's wildly over-simplified and not very convincing.

(Also, that all the damage Trump is doing is justified and worth it if it leads to this change, which is pretty vile.)

Yet you've already stated it starting to happen.
There is no justification for the american/Israeli genocide and no change to the democratic party could ever make it seem ok.
Israel has turned the US into a pariah state paying for the genocide of a 19th century racist, colonial settler state that is attacking 5 other countries.

That is on all americans who let it happen.