I wonder which one is harder
I wonder which one is harder
Edited to be slightly more fair to people complaining that they don't think genocide is good just fine
You're viewing part of a thread.
i'd say sanctioning the icc for attempting to stop said genocide is being pretty aggressive about it, as is continuing to block any un-led action, as is continuing to send arms
which do you disagree with?
- biden is supporting genocide
- voting for a hypothetical candidate supporting genocide is voting in support of genocide
The rest of your comment is inane prattle.
i know you wanted to do the ol' switcheroo but it doesn't really work when you responded to everything in my comment
i know you wanted to do the ol' switcheroo but it doesn't really work when you responded to everything in my comment
Mea culpa.
Biden is not supporting The Genocide™ that people started paying attention to once it became a trendy thing to talk about on Tiktok, The Genocide™ that you seem to be concerned with. The Genocide™ that benefits Netanyahu and Putin.
By virtue of being an American citizen Biden is culpable for the slow burn genocide that Palestinians have been subject to since 1948ish. The same genocide that you are also culpable of and are equally in support of.
Most of Biden's actions are political theater to not alienate Jewish voters and the powerful AIPAC. A group that he desperately needs to win reelection because progressives don't reliably vote.
The ICC has never stopped a genocide in its entire existence, so to say that sanctioning the ICC is aggressively supporting The Genocide™ is just not true. The ICC could send out charges and arrest warrants for every politician in Israel without America ever lifting a finger and it would have absolutely no impact on The Genocide™, positive or negative.
UN action is equally useless, so whatever action you think would have stopped The Genocide™ that Biden blocked it wouldn't have done shit.
Israel and Netanyahu have made it clear that they will continue the invasion into Gaza with or without US military support, so any arms we may have given Israel have no impact on their willingness to wage war.
What other specious evidence of aggressive support do you have?
As a last point, voting for a candidate doesn't mean you support all of that candidates actions or views. That's why Republicans do so well; Republican voters have one or two issues they agree with passionately (immigration, gun control, abortion restrictions, etc.) and vote enthusiastically for the candidate that supports their thing regardless of the candidates other positions.
On the other hand progressives/leftists/whatever pick a hill to die on, and if a candidate disagrees with them a little bit on that issue they will refuse to vote for the candidate regardless of how many other positions they agree on.
The genocide debate is a perfect example; people like you have convinced yourself that Biden supports genocide so you refuse to vote for him because you disagree about that one point. No matter what other points you may agree on, or how much more Trump supports genocide and other positions you disagree with, people like you refuse to vote for Biden and in the end Trump gets elected. Real take my ball and go home energy.
Biden is not supporting The Genocide™ that people started paying attention to once it became a trendy thing to talk about on Tiktok
It became "trendy" more or less immediately at the point that it started happening.
The ICC has never stopped a genocide in its entire existence
What genocide has the US stopped since the creation of the ICC?
If you can't name one, then literally anything Biden could do up to and including nuking Palestine "wouldn't have made a difference anyway."
UN action is equally useless
UN action is useless because of veto powers. Whatever the UN wants to do, somebody will veto it.
In this instance, the person vetoing that action is Biden.
Israel and Netanyahu have made it clear that they will continue the invasion into Gaza with or without US military support, so any arms we may have given Israel have no impact on their willingness to wage war.
I mean I agree with this, but why would you continue to send arms once they've demonstrated what they'll be used for unless you kind of don't care about it?
What other specious evidence of aggressive support do you have?
If you can honestly look at the sum total of Biden's actions and go "nah he's trying his best to stop it" then there's not much point in continuing this discussion, since we're essentially in two different realities at this point.
As a last point, voting for a candidate doesn't mean you support all of that candidates actions or views.
Again, you might hate genocide, but objectively, voting for a candidate aggressively enabling genocide is voting in support of that genocide
If somebody hates racism, but gets tricked into voting for Trump by Black Voices for Trump, would you say they're voting in support of racism or not?
you disagree about that one point
It's almost comical that you can be so flippant about genocide. "It's just one genocide guys, come on."
That's why Republicans do so well; Republican voters have one or two issues they agree with passionately
So you're arguing it's good to be a single issue voter?
On the other hand progressives/leftists/whatever pick a hill to die on
So you're arguing it's bad to be a single issue voter?
They are two different kinds of single issue voters.
Republican single issue voters get their get their candidate elected by strongly supporting them because of a single issue.
Progressives also help get the Republican candidate elected by refusing to vote for Biden because they strongly oppose one issue.
The neat part is the progressive is helping the Republican get elected who is usually even farther off the issue than the Democratic candidate.
But hey, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE GENOCIDE™. If you don't vote for Biden The Genocide™ will stop instantly and you'll be guilt free because you didn't vote for it. But at the same time you won't have to feel guilt for any of the bad shit that comes with a Trump presidency for reasons.
If somebody hates racism, but gets tricked into voting for Trump by Black Voices for Trump, would you say they're voting in support of racism or not?
I can't say what they are voting in support of regardless of how they vote. That was painfully clear. I'll say it explicitly: voting for a candidate doesn't mean you support any of the candidates positions. It just means more of their positions align with yours than the other candidate.
Do you think neo-nazis that want the death penalty for race mixing support Trump's brand of racism? Or do you think they're voting for Trump because they know he's closer to what they want than Biden and they know their 3rd party candidate has no shot of ever getting elected?
The UN will save them!
Tell that to the Rohingya.
They are two different kinds of single issue voters.
this all started from mental gymnastics, and you're currently trying to straight up claim that single issue voters are in general effective for the republicans but ineffective for the democrats because...reasons...?
I'll say it explicitly: voting for a candidate doesn't mean you support any of the candidates positions
For the record, you're still strawmanning my position, as you have been the entire time. I don't know whether this is out of malice or a plain failure of comprehension, but—again—voting in support of something is not the same as supporting it. Your neo-nazis are voting in support of Trump's specific brand of racism.
That said, your response to the hypothetical means you believe your intention is the only important thing in how you exercise your voting right. In which case, what are we doing here? People who aren't voting for Biden because of his stance on Palestine aren't intending to get Trump elected, so they're blameless, right?
Tell that to the Rohingya.
The US also didn't save them, so I don't know what point you're trying to make here.
The mental gymnastics you're doing to dodge these very simple and straightforward points would make Neo in the matrix proud.
this all started from mental gymnastics, and you're currently trying to straight up claim that single issue voters are in general effective for the republicans but ineffective for the democrats because...reasons...?
It's a pretty simple concept. I'll use a pizza analogy since kids love pizza.
Republican voters love pineapple on pizza, but we don't have any pineapple pizza. The Republican voter says "that's okay, I'll have the supreme pizza because it's pretty close". So the single issue Republican voter gets pizza and the Republican candidate gets elected.
Progressives voters love anchovies on pizza, but we don't have anchovy pizza, we only have pepperoni pizza. The progressive voter says "fuck off, I don't want your shitty pizza without anchovies" and then shits all over the pizza. So the progressive single issue voter gets no pizza, no one else gets pizza, and the Democratic candidate doesn't get elected.
In this case eating pizza is voting for the candidate, not eating the pizza is not voting for the candidate. The Republican single issue voter votes and helps the Republican get elected. The progressive single issue voter doesn't vote, doesn't help the Democratic candidate get elected, and since we have first past the post elections in America he helps the Republican get elected.
If you want to pretend like you still don't get I understand. You've intentionally missed the basic concept so many times that you it would be pretty silly to admit you understand now.
The Republican voter says "that's okay, I'll have the supreme pizza because it's pretty close". So the single issue Republican voter gets pizza and the Republican candidate gets elected.
compromise with a middle ground is literally the opposite of single issue and it's insane that you're still trying to pretend it isn't
single issue isn't "ham is kind of like pepperoni"
single issue is "pepperoni or i don't eat pizza"
republican voters only want pepperoni
I think we're very close, I now have hope we can get on the same page with this at least.
There are two types of single issue voters. We'll call them type 1 and type 2. We call them single issue voters because it is a single issue driving their voting choice.
Type 1 single issue voters care a lot about an issue. So they vote for which ever candidate is closest to their view on that issue. They compromise on that issue and their other views to vote for whoever is closest. These single issue voters help their candidate win.
Type 2 single issue voters also care a lot about one issue. Except if a candidate disagrees with their view even a little bit, they refuse to vote for the candidate. Even if the voter and the candidate agree on nearly everything else, this single issue prevents the voter from casting a vote for the candidate. These single issue voters help the candidates opponent to win.
A lot of Republican voters are type 1 single issue voter.s
A lot of progressives are type 2 single issue voters.
An example (or a strawman if you prefer):
I'm a type 1 single issue voter. I disagree with Joe Biden on many issues, but I vote for him because he's closest to my views on climate change. So I vote for Joe Biden in support of my goals for climate change. I am helping Joe Biden win. (I'm not really a single issue voter, but this is a strawman)
You are a type 2 single issue voter. You oppose The Genocide™, so you are abstaining from voting (or maybe voting 3rd party because the 3rd party candidates have never had to decide whether or not to support The Genocide™). Because we have a first past the post voting system, and you were a potential vote for Biden, you are helping Trump win.
I don't know if you would vote for Biden if Israel hadn't invaded Gaza, but I think you get the point . It is after all a simplified example intended to quickly convey a point.
They compromise on that issue and their other views to vote for whoever is closest.
so hypothetically, you think single-issue gun control republicans are willing to compromise on gun control?
or a strawman if you prefer
literally not even the part you were strawmanning and you very obviously know that
you mysteriously dropped that half of your argument idk why
so hypothetically, you think single-issue gun control republicans are willing to compromise on gun control?
Exactly, I think you got it. A single issue gun control voter wants less gun control. Say they want to be able to own fully automatic rifles. Trump doesn't want people owning fully automatic rifles, he doesn't even want bump stocks to be legal. Trump however is more lenient on other aspects of gun control, certainly more lenient than Biden. They may agree more with Biden on immigration, or abortion, or taxes, but they agree most with Trump on the other issues so they vote for Trump.
So we have one type of single issue voter that is good for Republicans, and one type of single issue voter that is bad for Democrats.
you mysteriously dropped that half of your argument idk why
We'll figure out the other parts of the argument once we have this simple thing settled.
Exactly, I think you got it.
trump tried to enact a little bit of gun control, it was basically the only thing his voter base ever pushed back on, but they pushed back very hard, and he very quickly dropped it
so demonstrably your understanding of republicans is wrong, so i don't know where this leaves you