|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 02 2024 12:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:32 WombaT wrote:
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
I haven't made this point in a while, but one reason for where we are today is that rhetoric. In the mind of many GOP voters they picked the most button down, personally well-respected person they could in Romney and the media+dems (but I repeat myself) treated him like a monster. The contempt that Trump tapped into was well, well earned. I would say that if Trump wins I hope dems would learn from that, but I give it 50/50 at best. Can you please elaborate on how the media and Democrats treated Romney like a monster? All I honestly remember was that his quotes about "binders full of women", "corporations are people", and "47% of Americans don't pay taxes but will vote for Obama" (or whatever the exact wordings were) went viral, and were perhaps taken out of context. I assume you're referring to more than just potentially misquoting him, though? Separately: I don't recall many people calling Bush, McCain, or Romney fascist - and they weren't fascist - but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is literally fascist and deserves to be accurately labeled as fascist.
Romney was a rich, out of touch person who fired people with cancer and wanted to take away people's healthcare, for example. Now tbf, you probably don't remember that because that's wrapped up in standard anti-Republican talking points. Any thoughts on Bush? Surely you remember the invective spewed at him, no? In fact I have not a single doubt you participated.
On November 02 2024 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 06:39 Razyda wrote:
On the topic of rhetoric this is tweet from Hilary:
This come across rather ominous from a women who has a running meme: "nobody have 56 friends who committed suicide" What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen. Cheney was *very* pro-life until endorsing Kamala demanded she not be. She got her position because of her name and is now milking it. It will never not be funny though that dems are now touting the endorsement of "war criminal" Dick Cheney and his "neocon" daughter. I loved reading the least few pages about how "oh, well she isn't really THAT bad." Dems have the entire cultural and most of the media apparatus and they are still out there touting Liz Cheney as if she will move votes. Desperation, stupidity, or simple cravenness? Edit: and for the millionth time again, The dems have given skeptical GOP voters NO reason to vote for them, apparently it's not worth an olive branch to stop Hitler 2. Reps who don't like Trump are just supposed to swallow their whole agenda. Harris has made clear that she wants immigration reform, including the passing of a border bill. She also has a variety of economic plans that would benefit everyone, not just Democrats. Small business owners, first-time homeowners, and first-time parents could be Republicans too. Addressing price gouging for groceries and capping medical costs for drugs are also reasons to vote for her. There are plenty of things she promotes that would help Republicans (and everyone else).
This post has a similar problem as your "Biden is so great post." This is looking at it from the perspective of someone already on the left. Additionally, as I have tried to stress here recently, she isn't believable on the things she has "moderated." She was a left-wing senator from California, she was a VP who until she replaced Biden on the ticket, had terrible approval ratings. And she has failed to make the case for herself afterwards. most of the time when she does change position she does it through spokes people (that's infamously how her flip-flopping on fracking happened).
On November 02 2024 12:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." This is just lazy “look what you’re making me do” stuff though. Sure, some people called Bush Hitler. Same for Obama, and Trump, and Biden, and probably every president to come. I never called Bush (Jr. or Sr.) or McCain or Romney fascist. I didn’t jump straight to calling Trump fascist either, even when I thought he was clearly a terrible president, because I don’t think the word would be used as a synonym for “bad.” But he is fascist, he’s ranting about blood poisoning and immigrants hurting the gene pool and pontificating about the wonderful law and order that would be achieved if we just let our police and military do what needs to be done, however ugly or “illegal” it might be. At the end of the day it’s your job as a citizen to figure this shit out for yourself, and if you get that wrong, “yeah well the other side cried wolf before so I didn’t believe them” isn’t a fuckin excuse. It wasn’t their job to stop you from supporting fascists in the first place, it was yours. + Show Spoiler +I mean “you” in the broader rhetorical sense, of course, not necessarily singling you out specifically. Attributing various crimes to “the left” amounts to nothing more than an ambiguous “they,” lazily claiming the moral high ground over somebody (but nobody in particular).
I'm actually claiming the high ground very specifically against everyone who called Bush a fascist, for example. The broader point is that there is nothing a Republican could do to not be called a horrible person. You might say the same about Dems, but just about every mainstream institution has picked a side, explicitly or not. Republicans lost with "decent" men like McCain and Romney, and moreover they were savaged. GOP voters simply stopped taking criticism from these institutions seriously at some point. All this "look how good McCain was!" is a severe case of selective memory.
|
On November 02 2024 14:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:32 WombaT wrote:
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
I haven't made this point in a while, but one reason for where we are today is that rhetoric. In the mind of many GOP voters they picked the most button down, personally well-respected person they could in Romney and the media+dems (but I repeat myself) treated him like a monster. The contempt that Trump tapped into was well, well earned. I would say that if Trump wins I hope dems would learn from that, but I give it 50/50 at best. Can you please elaborate on how the media and Democrats treated Romney like a monster? All I honestly remember was that his quotes about "binders full of women", "corporations are people", and "47% of Americans don't pay taxes but will vote for Obama" (or whatever the exact wordings were) went viral, and were perhaps taken out of context. I assume you're referring to more than just potentially misquoting him, though? Separately: I don't recall many people calling Bush, McCain, or Romney fascist - and they weren't fascist - but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is literally fascist and deserves to be accurately labeled as fascist. Romney was a rich, out of touch person who fired people with cancer and wanted to take away people's healthcare, for example. Now tbf, you probably don't remember that because that's wrapped up in standard anti-Republican talking points. Any thoughts on Bush? Surely you remember the invective spewed at him, no? In fact I have not a single doubt you participated.
9/11 happened when I was in 8th grade. GWB was president during my middle/high school years. I definitely wasn't politically active at the time lol. So... no, I didn't participate in whatever Bush criticism you're referring to. That's why I sincerely asked you what you were talking about.
Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen. Cheney was *very* pro-life until endorsing Kamala demanded she not be. She got her position because of her name and is now milking it. It will never not be funny though that dems are now touting the endorsement of "war criminal" Dick Cheney and his "neocon" daughter. I loved reading the least few pages about how "oh, well she isn't really THAT bad." Dems have the entire cultural and most of the media apparatus and they are still out there touting Liz Cheney as if she will move votes. Desperation, stupidity, or simple cravenness? Edit: and for the millionth time again, The dems have given skeptical GOP voters NO reason to vote for them, apparently it's not worth an olive branch to stop Hitler 2. Reps who don't like Trump are just supposed to swallow their whole agenda. Harris has made clear that she wants immigration reform, including the passing of a border bill. She also has a variety of economic plans that would benefit everyone, not just Democrats. Small business owners, first-time homeowners, and first-time parents could be Republicans too. Addressing price gouging for groceries and capping medical costs for drugs are also reasons to vote for her. There are plenty of things she promotes that would help Republicans (and everyone else). This post has a similar problem as your "Biden is so great post." This is looking at it from the perspective of someone already on the left. Additionally, as I have tried to stress here recently, she isn't believable on the things she has "moderated." She was a left-wing senator from California, she was a VP who until she replaced Biden on the ticket, had terrible approval ratings. And she has failed to make the case for herself afterwards. most of the time when she does change position she does it through spokes people (that's infamously how her flip-flopping on fracking happened).
Why did you change the subject to fracking and the fact that she's from California? You said Harris has given no reasons to vote for her, and I just laid out multiple policy proposals that should resonate with everyone, regardless of their political affiliation. Immigration. Economy. Healthcare. Affordable living and working. If you don't like any of those, for whatever reason, then how about the fact that she's a gun owner who wishes people a merry Christmas? I don't know what you want from her. If she were anti-choice and dedicated to destroying the country, she'd basically be a full-fledged Republican.
|
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.”
|
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. Show nested quote +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.”
Did you know that you can both stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and not be silent about the human suffering occurring in Gaza? One does not preclude the other. That she emphasizes one with a Jewish crowd and another with a Muslim crowd does not mean she's lying. She's just highlighting the part that will play best with each crowd.
|
On November 02 2024 15:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 14:43 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 12:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:32 WombaT wrote:
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
I haven't made this point in a while, but one reason for where we are today is that rhetoric. In the mind of many GOP voters they picked the most button down, personally well-respected person they could in Romney and the media+dems (but I repeat myself) treated him like a monster. The contempt that Trump tapped into was well, well earned. I would say that if Trump wins I hope dems would learn from that, but I give it 50/50 at best. Can you please elaborate on how the media and Democrats treated Romney like a monster? All I honestly remember was that his quotes about "binders full of women", "corporations are people", and "47% of Americans don't pay taxes but will vote for Obama" (or whatever the exact wordings were) went viral, and were perhaps taken out of context. I assume you're referring to more than just potentially misquoting him, though? Separately: I don't recall many people calling Bush, McCain, or Romney fascist - and they weren't fascist - but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is literally fascist and deserves to be accurately labeled as fascist. Romney was a rich, out of touch person who fired people with cancer and wanted to take away people's healthcare, for example. Now tbf, you probably don't remember that because that's wrapped up in standard anti-Republican talking points. Any thoughts on Bush? Surely you remember the invective spewed at him, no? In fact I have not a single doubt you participated. 9/11 happened when I was in 8th grade. GWB was president during my middle/high school years. I definitely wasn't politically active at the time lol. So... no, I didn't participate in whatever Bush criticism you're referring to. That's why I sincerely asked you what you were talking about. Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear?
Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again"
Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen. Cheney was *very* pro-life until endorsing Kamala demanded she not be. She got her position because of her name and is now milking it. It will never not be funny though that dems are now touting the endorsement of "war criminal" Dick Cheney and his "neocon" daughter. I loved reading the least few pages about how "oh, well she isn't really THAT bad." Dems have the entire cultural and most of the media apparatus and they are still out there touting Liz Cheney as if she will move votes. Desperation, stupidity, or simple cravenness? Edit: and for the millionth time again, The dems have given skeptical GOP voters NO reason to vote for them, apparently it's not worth an olive branch to stop Hitler 2. Reps who don't like Trump are just supposed to swallow their whole agenda. Harris has made clear that she wants immigration reform, including the passing of a border bill. She also has a variety of economic plans that would benefit everyone, not just Democrats. Small business owners, first-time homeowners, and first-time parents could be Republicans too. Addressing price gouging for groceries and capping medical costs for drugs are also reasons to vote for her. There are plenty of things she promotes that would help Republicans (and everyone else). This post has a similar problem as your "Biden is so great post." This is looking at it from the perspective of someone already on the left. Additionally, as I have tried to stress here recently, she isn't believable on the things she has "moderated." She was a left-wing senator from California, she was a VP who until she replaced Biden on the ticket, had terrible approval ratings. And she has failed to make the case for herself afterwards. most of the time when she does change position she does it through spokes people (that's infamously how her flip-flopping on fracking happened). Why did you change the subject to fracking and the fact that she's from California? You said Harris has given no reasons to vote for her, and I just laid out multiple policy proposals that should resonate with everyone, regardless of their political affiliation. Immigration. Economy. Healthcare. Affordable living and working. If you don't like any of those, for whatever reason, then how about the fact that she's a gun owner who wishes people a merry Christmas? I don't know what you want from her. If she were anti-choice and dedicated to destroying the country, she'd basically be a full-fledged Republican.
Fair enough on your age, though people didn't just stop talking about Bush. Still, I almost want to see Bush endorse her just so I can laugh, one of the worst presidents ever (dems would say) and his scheming VP stumping for Harris!
"Immigration. Economy. Healthcare. Affordable living and working."
Surely you can see the problem here. Trump is running on those things too! You can't just say "I want everyone to have agood job" and act like you've done something! People know she supports things like college loan bailouts or abortion without limits, etc etc. You are assuming the goodness, if you will, of her plans. She took forever to lay out policy proposals and she's not running on that, despite your assertions in this thread. She's running on Trump, and I have explained before why that was a bad strategy.
I'll put it this way, you like what she says and how she's campaigning because it days things you like, not things that other people like. The problem is, you were already voting for her anyways, so that's not really helping
|
On November 02 2024 14:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." This is just lazy “look what you’re making me do” stuff though. Sure, some people called Bush Hitler. Same for Obama, and Trump, and Biden, and probably every president to come. I never called Bush (Jr. or Sr.) or McCain or Romney fascist. I didn’t jump straight to calling Trump fascist either, even when I thought he was clearly a terrible president, because I don’t think the word would be used as a synonym for “bad.” But he is fascist, he’s ranting about blood poisoning and immigrants hurting the gene pool and pontificating about the wonderful law and order that would be achieved if we just let our police and military do what needs to be done, however ugly or “illegal” it might be. At the end of the day it’s your job as a citizen to figure this shit out for yourself, and if you get that wrong, “yeah well the other side cried wolf before so I didn’t believe them” isn’t a fuckin excuse. It wasn’t their job to stop you from supporting fascists in the first place, it was yours. + Show Spoiler +I mean “you” in the broader rhetorical sense, of course, not necessarily singling you out specifically. Attributing various crimes to “the left” amounts to nothing more than an ambiguous “they,” lazily claiming the moral high ground over somebody (but nobody in particular). I'm actually claiming the high ground very specifically against everyone who called Bush a fascist, for example. The broader point is that there is nothing a Republican could do to not be called a horrible person. You might say the same about Dems, but just about every mainstream institution has picked a side, explicitly or not. Republicans lost with "decent" men like McCain and Romney, and moreover they were savaged. GOP voters simply stopped taking criticism from these institutions seriously at some point. All this "look how good McCain was!" is a severe case of selective memory.
The first time I recognized the ambiguous "they" was a post on Tumblr a decade or so ago. I might not remember the wording exactly, but it was something like "if a girl likes to go out and party, they get mad at her. If she likes to stay in and read, they get mad at her. If she likes to have a lot of sex, they get mad at her. If she doesn't have enough sex, they get mad at her. What's a girl allowed to like, air? Water?"
It's cute, right? And at first, it seems to be identifying a hypocrisy on the part of the girl's critics. But that would only arguably apply if it were the same critics actually making all the hypothetical criticisms. If it's different people saying the different things, all you're actually proving is "it's not possible to please everyone," which framed that way, is a much less interesting or outrage-inducing observation.
Similarly, the fact that someone is going to call every president Hitler at some point is neither here nor there. It's true that, as you say, there is nothing a Republican could do to not be called a horrible person but to that I would have to ask what kind of unhealthy compulsion is it to need to not be criticized by anyone ever? I mean, this whole system is built on having an opposition party, isn't there? If you rephrase that as there is nothing a politician could do to not have an opposition party that opposes them the answer would surely be yeah, I hope there isn't! I don't want to live in a one-party state, do you?
We have a right (for the moment, anyway) to criticize our leaders (even to criticize them unfairly!) and it doesn't justify fascism. We have a word, you know, for people that get so fed up with society's moral judgments and decide to support fascism. The word is fascists, those people are fascists, and they should be opposed regardless of whether they arrived at their position based on race science or just grievances about how unfairly Mitt Romney has been treated.
|
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. Show nested quote +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.
|
Northern Ireland23383 Posts
On November 02 2024 12:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 11:32 WombaT wrote:
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
I haven't made this point in a while, but one reason for where we are today is that rhetoric. In the mind of many GOP voters they picked the most button down, personally well-respected person they could in Romney and the media+dems (but I repeat myself) treated him like a monster. The contempt that Trump tapped into was well, well earned. I would say that if Trump wins I hope dems would learn from that, but I give it 50/50 at best. Can you please elaborate on how the media and Democrats treated Romney like a monster? All I honestly remember was that his quotes about "binders full of women", "corporations are people", and "47% of Americans don't pay taxes but will vote for Obama" (or whatever the exact wordings were) went viral, and were perhaps taken out of context. I assume you're referring to more than just potentially misquoting him, though? Separately: I don't recall many people calling Bush, McCain, or Romney fascist - and they weren't fascist - but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is literally fascist and deserves to be accurately labeled as fascist.
I think it’s a reasonable enough observation of Introvert’s, going off memory as to what the mood was around that time. Certainly not as vitriolic as the pushback Trump gets, and rightly gets.
But I do think there’s something of a yearning for a period of more civilised politics, that was better but not all that civil really.
More so Bush than McCain or Romney. Not so much in corporate or ‘mainstream media’, but it was pretty spicy on your Reddit or old Reddit equivalents at times where regular punters were talking shop. I think one perhaps had to be there and somewhat immersed in the tenor of the time, so it’s a bit of a ‘trust me bro’ there
Also, does it even have to be all that civil? You’re talking ideologies and decision makers that will operate in literal life-or-death domains.
On November 02 2024 16:17 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 14:43 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 12:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." This is just lazy “look what you’re making me do” stuff though. Sure, some people called Bush Hitler. Same for Obama, and Trump, and Biden, and probably every president to come. I never called Bush (Jr. or Sr.) or McCain or Romney fascist. I didn’t jump straight to calling Trump fascist either, even when I thought he was clearly a terrible president, because I don’t think the word would be used as a synonym for “bad.” But he is fascist, he’s ranting about blood poisoning and immigrants hurting the gene pool and pontificating about the wonderful law and order that would be achieved if we just let our police and military do what needs to be done, however ugly or “illegal” it might be. At the end of the day it’s your job as a citizen to figure this shit out for yourself, and if you get that wrong, “yeah well the other side cried wolf before so I didn’t believe them” isn’t a fuckin excuse. It wasn’t their job to stop you from supporting fascists in the first place, it was yours. + Show Spoiler +I mean “you” in the broader rhetorical sense, of course, not necessarily singling you out specifically. Attributing various crimes to “the left” amounts to nothing more than an ambiguous “they,” lazily claiming the moral high ground over somebody (but nobody in particular). I'm actually claiming the high ground very specifically against everyone who called Bush a fascist, for example. The broader point is that there is nothing a Republican could do to not be called a horrible person. You might say the same about Dems, but just about every mainstream institution has picked a side, explicitly or not. Republicans lost with "decent" men like McCain and Romney, and moreover they were savaged. GOP voters simply stopped taking criticism from these institutions seriously at some point. All this "look how good McCain was!" is a severe case of selective memory. The first time I recognized the ambiguous "they" was a post on Tumblr a decade or so ago. I might not remember the wording exactly, but it was something like "if a girl likes to go out and party, they get mad at her. If she likes to stay in and read, they get mad at her. If she likes to have a lot of sex, they get mad at her. If she doesn't have enough sex, they get mad at her. What's a girl allowed to like, air? Water?" It's cute, right? And at first, it seems to be identifying a hypocrisy on the part of the girl's critics. But that would only arguably apply if it were the same critics actually making all the hypothetical criticisms. If it's different people saying the different things, all you're actually proving is "it's not possible to please everyone," which framed that way, is a much less interesting or outrage-inducing observation. Similarly, the fact that someone is going to call every president Hitler at some point is neither here nor there. It's true that, as you say, but to that I would have to ask what kind of unhealthy compulsion is it to need to not be criticized by anyone ever? I mean, this whole system is built on having an opposition party, isn't there? If you rephrase that as Show nested quote +there is nothing a politician could do to not have an opposition party that opposes them the answer would surely be yeah, I hope there isn't! I don't want to live in a one-party state, do you? We have a right (for the moment, anyway) to criticize our leaders (even to criticize them unfairly!) and it doesn't justify fascism. We have a word, you know, for people that get so fed up with society's moral judgments and decide to support fascism. The word is fascists, those people are fascists, and they should be opposed regardless of whether they arrived at their position based on race science or just grievances about how unfairly Mitt Romney has been treated.
Excellent point on the ambiguous ‘they’, truly one of the more irritating phenomena of modern political and cultural discourse. Hey, it can be useful shorthand for widely understood trends, at times but mostly not.
And yes, if one’s threshold to willingly voting for Fascist types is being previously erroneously called one or whatever, I mean were you ever far from being one to begin with? ‘Hey I’ll show you I’m not one of those Fascists by voting for some!’ It doesn’t really make much sense
I’m not sure Trump is ideologically driven enough for me to personally use that label, although there’s plenty of overlap. Certainly I can see many trailing in his political wake being of that persuasion. He’s got the rhetoric, knows how to play the classic standards, but I’m just not sure he really gives a shit enough to do anything beyond blatant self-aggrandisement.
Not particularly wanting invoke a certain Austrian bloke, because then it becomes ‘Trump isn’t a Fascist because he’s not literally Hitler, even though you didn’t actually compare him to Hitler’, but I don’t think one could reasonably argue that Hitler didn’t have strong beliefs over and above his own advancement and acted in accordance with them.
Hey, I’d personally prefer not to have my intuition here be anything other than a hypothetical, so here’s hoping.
|
On November 02 2024 12:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 11:32 WombaT wrote:
To clarify, my talk of near unanimity on Trump, but otherwise divergence of opinion was specifically about the denizens of this particular thread.
One I gather more of my news/discussion quota than I probably should from, but I find many other forum-type entities to be utterly intolerable, even when I’m amongst my theoretical fellow travellers.
Think it’s a pretty fair point on auld Dubya and more regular Republican politicians. I was still quite a formative Wombat in those days, especially politically but I do definitely recall a certain amount of animus and vitriol, absolutely cannae deny that.
On the flip side, quite a lot of that was just old-fashioned political/ideology disagreement, even if expressed rather nastily at times. With Trump, I feel it transcends that in other ways.
I’ll chat to my dad’s side of my family, of his generation and up (sadly a bit thinner on the ground these days) about Thatcher and well, that lot are ‘old’ Labour lefties. Not too many kind words there, but it’s really Thatcherism they’re actually contemptuous of.
Certainly an opinion I share, but I must say I quite admire Thatcher as an individual in the abstract.
There may be a more commonly accepted moral to the auld boy who cried wolf tale, but the secondary takeaway is that there actually be wolves. Hey ya fucked up before with that yarn you told about a wolf but hm, a wolf did come along and munched on your flesh.
I haven't made this point in a while, but one reason for where we are today is that rhetoric. In the mind of many GOP voters they picked the most button down, personally well-respected person they could in Romney and the media+dems (but I repeat myself) treated him like a monster. The contempt that Trump tapped into was well, well earned. I would say that if Trump wins I hope dems would learn from that, but I give it 50/50 at best. Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:On November 02 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:On November 02 2024 08:14 WombaT wrote:On November 02 2024 07:58 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 02 2024 07:05 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2024 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What are you saying? That Hillary Clinton is suggesting we murder Trump on Election Day instead of vote for Harris on Election Day? What part of "This come across rather ominous" is unclear? Also, how voting for Harris is gonna cause that you dont have to think of Trump "ever again" Please answer my question; don't just reply with more questions. What do you think Hillary Clinton is saying with this post? I did, didn't I? I highlighted part of my post which answers your question. I didn't say Hilary is calling to murder Trump, I said it sounds ominous. If I said to oBlade you wont have to worry about DPB ever again you would be like "WTF?" and rightly so. Moreso if Trump said, vote for me and you wont have to worry about Kamala "ever again", you would be up in arms saying that Trump said he is going to get her executed. That was kind of a point of my post. When Trump says army can be used against radical leftist you guys say: he says he is going to use army for people who dont vote for him.When Democrat says, it would be great to not have to think about Trump ever again, she meant "vote for Harris" Yes, people can reasonably interpret Trump in that manner and he’s only himself to blame for that. He frequently uses the phrase ‘radical left’ to refer to anybody seemingly remotely left of centre, if he didn’t do that, hey people wouldn’t (mis)interpret him This feels stretching ‘both sidesism’ really, really far. I don't necessarily blame you for this but the whole thing is just absurd, espeically since we are currently living through "The Madison Square Garden rally was a like a Nazi rally" portion of our month. And don't forget how the left was calling GWB every name under the sun before, including, amusingly, Hitler and fascist. The reason anybody not a hardcore partisan democrat yawns isn't even entirely because Trump just says crazy crap all the time, it's because to the left and dems every Republican is slouching towards fascism. They are also retconning how they treated Romney and McCain too. It wouldn't surprise me if one reason Romney and Bush haven't endorsed Harris is because A) maybe they actually have principles, unlike Liz Cheney, but also B) because they remember how THEY were treated. Classic boy cries wolf. And of course the counter to that is "but wolves are real" to which the reply is "well then stop making crap up." Liz Cheney betrayed Trump precisely because she has principles. He trampled on what she believes in so bad that she went to support Harris, someone who she previously considered her enemy. When former enemies become allies over a common enemy, one ought to listen. Cheney was *very* pro-life until endorsing Kamala demanded she not be. She got her position because of her name and is now milking it. It will never not be funny though that dems are now touting the endorsement of "war criminal" Dick Cheney and his "neocon" daughter. I loved reading the least few pages about how "oh, well she isn't really THAT bad." Dems have the entire cultural and most of the media apparatus and they are still out there touting Liz Cheney as if she will move votes. Desperation, stupidity, or simple cravenness? Edit: and for the millionth time again, The dems have given skeptical GOP voters NO reason to vote for them, apparently it's not worth an olive branch to stop Hitler 2. Reps who don't like Trump are just supposed to swallow their whole agenda.
I don't fully endorse Harris myself either, but if I had to campaign for her I would do it in a heartbeat. In fact that's basically what I'm doing right now.
What I hate the most about Harris: her support of genocide in Palestine. LITERAL genocide, my friend. Feel free to disagree, tell me it's not a genocide, that's not the point. I DO believe she's supporting genocide and yet I support her, that's the point. Why do I support her? Is it because I support genocide? NO! It's because Trump is ten times worse than she is! He's worse than someone who supports genocide!!
That doesn't make me unprincipled, all it means is that I'm a non-believer in the GH strategy. I think it's a huge mistake to let Trump into office, therefore I'm willing to ignore ONE of my principles to make sure that ALL of Trump's policies can be prevented.
If you don't understand how that works then you'll never understand what it means to be a principled person. Reality dictates the optimal strategy. Principles can only guide us so far. Reality will never be perfect.
|
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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
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. I'd go from opposing Trump to supporting him 100%. I'd look at Harris like she's literally a spawn of Satan.
If Trump said this in public, I'd look at every Harris supporter like they're batshit insane.
But unfortunately Trump supports the genocide in Gaza even harder than Harris does. He's all in favor of it. He's extremely hateful of Palestinians. At least Harris tries to give a shit about them.
Just this one statement alone would flip my support. That's how terrible I think Harris is. But I support her despite hating her. That's how much worse Trump is.
|
United States24513 Posts
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 would just disregard what he said, because I trust him 0% to be truthful.
|
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. I'd go from opposing Trump to supporting him 100%. I'd look at Harris like she's literally a spawn of Satan.
If Trump said this in public, I'd look at every Harris supporter like they're batshit insane.
But unfortunately Trump supports the genocide in Gaza even harder than Harris does. He's all in favor of it. He's extremely hateful of Palestinians. At least Harris tries to give a shit about them.
Just this one statement alone would flip my support. That's how terrible I think Harris is. But I support her despite hating her. That's how much worse Trump is.
It really says something when you have spent pages discussing how Trump is Hitler and then say you would automatically flip your support if he simply said that he won't support the Jews. I really hope this means you don't actually think Trump is like Hitler.
|
On November 02 2024 21:19 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah, valid. I actually thought of that rebuttal but I didn't think of addressing it ahead of time, as I don't wanna post an essay every single time.
|
On November 02 2024 21:49 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +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. I'd go from opposing Trump to supporting him 100%. I'd look at Harris like she's literally a spawn of Satan.
If Trump said this in public, I'd look at every Harris supporter like they're batshit insane.
But unfortunately Trump supports the genocide in Gaza even harder than Harris does. He's all in favor of it. He's extremely hateful of Palestinians. At least Harris tries to give a shit about them.
Just this one statement alone would flip my support. That's how terrible I think Harris is. But I support her despite hating her. That's how much worse Trump is. It really says something when you have spent pages discussing how Trump is Hitler and then say you would automatically flip your support if he simply said that he won't support the Jews. I really hope this means you don't actually think Trump is like Hitler.
Don't even try, Jimmi.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 02 2024 21:19 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 02 2024 19:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 02 2024 22:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2024 19:07 Gorsameth wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
