UN Security Council resolution calls for Gaza ceasefire
UN Security Council resolution calls for Gaza ceasefire
The measure passes after the US refrains from using its veto, in a shift from its previous position.
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
You're viewing part of a thread.
No. It means enough people screaming genocide Joe loudly enough had a small but tangible impact on American foreign policy.
i doubt president biden cares what a couple of idiots scream on twitter.
You don't think that realizing he was pissing off his base, during an election year, has any impact on his choices?
Considering those people are not going to vote Trump over this, or probably any issue, I don't think he cares, no.
It's not about people changing their minds. Centrists don't really exist. It's about motivating people to actually fucking vote. When people vote, Dems win. When Dems are unpopular, people don't vote and Rs win because they vote no matter what.
Permanently Deleted
It's socialism to care about anything other than yourself?
Trump would happily make it his genocide
But they may stay home, which is just as bad.
Permanently Deleted
you care so much about "genocide" that you'd vote for trump - a guy who literally said israel wasn't going far enough.
Permanently Deleted
aka voting for trump
Permanently Deleted
You say that but I think there's a sizable number that already are voting for Trump
Certainly not, but he definitely cares about the 100,000 people that voted uncommitted in Michigan and the littany of polls that show a majority of Democratic and young voters not supporting current US foreign policy.
The uncommitted movement got 100K votes Michigan, and within days the Biden administration started a complete 180 on Israel. It's more than a few Twitter users and he clearly cares very deeply.
No
So you're unironically arguing that geopolitical diplomacy IS actually simple? Really?
I recommend you read the second sentence that you declined to quote.
That sentence isn't relevant though is it?
Do you think geopolitics is that simple or nah?
Of course the sentence is relevant. I'm not sure why I should bother writing a reply to you when you apparently stop reading them after the first word. Have a good day.
JFC you aren't even denying it. you guys actually unironically believe it's that simple.
Selective reading makes you look ridiculous.
It's not selective reading. If I make a statement and you say "No" that mea s you're refuting that statement.
Then their second sentence had nothing to do with wether they think these politics are simple or not, hence why I didn't quit it.
The OP is just using bad faith arguments to distracts from that. Which is why they don't even attempt to deny it and just criticise the fact I didn't quote their entire comment instead of responding.
No, you didn't read it properly, and I'd say you're arguing in bad faith or you just cannot read properly as everyone else seems to have done just fine. Ignoring so much of their comment then their intention afterwards makes you look silly. You are wrong, your understanding is wrong.
Then why can't the OP nor you/ anyone else actually give an explanation, or even so much as give a response to an INCREDIBLY simple question. Of "do you think international diplomacy is that simple?"
Again. The conversation went
Me: diplomacy isn't that simple
SB: No. Shouting genocide Joe worked.
The first sentence is them denying my point that diplomacy isn't simple. The second sentence is tangential to that point. And does nothing to explain why they think diplomacy isn't actually simple. He'll I'm not even denying their se and point. Shouting genocide Joe did put pressure on Biden that did shape foreign policy in some small way. But again, its not relevant to the point I was making, so didn't quote it.
Which is why the other commenter is acting in bad faith when they completely ignore my point because I didn't quote their tangential point in my second comment.
I thought this would be fairly obvious to anyone with literacy skills but apparently I need to wrote whole paragraphs to explain what someone replying "no" means.