Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 02 2024 15:25 oBlade wrote: Not only does she say the opposite of what she demonstrably does, making her not credible to a non-supporter, she says the opposite of what she herself says constantly. She will say anything. In the exact same campaign she is playing both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue.
CNN describes it euphemistically as "microtargeting" rather than run-of-the-mill two-faced politicianism.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign is microtargeting voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan by amplifying different parts of her message on Israel and Gaza, highlighting how her campaign is navigating the thorny issue that has divided key parts of the Democratic coalition.
Ads running in Pennsylvania, where undecided Jewish voters could factor into the state’s outcome, highlight how she will “stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself.” Meanwhile, ads targeted in Michigan, with its large Arab American population, highlight how “she will not be silent about the human suffering occurring in Gaza.”
Those 2 positions are not at odds with each other.
Heck I would say that is a position that many many people here on TL in the Palestine thread hold themselves.
My mistake. They aren't contradictory. There must be some other reason she's choosing to omit Israel's right to defend itself when emphasizing her hyper-rational centrist position to the Michigan voters.
On November 02 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 02 2024 12:37 oBlade wrote: That is a very rich comment from Hillary. Her losing 8 years ago hasn't stopped us from having to hear about her at all, but that would have been a good example to set if she now wanted people to dump her old orange friend.
On November 02 2024 07:39 Fleetfeet wrote: I've only skimmed the last few pages but what I'm getting is referencing 9 people pointing rifles at someone's face isn't invoking imagery of a firing squad
Yeah because you don't give a rifle to the person getting executed Battle Royale style.
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote: When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
So you listened to Kennedy and Gabbard and Deutsch and Musk, correct?
Why don't you go the extra mile and name Hitler and Stalin because they were also enemies but they also both supported genocide? What an incredibly dishonest interpretation of my words. I don't expect otherwise from you.
What neither of us said had anything to do with genocide. Deutsch is the last name of a Democrat, having nothing to do with Germany and Hitler. There are other things in the world to talk about than Hitler.
You are delving into a version of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Explain to me how Dick Cheney, formerly of the right, supporting Harris, on the left, is more valid and of more interest to us than Kennedy, Gabbard, Deutsch, and Musk, formerly of the left, supporting Drumpf. Because the only difference I see is whether they support the conclusion you already made. Who the fuck liked Dick Cheney before.
I didn't even know who Deutsch is and I didn't care to look it up because it's on you to communicate your point better, not on others to know what you're talking about if you don't make the slightest effort. Make yourself more clear next time if you want people to understand you.
Also, did you completely miss the fact that we were talking about LIZ Cheney? Different person.
Effort comes in getting a background knowledge of the country's politics that you are pontificating about before you go "Deutsch? In a list of names of people? Must mean something about Germany, I better mention Hitler." Or even basic search skills. The rest of the world can't correctly assume what you do and don't know and tailor itself to that.
You support Liz Cheney's endorsement of Harris but not Dick Cheney's endorsement of Harris?
On November 02 2024 15:25 oBlade wrote: Not only does she say the opposite of what she demonstrably does, making her not credible to a non-supporter, she says the opposite of what she herself says constantly. She will say anything. In the exact same campaign she is playing both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue.
CNN describes it euphemistically as "microtargeting" rather than run-of-the-mill two-faced politicianism.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign is microtargeting voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan by amplifying different parts of her message on Israel and Gaza, highlighting how her campaign is navigating the thorny issue that has divided key parts of the Democratic coalition.
Ads running in Pennsylvania, where undecided Jewish voters could factor into the state’s outcome, highlight how she will “stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself.” Meanwhile, ads targeted in Michigan, with its large Arab American population, highlight how “she will not be silent about the human suffering occurring in Gaza.”
Those 2 positions are not at odds with each other.
Heck I would say that is a position that many many people here on TL in the Palestine thread hold themselves.
My mistake. They aren't contradictory. There must be some other reason she's choosing to omit Israel's right to defend itself when emphasizing her hyper-rational centrist position to the Michigan voters.
On November 02 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 02 2024 12:37 oBlade wrote: That is a very rich comment from Hillary. Her losing 8 years ago hasn't stopped us from having to hear about her at all, but that would have been a good example to set if she now wanted people to dump her old orange friend.
On November 02 2024 07:39 Fleetfeet wrote: I've only skimmed the last few pages but what I'm getting is referencing 9 people pointing rifles at someone's face isn't invoking imagery of a firing squad
Yeah because you don't give a rifle to the person getting executed Battle Royale style.
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote: When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
So you listened to Kennedy and Gabbard and Deutsch and Musk, correct?
Why don't you go the extra mile and name Hitler and Stalin because they were also enemies but they also both supported genocide? What an incredibly dishonest interpretation of my words. I don't expect otherwise from you.
What neither of us said had anything to do with genocide. Deutsch is the last name of a Democrat, having nothing to do with Germany and Hitler. There are other things in the world to talk about than Hitler.
You are delving into a version of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Explain to me how Dick Cheney, formerly of the right, supporting Harris, on the left, is more valid and of more interest to us than Kennedy, Gabbard, Deutsch, and Musk, formerly of the left, supporting Drumpf. Because the only difference I see is whether they support the conclusion you already made. Who the fuck liked Dick Cheney before.
I didn't even know who Deutsch is and I didn't care to look it up because it's on you to communicate your point better, not on others to know what you're talking about if you don't make the slightest effort. Make yourself more clear next time if you want people to understand you.
Also, did you completely miss the fact that we were talking about LIZ Cheney? Different person.
Effort comes in getting a background knowledge of the country's politics that you are pontificating about before you go "Deutsch? In a list of names of people? Must mean something about Germany, I better mention Hitler." Or even basic search skills. The rest of the world can't correctly assume what you do and don't know and tailor itself to that.
You support Liz Cheney's endorsement of Harris but not Dick Cheney's endorsement of Harris?
Make your case about Deutsch, otherwise I'm done discussing that person who I still don't know anything about and will never know - because you clearly don't care either, otherwise you would make an effort to explain to me why I should care.
And don't flip this around. You're the one who messed up not realizing we were talking about Liz, when we expressly stated her name multiple times back and forth. Don't shift the goalpost trying to pin something on me.
On November 02 2024 15:25 oBlade wrote: Not only does she say the opposite of what she demonstrably does, making her not credible to a non-supporter, she says the opposite of what she herself says constantly. She will say anything. In the exact same campaign she is playing both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue.
CNN describes it euphemistically as "microtargeting" rather than run-of-the-mill two-faced politicianism.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign is microtargeting voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan by amplifying different parts of her message on Israel and Gaza, highlighting how her campaign is navigating the thorny issue that has divided key parts of the Democratic coalition.
Ads running in Pennsylvania, where undecided Jewish voters could factor into the state’s outcome, highlight how she will “stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself.” Meanwhile, ads targeted in Michigan, with its large Arab American population, highlight how “she will not be silent about the human suffering occurring in Gaza.”
Those 2 positions are not at odds with each other.
Heck I would say that is a position that many many people here on TL in the Palestine thread hold themselves.
My mistake. They aren't contradictory. There must be some other reason she's choosing to omit Israel's right to defend itself when emphasizing her hyper-rational centrist position to the Michigan voters.
On November 02 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 02 2024 12:37 oBlade wrote: That is a very rich comment from Hillary. Her losing 8 years ago hasn't stopped us from having to hear about her at all, but that would have been a good example to set if she now wanted people to dump her old orange friend.
On November 02 2024 07:39 Fleetfeet wrote: I've only skimmed the last few pages but what I'm getting is referencing 9 people pointing rifles at someone's face isn't invoking imagery of a firing squad
Yeah because you don't give a rifle to the person getting executed Battle Royale style.
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote: When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
So you listened to Kennedy and Gabbard and Deutsch and Musk, correct?
Why don't you go the extra mile and name Hitler and Stalin because they were also enemies but they also both supported genocide? What an incredibly dishonest interpretation of my words. I don't expect otherwise from you.
What neither of us said had anything to do with genocide. Deutsch is the last name of a Democrat, having nothing to do with Germany and Hitler. There are other things in the world to talk about than Hitler.
You are delving into a version of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Explain to me how Dick Cheney, formerly of the right, supporting Harris, on the left, is more valid and of more interest to us than Kennedy, Gabbard, Deutsch, and Musk, formerly of the left, supporting Drumpf. Because the only difference I see is whether they support the conclusion you already made. Who the fuck liked Dick Cheney before.
I didn't even know who Deutsch is and I didn't care to look it up because it's on you to communicate your point better, not on others to know what you're talking about if you don't make the slightest effort. Make yourself more clear next time if you want people to understand you.
Also, did you completely miss the fact that we were talking about LIZ Cheney? Different person.
Effort comes in getting a background knowledge of the country's politics that you are pontificating about before you go "Deutsch? In a list of names of people? Must mean something about Germany, I better mention Hitler." Or even basic search skills. The rest of the world can't correctly assume what you do and don't know and tailor itself to that.
You support Liz Cheney's endorsement of Harris but not Dick Cheney's endorsement of Harris?
Make your case about Deutsch, otherwise I'm done discussing that person who I still don't know anything about and will never know - because you clearly don't care either, otherwise you would make an effort to explain to me why I should care.
And don't flip this around. You're the one who messed up not realizing we were talking about Liz, when we expressly stated her name multiple times back and forth. Don't shift the goalpost trying to pin something on me.
I'm not flipping something around, I'm asking you a simple question. If you want to spout your John Oliver or Trevor Noah or Jon Stewart propaganda, I can get that in 10x better quality from them directly. Figure out what you actually think and answer the question. The point I'm wondering is not about one or the other of Liz or Dick. It does not matter which one you were talking about before. It's about both. And it's about more. It's about every endorsement from the right to Harris, and every endorsement from the left to Drumpf.
That's why there were more than one name in the Drumpf endorsements. This was an enormous context clue.
So the first, again, is: Do you support Liz's endorsement of Harris, but not Dick's endorsement of Harris?
Your second question which you have dodged for 3 posts is simple: What makes Cheney and Schwarzenegger and Cheney and Flake and Barbara Bush's endorsement of Harris more valid than Kennedy and Gabbard and Deutsch and Musk's endorsements?
The question may be difficult to answer, which is why I took the opportunity of posing it, but it CANNOT BE THIS DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.
Why are the former brave patriots crossing party lines and we should look up to their example and the latter are opportunistic narcissists or whatever reason you're ignoring them? You see (hopefully if you aren't blind) two groups of people crossing party lines. Do the latter not cause any cognitive dissonance or questions like what might you have missed that motivates them crossing party lines?
I'm done talking about Liz if you keep bringing up Dick. You're not getting an answer from me about Dick because you're the only one who whipped out that dick, nobody else did. I certainly didn't.
I still don't know who Deutsch is. Make your case and stop expecting me to do research if you're not even willing to give me the most basic of information about him in a thread where literally nobody talked about Deutsch other than you.
Lastly, I never confused Deutsch with Germany. You confused me confusing Deutsch with Germany or Hitler because I brought up Hitler and Stalin in your false interpretation of former enemies agreeing with one another.
Get your shit together and stop acting high and mighty. If you can't debate properly, stop debating. Otherwise make an actual effort. If you post another low effort response, I will stop responding to you.
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote: When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
What you actually meant was:
When Liz Cheney endorses Harris, who I already like, listen to her. In any other situation, I haven't thought that far ahead to see whether this is actually a useful rule, I'm just making things up that sound good as I go along opportunistically. So when any Democrat endorses Drumpf, thereby becoming an ally with him over the common enemy of Harris/Democrats, ignore it because I don't already like Drumpf. Only look at the confirmation bias cases please.
Also, you can't talk about Dick Cheney for some godforsaken reason because you didn't previously get written permission from me to ask about Dick Cheney endorsing Harris, which clearly has nothing to do with Liz Cheney endorsing Harris and is a totally different field of inquiry on a different planet entirely.
The gall to call me low effort when you have no basic information about anything that's happening in politics this year and can't be arsed to figure out what you think when asked. Thanks for the last word though, I hope this was low effort enough to qualify.
On November 02 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote: Also, let me make one thing very clear. If Trump came out today and said "I will withdraw all military support and all funding to Israel immediately after taking office until they end the war and the oppression of Palestinians everywhere in the Palestine region", you wanna know what would happen? I would flip my support instantly.
Wait, you trust a word he says? That's incredible. I'd would just disregard what he said, because I trust him 0% to be truthful.
That's my issue with MP's hypothetical flip of support too. Trump could promise me a million dollars, an end to world hunger, and an end to all genocide and prejudice in the world... but we know he's full of shit.
Aye but in this rather unlikely hypothetical I guess one could just presume the equally, perhaps more unlikely hypothetical that it was an earnest policy shift
When Liz Cheney endorses Harris, who I already like, listen to her. In any other situation, I haven't thought that far ahead to see whether this is actually a useful rule, I'm just making things up that sound good as I go along opportunistically. So when any Democrat endorses Drumpf, thereby becoming an ally with him over the common enemy of Harris/Democrats, ignore it because I don't already like Drumpf. Only look at the confirmation bias cases please.
Also, you can't talk about Dick Cheney for some godforsaken reason because you didn't previously get written permission from me to ask about Dick Cheney endorsing Harris, which clearly has nothing to do with Liz Cheney endorsing Harris and is a totally different field of inquiry on a different planet entirely.
The gall to call me low effort when you have no basic information about anything that's happening in politics this year and can't be arsed to figure out what you think when asked. Thanks for the last word though, I hope this was low effort enough to qualify.
That's slightly more effort than usual from you, I have to applaud you. But you're wrong about how I view things, so let me clarify for you:
I explicitly stated that I hate Harris. Got it? I support her only because Trump is the opposition. Got it? Harris = bad. Trump = worse than bad. Therefore I support Harris. Got it? You can go check your math book, this logic checks out. That's literally the only reason why I support Harris. My truly preferred candidate would withdraw support from Israel and reinstate abortion rights. Harris endorses only one of those two things, so I will continue to oppose her in the abstract as things stand. As soon as Trump is completely out of the picture, she will no longer receive my support (until a new Trump pops up).
And please put the dick back, nobody here wants to see it. You brought it up, nobody else did. Get over yourself.
On November 02 2024 15:25 oBlade wrote: Not only does she say the opposite of what she demonstrably does, making her not credible to a non-supporter, she says the opposite of what she herself says constantly. She will say anything. In the exact same campaign she is playing both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue.
CNN describes it euphemistically as "microtargeting" rather than run-of-the-mill two-faced politicianism.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign is microtargeting voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan by amplifying different parts of her message on Israel and Gaza, highlighting how her campaign is navigating the thorny issue that has divided key parts of the Democratic coalition.
Ads running in Pennsylvania, where undecided Jewish voters could factor into the state’s outcome, highlight how she will “stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself.” Meanwhile, ads targeted in Michigan, with its large Arab American population, highlight how “she will not be silent about the human suffering occurring in Gaza.”
Those 2 positions are not at odds with each other.
Heck I would say that is a position that many many people here on TL in the Palestine thread hold themselves.
My mistake. They aren't contradictory. There must be some other reason she's choosing to omit Israel's right to defend itself when emphasizing her hyper-rational centrist position to the Michigan voters.
On November 02 2024 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 02 2024 12:37 oBlade wrote: That is a very rich comment from Hillary. Her losing 8 years ago hasn't stopped us from having to hear about her at all, but that would have been a good example to set if she now wanted people to dump her old orange friend.
On November 02 2024 07:39 Fleetfeet wrote: I've only skimmed the last few pages but what I'm getting is referencing 9 people pointing rifles at someone's face isn't invoking imagery of a firing squad
Yeah because you don't give a rifle to the person getting executed Battle Royale style.
On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote: When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen.
So you listened to Kennedy and Gabbard and Deutsch and Musk, correct?
Why don't you go the extra mile and name Hitler and Stalin because they were also enemies but they also both supported genocide? What an incredibly dishonest interpretation of my words. I don't expect otherwise from you.
What neither of us said had anything to do with genocide. Deutsch is the last name of a Democrat, having nothing to do with Germany and Hitler. There are other things in the world to talk about than Hitler.
You are delving into a version of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Explain to me how Dick Cheney, formerly of the right, supporting Harris, on the left, is more valid and of more interest to us than Kennedy, Gabbard, Deutsch, and Musk, formerly of the left, supporting Drumpf. Because the only difference I see is whether they support the conclusion you already made. Who the fuck liked Dick Cheney before.
I didn't even know who Deutsch is and I didn't care to look it up because it's on you to communicate your point better, not on others to know what you're talking about if you don't make the slightest effort. Make yourself more clear next time if you want people to understand you.
Also, did you completely miss the fact that we were talking about LIZ Cheney? Different person.
Effort comes in getting a background knowledge of the country's politics that you are pontificating about before you go "Deutsch? In a list of names of people? Must mean something about Germany, I better mention Hitler." Or even basic search skills. The rest of the world can't correctly assume what you do and don't know and tailor itself to that.
You support Liz Cheney's endorsement of Harris but not Dick Cheney's endorsement of Harris?
Make your case about Deutsch, otherwise I'm done discussing that person who I still don't know anything about and will never know - because you clearly don't care either, otherwise you would make an effort to explain to me why I should care.
And don't flip this around. You're the one who messed up not realizing we were talking about Liz, when we expressly stated her name multiple times back and forth. Don't shift the goalpost trying to pin something on me.
I'm not flipping something around, I'm asking you a simple question. If you want to spout your John Oliver or Trevor Noah or Jon Stewart propaganda, I can get that in 10x better quality from them directly. Figure out what you actually think and answer the question. The point I'm wondering is not about one or the other of Liz or Dick. It does not matter which one you were talking about before. It's about both. And it's about more. It's about every endorsement from the right to Harris, and every endorsement from the left to Drumpf.
That's why there were more than one name in the Drumpf endorsements. This was an enormous context clue.
So the first, again, is: Do you support Liz's endorsement of Harris, but not Dick's endorsement of Harris?
Your second question which you have dodged for 3 posts is simple: What makes Cheney and Schwarzenegger and Cheney and Flake and Barbara Bush's endorsement of Harris more valid than Kennedy and Gabbard and Deutsch and Musk's endorsements?
The question may be difficult to answer, which is why I took the opportunity of posing it, but it CANNOT BE THIS DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.
Why are the former brave patriots crossing party lines and we should look up to their example and the latter are opportunistic narcissists or whatever reason you're ignoring them? You see (hopefully if you aren't blind) two groups of people crossing party lines. Do the latter not cause any cognitive dissonance or questions like what might you have missed that motivates them crossing party lines?
One doesn’t have to support or disagree with endorsements either way, or see them as more or less valid.
Alas as yet I lack the ability to peer into the very souls of my fellow humans, one can only second guess.
Don’t know anything about Deutsch. Arnie and Dick Cheney aren’t exactly super active in frontline politics so they’re somewhat insulated from backlash curtailing future ambitions. Liz Cheney, less so and she’s already got burned for crossing Dear Leader before. So you’ve two who don’t really have all that much obvious to gain,
All three also stressed that they’re still very much Republicans at heart as well
Kennedy, I don’t think really defected as such never really being a snug fit with the Democrats. If he was some bloke not from a bona fide dynasty within that party, I dunno if he’d considered anything other than an independent who somewhat aligns.
Musk is just a bit of a prick, but hey. I think he believes his shtick, I think it’ll ultimately hurt him in the long run. I don’t think it’s rank opportunism or anything there, so fair enough
Gabbard seemed to hit a ceiling within the Dems and pivoted pretty damn sharply to try and reposition herself as the token moderate who’s wheeled out to spend all her time complaining about crazy lefties. If there’s one on that list that is an insincere, ambition-lead move, that’s where my money would go 100%
Hey parties and individuals change over time, and thus that relationship will also change. Especially when you’re locked into an effective binary, I see nout wrong with people occasionally re-aligning
On November 02 2024 22:02 Billyboy wrote: Your problem isn't that Trump is Hitler, it is that Trump supports Israel. You do the math. So either you are lying about your positions or.....
That is on you.
Or you just hate me because I don't support genocide.
Clearly you do support genocide, your supporting a guy who you think is Hitler after he says one comment. I'm not insulting you, I don't hate you, you are the one who consistently insults people and dies on every hill regardless of how dumb it is.
You could have cleared up what you said, you went this path, and that is fine and very telling.
On November 02 2024 22:02 Billyboy wrote: Your problem isn't that Trump is Hitler, it is that Trump supports Israel. You do the math. So either you are lying about your positions or.....
That is on you.
Or you just hate me because I don't support genocide.
Clearly you do support genocide, your supporting a guy who you think is Hitler after he says one comment. I'm not insulting you, I don't hate you, you are the one who consistently insults people and dies on every hill regardless of how dumb it is.
You could have cleared up what you said, you went this path, and that is fine and very telling.
Yeah if you take what I said and literally twist it into the exact opposite, then you arrive at the completely opposite conclusion of what I said like you just did.
On November 02 2024 22:02 Billyboy wrote: Your problem isn't that Trump is Hitler, it is that Trump supports Israel. You do the math. So either you are lying about your positions or.....
That is on you.
Or you just hate me because I don't support genocide.
Clearly you do support genocide, your supporting a guy who you think is Hitler after he says one comment. I'm not insulting you, I don't hate you, you are the one who consistently insults people and dies on every hill regardless of how dumb it is.
You could have cleared up what you said, you went this path, and that is fine and very telling.
Yeah if you take what I said and literally twist it into the exact opposite, then you arrive at the completely opposite conclusion of what I said like you just did.
Stop supporting genocide, JimmiC.
You posted for (at least) the last few pages about how Trump was Hitler. Then you posted how you would instantly switch your support to Trump (who you think is Hitler) if he said one thing. I have the receipts.
Dodge, deflect, insult, make up shit, dodge. It is funny, but it is not an effective defense or offence so stop it zlefin .
On November 02 2024 22:02 Billyboy wrote: Your problem isn't that Trump is Hitler, it is that Trump supports Israel. You do the math. So either you are lying about your positions or.....
That is on you.
Or you just hate me because I don't support genocide.
Clearly you do support genocide, your supporting a guy who you think is Hitler after he says one comment. I'm not insulting you, I don't hate you, you are the one who consistently insults people and dies on every hill regardless of how dumb it is.
You could have cleared up what you said, you went this path, and that is fine and very telling.
Yeah if you take what I said and literally twist it into the exact opposite, then you arrive at the completely opposite conclusion of what I said like you just did.
Stop supporting genocide, JimmiC.
You posted for (at least) the last few pages about how Trump was Hitler. Then you posted how you would instantly switch your support to Trump (who you think is Hitler) if he said one thing. I have the receipts.
Dodge, deflect, insult, make up shit, dodge. It is funny, but it is not an effective defense or offence so stop it zlefin .
If Trump stops supporting genocide, I would support him. Crazy idea, I know. To you at least...
If I had made a judgment to support Stalin over what I truly believed was Hitler, even if Hitler pinky promised, cross his heart and hope to die with a cherry on top, to be nice, it wouldn't cause me to reconsider that calculation in the least.
On November 03 2024 02:22 oBlade wrote: If I had made a judgment to support Stalin over what I truly believed was Hitler, even if Hitler pinky promised, cross his heart and hope to die with a cherry on top, to be nice, it wouldn't cause me to reconsider that calculation in the least.
Hence why the rebuttal from people (other than JimmiC) was fair. The underlying idea is that, as long as Trump supports genocide, I will support Harris. If somehow Trump wasn't in support of genocide, I would be forced to stop supporting Harris because she evidently does support genocide (according to my views, not necessarily the views of others).
Like, I'm sorry. You can't twist that. If you try twisting that, you're arguing in bad faith like JimmiC.
On November 03 2024 02:22 oBlade wrote: If I had made a judgment to support Stalin over what I truly believed was Hitler, even if Hitler pinky promised, cross his heart and hope to die with a cherry on top, to be nice, it wouldn't cause me to reconsider that calculation in the least.
Hence why the rebuttal from people (other than JimmiC) was fair. The underlying idea is that, as long as Trump supports genocide, I will support Harris. If somehow Trump wasn't in support of genocide, I would be forced to stop supporting Harris because she evidently does support genocide (according to my views, not necessarily the views of others).
Like, I'm sorry. You can't twist that. If you try twisting that, you're arguing in bad faith like JimmiC.
What if say, Trump’s foreign policy was to withdraw support, leverage other pressure to dissuade others and leave the Ukrainians to their own devices in that conflict? So you end up with that, minus US’ very integral support of Israel, versus a US still in ways supporting Israel but also supporting Ukraine?
It’s a tricky question and not intended as a gotcha in any way!
Personally, while I feel the current conflict in Israel/Palestine has been pretty repugnant, my main worry foreign policy worry Trump is a more cascading impact of the rejection of any kind of real multilateralism, and I think that looks potentially rather bad indeed. In a way I think that transcends individual policy claims
Harris has never even called him Hitler in public afaik, that would be JD Vance.
It will be a stressful week. He might just scrape it out, but we'll be fine over here. I'm worried for Ukraine.
Rooting for 65%+ turnout again, that seems necessary to beat the electoral college comfortably. Of course he'll claim the win early again because of how the votes are counted, but everybody in their right mind knows that's bullshit.
EPT
