'This is ethnic cleansing': Trump faces backlash over Gaza proposal
'This is ethnic cleansing': Trump faces backlash over Gaza proposal
'You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing,' US president said of Palestinian enclave
You're viewing a single thread.
I guess all the “Genocide Joe” commenters aren’t getting paid to skew the election anymore, so they won’t be here to comment.
I haven't seen "Genocide Don" yet. Funny that.
Isn't Trump's middle name James? Genocide James works. And you could Photoshop him trying to look cool, like dark Brandon. But obviously just sad like some 60 year old trying to look cool at the barbeque and failing miserably, but even worse because he's older... And trump.
It's John (which also happens to be a pseudonym he's used). You could say "Genocide John," but nobody would know who you're talking about.
That's because Trump only just got in and hasn't (yet) done anything close to what Biden did in terms of genocide
They're still around unfortunately, but they are fewer in number.
Just check the downvote total to see how many accounts are still here.
The bots left, we're left with the dumbasses who believed them.
Bro did you see that articicle about the x whistleblower and how elon influenced the election
I hadn't; any source, by chance (or summarization, if not)?
There are a few stragglers around still. And just as sanctimonious with their tiresome and reckless high-flying rhetoric about how principled they are....
sigh.
Or, and this is crazy, Biden could have earned more votes for the DNC by using the Leahy Law and requiring Israel to stop committing war crimes if they wanted to continue to receive military aid.
Almost like it's the responsibility of parties and politicians to earn votes in a democratic system. Not the duty of voters to vote for the "correct" party, which is what you see codified in Authoritarian governments. The writers of our Constitution specifically said the reason for having elections so often was to make sure politicians were responsible to the people, not the other way around.
So the more you try to blame the voters, the more you make them not want to vote blue.
Genocide Joe. Genocide Trump. Feel better? I dont.
Hi I am here. I called Biden "Genocide Joe" because frankly that is an accurate label.
I am here commenting that I already have and will continue to shit on Trump for being a genocidal bigot.
Now can you proceed to take your foot out of your mouth?
I'm right here. Trump is gearing up to act as genocidal as Biden was but he's not there yet
Most of the genocide Joe commenters were russian bots. Those left were fooled by them.
BlueAnon in full force
I'm here. Biden is a genocidal monster, and nothing Trump can do will change that fact.
.ml user with a braindead take? yeah, that checks out.
So you don't think Biden was complicit in the genocide? The one he funded?
The fact that you place the entire weight of 80 years of US Israeli policy on its most reluctant participant demonstrates your agenda. If Trump was in office on Oct. 7, there would be no palestinian territories anymore. They'd be under the Israeli flag and stained with the blood of American soldiers.
The fact that you place the entire weight of 80 years of US Israeli policy
No, I just place the weight of the Commander in Chief refusing to abide by US law, and ending arms shipments to a genocidal rouge nuclear state, and preventing the UN from holding the genocidal rogue nuclear state to account.
The fact that you place the entire weight of 80 years of US Israeli policy on its most reluctant participant
Biden was not reluctant in the slightest and neither are you.
So much for the rational bit of your username.
Though, I guess you can be rational and wrong if you start from false premises.
Biden, and any other American president, can end Israeli wars with a single phone call.
Reagan did it.
Bush did it.
Clinton did it.
In fact, the Israeli military systematically doesn't know how to end wars because they've never had to do it. America has always ended their wars.
It's literally an aspect of their political ideology:
'Oh our party can't be blamed for the war goals not being accomplished. We had to stop because America'
You're either so horrifically ignorant of recent history (my still living father is older than the state of Israel) that any opinion you spout can be tossed out (no matter how rational), or you know this and are trying to actively provide cover for a president who was happy with the slaughter of mostly children.
Which is it?
Edit: and to be exact, it's 77 years. And the US wasn't exactly friendly at the start due to the perceived communist sympathies of the young state. You know, the whole cold war thing? You may have heard of it?
Reagan started the 3 billion in military aid to Israel and the other two you mentioned continued it. And this is the very thing Biden is criticized for.
You say they ended wars with phone calls, without specifically saying what you're referring to. But I can guess the following two things are true of Reagan, Bush, and Clinton: 1) they weren't dealing with Netanyahu, and 2) they weren't dealing with Hamas. Netanyahu was clearly not interested in ending the war until his buddy Trump was president, so there never was an option to bring "peace with a phone call". Biden held back weapons to Israel, taking flak from how own party to do so - did any of his predecessors?
I'm not here to say Biden did enough, but you guys and the pro Israel side have something in common - you have a particular hate for Biden.
...
Really?
That is your response?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Reagan+Israel+war
There is nothing rational about you. It's impossible to be rational with absolutely no historical knowledge.
It doesn't matter who the leader of Israel is. Israel isn't a real country. It doesn't exist without continuous US funding. In fact, a third of ALL U.S. foreign aid has gone to Israel. Without free cash from the US, Israel goes bankrupt. Without free weapons from America, Israel goes bankrupt.
Any American president, at any time, can end any Israeli war with a phone call. That is, in fact, how all Israeli wars have ended. It's actually hurt Israel because they don't know how to set achievable war goals. Instead their wars end when America demands they do.
This is also the same deal Hamas had accepted since may. You mention them like they have been an impediment to the peace negotiations.
Biden held back one shipment of 2,000 lb bombs. A weapon that our military doctrine doesn't allow us to use near population centers due to the likelihood of civilian casualties, and Israel wanted to drop them in one of the most densely populated places on earth.
Note that I said one shipment. We did provide them other shipments of 2000 lb. The only reason he held up that one shipment was to earn the respect of the utterly, foolishly gullible. Of course, he was required by the Leahy Law to stop all shipments to Israel.
Assuming good faith, which is a stretch at this point, you are utterly and completely ignorant of this topic.
Yeah, I have a hate-on for any worthless fucks that commit genocide. And when you have the power to end it, and don't, then you are responsible for it.
Now, before you complain about me not providing links, spend 5 seconds trying to educate yourself by using Google. I'm not going to provide links proving the sky is blue, either. Some things you are responsible for finding out yourself.
I don't have a duty to google to find sources that you won't provide, nor guess at what your point is. I don't actually have access to the thoughts in your head beyond what you have written.
There is nothing rational about you. It’s impossible to be rational with absolutely no historical knowledge.
Ad hominem, ignored. If my arguments are irrational, feel free to point out how.
It doesn’t matter who the leader of Israel is... Any American president, at any time, can end any Israeli war with a phone call.
I'll summarize this point by saying you're arguing in essence that if Biden demanded an end to the war, it would end because Israel would run out of weapons. This leaves out several other possibilities, the most notable of which is that Democrats are voted out by (usually democratic-voting) jews and Trump takes office and gives Israel whatever they want. Another possibility is Israel allying with Russia or China to get the weapons they need. Either way, the war continues. I happen to think Biden should've cut them off anyway, but the point I'm arguing is that every other president would've done no more than Biden did. To think otherwise is really a rather far left view that has never been popular is US politics.
Biden held back one shipment of 2,000 lb bombs
I don't know the details of what Biden did and didn't pause, this article seems to include more bombs and Trump's actions ending the pause seems to suggest that it was an ongoing pause of all shipments. But that's besides the point. The point is, I'm not aware of any other president doing that. I'm also aware of the current president undoing that pause, with little opposition. Which demonstrates how politically suicidal it is to cut off Israel entirely.
And when you have the power to end it, and don’t, then you are responsible for it.
If. The voters used their power to put Trump in office after he was quite clear about wanting Netanyahu to do whatever he wants in Gaza and even the West Bank. I think that says a lot about Biden's abilities. I think Palestinians and their activist "friends" need to ask themselves some hard questions about how they fumbled winning popular support for ending a genocide.
Now, before you complain about me not providing links, spend 5 seconds trying to educate yourself by using Google.
I completely reject this as impractical and harmful to discussions everywhere. If something is not common knowledge and can be doubted, you need to provide a source. Think about it. The alternative is that I am left to either 1) Trust some random person on the internet or 2) do the work myself to find out, which in your case also involves trying to figure out what you're even trying to say first, or 3) just assert the opposite without providing a source is response. Most people choose 1) if it's someone they already agree with, and 3) if it's someone they disagree with. This is why we have so many culty filter bubbles. Cite your sources. Not only for me, but also for you so you can verify that your memory is correct, and end up making a better point as a result.
I don’t have a duty to google to find sources that you won’t provide, nor guess at what your point is. I don’t actually have access to the thoughts in your head beyond what you have written.
Apparently not even to click a link. Did you click it? Or did you just get offended at the "Let me google that for you" method? This is literally the top link: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-to-attacks-in-a-blunt-telephone-call-to-begin.html
I’ll summarize this point by saying you’re arguing in essence that if Biden demanded an end to the war, it would end because Israel would run out of weapons. This leaves out several other possibilities, the most notable of which is that Democrats are voted out by (usually democratic-voting) jews and Trump takes office and gives Israel whatever they want.
https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling
This is wrong.
To think otherwise is really a rather far left view that has never been popular is US politics.
Far left.... Like Reagan? Again, I provided you the link, did you even click it? This isn't rational.
Another possibility is Israel allying with Russia or China to get the weapons they need. Either way, the war continues. I happen to think Biden should’ve cut them off anyway, but the point I’m arguing is that every other president would’ve done no more than Biden did.
LOL. How to say you know nothing about geopolitics without saying you know nothing about geopolitics.
Countries are not fungible. Other countries have different views and different alliances than our country does.
Again, countries are not fungible.
Furthermore, you are ignoring how much fucking money we give them.
If. The voters used their power to put Trump in office after he was quite clear about wanting Netanyahu to do whatever he wants in Gaza and even the West Bank. I think that says a lot about Biden’s abilities.
Not if. I provided you link, you just took offense at the format and didn't follow through.
I completely reject this as impractical and harmful to discussions everywhere. If something is not common knowledge and can be doubted, you need to provide a source. Think about it. The alternative is that I am left to either 1) Trust some random person on the internet or 2) do the work myself to find out, which in your case also involves trying to figure out what you’re even trying to say first, or 3) just assert the opposite without providing a source is response. Most people choose 1) if it’s someone they already agree with, and 3) if it’s someone they disagree with. This is why we have so many culty filter bubbles. Cite your sources. Not only for me, but also for you so you can verify that your memory is correct, and end up making a better point as a result.
It's funny how this doesn't apply to your (wrong) assertions that justify your (wrong) viewpoint.
Go justify your favorite presidents genocide somewhere else.
You do have a responsibility to have some understanding of the topic you're commenting on. It's not other peoples responsibility to teach you. Especially when you refuse to actually follow links or read things.
This is literally the top link
Yes, but here's the problem: I don't know you were referring to the top link, nor would it make sense for me to assume that you were. After all, the top link refers to a phone call Reagan made 1) to a different Israeli president 2) in a different war 3) against an entirely different group 4) in which the lengthy article, from what I can tell, doesn't actually specify that the call had any particular effect. Of course, in reality Israel's attack on Lebanon continued for a month and a half after this article was published. Nowhere does it specify that Reagan took the step of cutting off any weapons whatsoever, as Biden did. So it would actually be the height of irrationality for me to assume this was support for your point, as it doesn't support it at all.
To reiterate, my point is that Biden had reason to presume that in some alternate universe (that doesn't actually exist and cannot be polled today) if he had cut off aid to Israel it would've alienated Jewish voters and lost the election. The poll you provided not only cannot relate to that point, but it doesn't even include option for insufficient support for Israel. But I do know both from my own discussions with Jewish voters and articles like this one that "weakness against Hamas" drove many pro-Israel jews to support Trump this election. It was a lose-lose situation. Y'all could've helped garner a bit of sympathy by maybe not chanting edgy slogans that are designed to sound scary, and skipping the spraypainting of neighborhoods and late night loud camping events on campuses. Of course Hamas could've also helped by not filming themselves murdering white teenagers just trying to have a party. That's who the blame for the failure to stop Israel really lies with.
LOL. How to say you know nothing about geopolitics without saying you know nothing about geopolitics.
Well then neither does Netanyahu, who had been quite openly friendly with Putin up until the Hamas attacks and China thereafter.
It’s not other peoples responsibility to teach you.
It actually is though. I'm not demanding to be taught, you're the one who volunteered to teach me. You can't then assign me homework. Any business owner will tell you that if you want your bill to be paid, you should make it easy to be paid - provide many forms of payment, send an envelope, etc. Likewise, if you want to be heard, make it easy to listen.
If Trump was in office on Oct. 7
But he wasn't, Biden was, and Biden made the choice to back Israel in its genocide to the hilt.
Its braindead to not support a genocider?
Yeah, you can't get away with critising Dear Leader Biden on .world
And yet, here you are doing just that.
Now, let’s all take a moment and quietly imagine what would happen if someone should go to .ml and call out Putin for being a sad little coward that can’t take criticism without windowing someone to death…
call out Putin for being a sad little coward that can’t take criticism without windowing someone to death…
I do not think that would be an issue. Its not like Putin is even pretending to be a leftist, nor has he ever.
Seriously? The admin there refuses to answer when asked if they support Russia. And check the modlogs. They hand out vague “rule 1” violations that are critical of communism sometimes several times a day.
.ml isn’t just a safe haven for leftist trolls.
are critical of communism sometimes several times a day.
Criticizing communism isn't criticizing Putin, who is not a communist.
I've had posts criticizing capitalism be removed from .world... So, obviously, they hate the US, right?
Still not hearing any trump criticism from ya...
Still not hearing any trump criticism from ya…
Criticize him for supporting a genocide in Israel? Last I heard from the neoliberals, that's just a practical necessity, and we cannot blame Trump for 77 years of US-Israeli policy...
Brutal. Savage. Reckt.
And I'm not hearing any criticism of Putin, Leobold II, Pol Pot, or Charles Manson from you. What's you point?
Yup, more diversion. No one wants to engage with your bad faith arguments.
removed, you were the one who made the bad faith argument first. Don't like your own medicine?
I refused to engage with you. The person originally calling you out was 100% right. You're pushing a hidden agenda and no one should do anything other then make fun of you.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
Woah. What's it called when you can't tell sarcasm and serious apart? Godwinned?
The .ml troll that got banned, are they serious or are they playing? That went 0 to nazi in the fewest steps I think I've ever seen.
What are you talking about?
Your removed post at the same level in this chain. You called the guy you were slapfighting with a nazi and there was a Hitler comparison as well.
I can't tell if you actually believe that, are just trolling, or are muddying the waters to control the narrative.
Well he accused me of being a Trump supporter because he didn't see me criticize Trump, so I pointed out that I didn't see him criticize Hitler...
Huh. So how would you describe yourself politically? Are there governments you approve of?
I'm a Marxist/Leftist. There's no governments that I'd hold up as perfect ideals, but I'm fairly supportive of existing marxist aligned governments (well, not so much DPRK, but I also recognized the historical reason it's like that). I'm also relatively supportive of soc-dem governments that actually make some effort to follow their principles, like New Zealand or Ireland.
Good, keep making yourself known so we know who to ignore.
You will ignore someone for calling a genocider a genocider?
Ok.
Block me then
"hmm, funny how all the people criticizing genocide Joe disappeared"
"No we didn't, are right here"
"Blocked"
Block me dumbass
Nah.
I only started using the term after the election, I wish I was paid. It's crazy how I'm expected to shut up about it for the next 4 years. Apparently, asking the dems to change their stance on genocide of everything is too much and everyone would rather stick their head in the sand. The moment someone enables it just a bit more then them, they get none of the blame and we get to wait through 4 years of shit just for them to give us literally the same stance.
Both parties enable it and are complicit. Defending either on the subject is clear bootlicking imo.
No one is defending either on the subject. We are simply stating that one is WORSE than the other by an order of magnitude. Honestly, how can you not see that?
It's not just that he's much worse it's that some people somehow expected him to be better?!?
I don't think anyone realistically thought he'd be "better", unless you count the scum who consider "More dying" to be "better".
I've seen multiple videos of people walking around interviewing people that voted for him and asking why. Lots of them stated that Biden arming Israel against Gaza was a major concern for them. None of the interviewers dug into what they hoped would change but it was clear they expected Trump to improve the situation for the people of Gaza. Now I've got no idea why they thought that - I certainly never saw anything to make me think that - but lots of people seemed have got that message.
nice anecdote, it decisively proves the argument
Isn't there a word for a repeatable anecdote?
I dunno, like those chain letters that warn you that some bad completely unrelated thing will befall you if you don't participate in a silly fantasy and pass the letter on to others?
Yeah...what is that called I actually am curious.
Not only that, but if you took them at their word, that donvict and Kamala would have been the eXaCtSaMe on Gaza, then that issue is cancelled out and you have to weigh all the other policy positions, and even then, it is clear that donvict is a TERRIBLE choice compared to Kamala.
They have no excuse. None.
Not only that, but if you took them at their word, that donvict and Kamala would have been the eXaCtSaMe on Gaza, then that issue is cancelled out
Not true.
You can refuse to support both of them because they are both evil, and you morally should not support evil. Even if one evil person will put more money in your pocket, or if one person will smile at you while your rights are being eroded while telling you nothing is wrong.
This is like choosing to do nothing in the trolley problem because you disagree with the notion of taking part in something that will kill people. Congratulations on keeping your hands clean while failing to prevent avoidable deaths. I hope your sense of moral vanity is satisfied.
This is like choosing to do nothing in the trolley problem because you disagree with the notion of taking part in something that will kill people.
Nah, it's rejecting the entire scenario as being made up. Why not fucking stop the trolley?!?!? Its our foot on the throttle making it run people over!!
You "rejected the scenario" but didn't actually stop the trolley, and now it's crushing people. Brilliant fucking job there with your out of the box thinking!
So, why don't you help me stop the trolley from killing anyone, instead of blaming me that you keep mashing down the throttle?
That is a great explanation of how I feel too.
Here's my excuse: I'm not American, and I'm not going to refrain from criticising a genocidal monster just because Americans treat their political parties like sportsteams.
I see a lot of people actively defending Biden in this very thread
His comment implies anyone speaking disfavorably about the dems stance on genocide is somehow a paid shill.
Read the rest of the comments. It's always the same thing. The dems lost because the voters got manipulated into thinking genocide was something to draw a line over. Well it fucking was. I still think not voting and voting for Trump of all people is massively stupid but I hate the message we are sending.
Trump isn't worse, he's the same on it. We shouldn't be calling them anything other then Genocide Joe and Genocide Trump. Biden did a lot of good but his whole legacy is not breaking with genocide.
We have 4 years to exert pressure and make sure the next candidate isn't a mossad and wallstreet plant. Instead we are infighting like peasants and trying are hardest to not hold the politicians who are suppose to represent us accountable.
Biden did a lot of good but his whole legacy is not breaking with genocide.
Now Trump has already undone most of that good, has 4 more years to cause damage, and the genocide that you "drew a line over" hasn't stopped. Nice job.
I voted strategically but I shouldnt have to do it while gritting my teeth. They offered nothing because they thought they had an easy win. If we keep pointing at scapegoats and refuse to lay the blame with the ones actually in charge, we get the same exact choice in 4 years and we will lose again.
Ya, drawing the line was dumb but so is blaming the ones that drew it instead of the driver that's sending a train straight into a group of children.
They offered nothing because they thought they had an easy win.
Remember, nothing was...
A woman's bodily autonomy. A Trans person's right to comfort in their body. The separation between church and state. A birthright citizens right to live in their country. An employee's right to a safe job.
And so much more... And it's only been 7 days. Fuck anyone who said the Dems brought nothing to the table. You ignored what they were fighting to keep a hold of in order to parrot some bullshit Russian disinfo false equivalency about a genocide being committed by a different fucking leader in a different fucking country.
A woman’s bodily autonomy. A Trans person’s right to comfort in their body. The separation between church and state. A birthright citizens right to live in their country. An employee’s right to a safe job.
Hate to break it to you, but we were losing ground on all of that, even with Biden as POTUS. Hell, a fair chunk of that happened when Biden was POTUS, and Dems had a majority in the house and senate.
And yes, don't talk to me "But Manchin/Sinema!!!"... Fuck off. Because if they were so bad, why were the dems funding those campaigns? Where was the party leaders, demanding their people get on the line, or else lose committee seats, lose money, etc etc.
And why didn't the Dems drop the filibuster from the senate rules packages? Simple majority vote for everything.
Its almost like they pretended to want to do things to better the working class conditions, without actually doing anything, in order to provide a constant feed of campaign talking points to run on.
I'm not sure how old you are, but as someone who was alive when "Don't ask don't tell" was a progressive policy, I can assure you that while Republicans are constantly tripping up Democrats, 8 years of blue leadership can certainly gain ground. Hopefully you had that opinion because you're young enough that you just assumed those rights were the status quo that was slowly slipping away, not realizing that they are a huge boulder that we've been slowing pushing up hill for the past century.
Sinema and Manchin are certainly to blame for a lack of progress, but we needed them to keep from slipping further, faster. Every spot filled by a republican just makes the rock heavier, the hill steeper, and the ground more treacherous.
I’m not sure how old you are, but as someone who was alive when “Don’t ask don’t tell” was a progressive policy
Yes, I'm familiar with it, but it was only an improvement. One that got passed because of falling recruitment numbers, and changing social landscape (Being gay becoming more acceptable), so the Military Industrial Complex needed to compete withe the rest of the job market.
It was considered "progressive" at the time, because it was better than separating already trained soldiers, and the public saw it as a win.
can assure you that while Republicans are constantly tripping up Democrats,
For as long as I can remember, its generally been Democrats tripping up Democrats... Yes, you read that correctly. Eventually, we get people young enough in office, because the incumbent finally died (Because, with Dems, don't you fucking DARE challenge an incumbent, ESPECIALLY in local races).
So, less of a fight, and more succumbing to the times, is when we move forward. Just like right now, it's less about what the GOP fought for, and more the malaise with the global population due to us facing a species extinction, while starving.
Hopefully you had that opinion because you’re young enough that you just assumed those rights were the status quo that was slowly slipping away, not realizing that they are a huge boulder that we’ve been slowing pushing up hill for the past century.
Hey! We have had like 40 years of "blue leadership" in my city, and guess what we have?
Oligarchs run the city, county, and state too! Our Dem mayor loves cops, thinks Trump has some good ideas, and our governor is looking forward to working with Trump... Our governor, also a Dem, who is quite obviously a conservative.
Sinema and Manchin are certainly to blame for a lack of progress, but we needed them to keep from slipping further, faster. Every spot filled by a republican just makes the rock heavier, the hill steeper, and the ground more treacherous.
How about instead of pretending Reich Wingers are progressive, we just pick progressives to run in those seats? You know, ones that actually listen to, and respond to the needs of their voters, instead of acting like voters owe the person their vote, just because of team colors?
You ignored what they were fighting to keep a hold of in order to parrot some bullshit Russian disinfo false equivalency about a genocide being committed by a different fucking leader in a different fucking country.
I would find the lesser evil argument more convincing if the people advocating it didn't always turn out to be genocide denying conspiracy theorists who will ignore reality to defend unspeakable acts
Seems like you're not actually capable of pragmatically choosing the lesser evil while still condeming it. Seems like you always end up defending evil.
Why are you ignoring all the funds and arms sent to this entire different country? Do you think all that military aid is Russian disinfo?
Any president put in power in the US was going to provide aid to Israel one way or another. As abhorrent as Israel's actions are, they are a US ally, and they did suffer major terrorist attack in October, and they are surrounded by other nations that would love to chop them up. Full stop, any aid sent to Israel should have been conditional, but it's foolish to think that they would not have continued without US support. The situation is not black and white and our best chance of changing Israel's actions were to elect Kamala, and put Democrats in Congress that are for conditional aid to Israel.
What was Russian disinfo was pushing the narrative that Kamala was a genocide supporter to Democrats, and not pushing the fact that if trump won, he was going to back Israel completely eradicating Palestinians from the Gaza strip.
Full stop, any aid sent to Israel should have been conditional, but it’s foolish to think that they would not have continued without US support.
Then they could have continued without US support. If anyone in the biden white house or anyone in his wing of the party had wanted to withdraw it.
they didnt offer nothing but it was ridiculous to parade around with Liz Cheney - possibly the least popular politician in the US. I can only think they were trying to get Trump elected
Trump immediately authorized 2000 lb bombs for Israel. That wasn't a thing before. He's worse and you suck for enabling him.
Biden authorized sending 2000lb bombs.
Then it came out that such bombs were being sent and under pressure he paused the sending of those bombs.
Trump resumed it.
You're whitewashing Biden's part in the willful mass murder of civilians (the US Military itself refuses to use 2000lb bombs exactly because of their massive collateral damage and Israel was using them in an urban area thus maximizing the killing from said collateral damage) for political point scoring.
While you're claiming the other poster "sucks" for being critical of Biden's stance on this you might want to look at yourself in a mirror.
I mean one 2000 lbs bomb, or 2 1000 lbs bombs... The result is the same: A genocide.
I do not know how to explain to Blue MAGA that symbolic gestures do not matter more than the actual material effect on Gaza.
The paid shills were running a con. If you weren't on payroll, then you're the mark.
Seeing how most of the conmen have cut and run now that the job is done, it really only leaves one option for you.
His comment implies anyone speaking disfavorably about the dems stance on genocide is somehow a paid shill.
We're easy to dismiss that way. Then they don't have to think about how monstrous they have been to support genocide all this time.
Did you say you voted for Kamala?
She was the only viable option other than trump, as pro-genocide centrists were so fond of gloating. I voted for her. You gonna gloat that I voted for your genocide now?
Yep! You voted for genocide. Thanks for admitting that.
Do you actually, like, care about things like humanity or morality or anything like that? Or is this all just a team sport where your happy so long as you can get a 'gotcha' in?
It's all gotchas, that's liberal policy and debate tactics.
There are a disturbing number of people in this thread who feel that condemning Democrats is more important than worrying about what is about to happen to Palestinians.
As if you folks were using genocide as a tool. And it's pretty hard to read.
When you dismiss people condemning the democrats, you essentially send the message that enabling genocide is okay.
I see attacking the voters as a zionist dog whistle, to desensitize on the subject and low key make genocide something that can be overlooked for the "right" reasons.
Insulting to be said I'm using it as a tool. Every thread about it, there's multiple comments talking about the voters and using them as a scapegoat. I'm just responding to them. If I'm using it as a tool, so are you. And you are a lot more vocal about it then me.
I am dismissing people continuing to talk about the election when it's over as if it matters when people are fucking dying.
But you don't care because American politics.
Seems like you're dismissing only the people responding to the behavior negatively and not the ones actually doing the behavior. I find it convenient that you are constantly silent on the genocide in general. I only see you commenting when it comes to pointing the finger at scapegoats. It's easy to notice with the amount you post (not an insult, just an observation, I don't mind high engagement).
It doesn't seem like you are arguing in good faith, since you accuse me of something I'm clearly trying to curtail.
Yes it's annoying when every thread about the genocide has people screaming at the top of their lungs trying to blame voters.
I have more to say on the subject but I was too harsh and got my comment removed so I will leave it at that.
No, I'm dismissing anyone who doesn't give enough of a shit about Palestinians to bother talking to them.
How often have you done it?
Feeling empathy for a population isn't contigent on direct communication with them. Pure rhetoric. But to answer your question, I have a good friend who's Palestinian. He's been here for many years but it was still brutal to see how it affected him. So yes, I've talked to them.
You are also dismissing only the people that don't align with your beliefs. You are clearly only pushing one side, the one that makes light of the genocide and seeks to divert attention to anyone who isn't Biden and by extent Israel, and it's easy to assume why.
Why are you lying? I have not once defended Biden. Not once.
My whole fucking point is that U.S. politics are not what is important here. I literally already said that in this comment chain.
Lying in order to argue with someone is pretty shitty behavior.
You are also dismissing only the people that don't align with your beliefs.
I never said you defended him directly. I'm saying you only blame voters and only dismiss comments being critical of Biden. I've repeated this many times.
You reinforce the idea that the voters are to blame because obviously, applauding Biden would show your pro genocide stance a bit too clearly.
If you only criticize one group, you are still taking sides.
I know how you argue bro, stop with the rhetoric. Are you really going to pretend you are impartial? I've seen you directly start commment chains more then once on the subject and it was always to blame voters.
I am dismissing people continuing to talk about the election when it’s over as if it matters when people are fucking dying.
Did it matter 30 days ago to you? If so, why do you support the person wanting to continue it, and blame voters for not wanting either of the genociders?
Of course it mattered to me 30 days ago. It mattered to me when this genocide started which is why I have been doing everything in my very limited powers to stop it. What have you done?
condemning Democrats is more important than worrying about what is about to happen to Palestinians.
Well, if we want to take it this way...
Yes, Trump's open declaration of supporting a genocide in Palestine is just as bad as when Biden did it. They are both fucking ghouls, and I hope they both join Kissinger, Reagan, and Thatcher soon.
I don't give a shit about Trump or Biden. I give a shit about Palestinians. And I have asked multiple people in this thread when they have ever asked a Palestinian what their needs are. You know how many people have told me when they did that? I'll give you a hint: it's less than one.
How about you?
