Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

32 comments

    • All Biden had to do was condemn Israel and quit arming them, and all she had to do was just say that

      • But just imagine how inconvenient that would be. Have you ever read the highly important liberal ideological tract "When You Give A Mouse A Cookie"? Winning is highly problematic for dems. They want to send donation emails and keep you in a constant spiral of dread forever.

    • Just want to confirm that for you, no genocide=expecting perfection. Not being genocidal is an unreasonable bar to clear in your eyes, is what you're saying

      • I think everyone's way overestimating how much influence the president has over an entirely separate sovereign nation, especially when it's in the throes of bloodlust. The genocide would have continued no matter who won the election. You should have been more concerned about your own country.

        • The only reason the genocide can continue is because the US sends billions of dollars worth of weapons to facilitate it, and blocked every UNSC resolution calling for a ceasefire. The US provides both political cover for Israel internationally, including actions such as sanctioning the ICC, as well as material aid necessary to carry out this atrocity. The US is actively involved in the genocide.

          • That's certainly true. I'm just not sure they'd be able to stop it without more direct intervention.

            • Israel is entirely reliant on the US material support to exist.

              • Don't mind me. I'm probably just being needlessly nihilistic, but it's kinda hard to not be these days. I just reckon that they'll still find a way even without the US. But it's a pointless argument anyway, because that'll never happen.

            • Reagan was able to do it by clicking his fingers. He wasn't exactly a dove.

            • If the US stopped sending weapons Israel would have to stop the genocide regardless of whether they want to or not. Already even with being pumped full of pentagon weapons and fundings all they can do is bombing unarmed civilians from far away because every time they try to actually fight Hamas or Hezbollah they get fucking shredded and have to retreat within a few months and their supposedly impenetrable iron dome gets regularly bullied by Hezbollah and Ansar Allah drones, so without US help they would be doomed to fall unless they sue for peace.

        • Israel is not an entirely separate sovereign nation from the USA. Neither is Jordan, Bahrain, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Hungary, France, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Canada, Argentina, India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Singapore. Did I miss anyone? I got tired so I know I missed someone.

          • Yeah, that's entirely different can of worms. One good thing that may come from the Trump shit-show is a reduction of US hegemony. It'll probably just get replaced by Chinese hegemony, though, so... yay?

            • American hegemony is better described as global dictatorship of international finance capital. The countries being called "rival superpowers" today are merely semi-peripheral industrial powers that are too developed to be bullied by the United States and its allies, despite their control over the banking system and formidable weaponry.

              China and Russia are not pursuing mutualistic development with third world countries out of some kind of moral obligation. It is just more efficient than jockeying for control in the neocolonial system. You know who is trying that? Turkey and India. Watch, they'll get left behind to line Erdogan and Modi's pockets. Just relax gringo nobody is coming to take your [checks notes] koalas. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

    • Let me contact a few Palestinians to tell them they expect far too much and they'll never be happy

      Seriously think about who you're going to bat for. You're comparing different flavors of Hitler and defending one.

    • Perfect was never the line, the line was just "not genocidal" and if your preferred Nazis couldn't meet that standard it's their fault and yours for letting them think they could get away with it and still maybe win.

    • The democrats are a ruthless, genocidal party. Not wanting genocide is not "demanding perfection".

      Why did Biden do this?

      Or why did Obama do this?

    • Ha yes, wanting a politician that doesn't have sewer fermented dogshit stances on literally every single important current political issue is "expecting perfection".

      Keep scolding everyone who dares have even the mildest criticism of the blue clown show as they continue to slide more and more to the right, that worked out so well for you all this past election.

    • Are you saying you're okay with voting for openly genocidal politicians? If so, what separates you from the people that voted for hitler?

    • "I don't think we should bomb children", "I think medial-debt shouldn't be the largest cause of bankruptcy in our country", "People should be able to oppose genocide", "cops shouldn't be able to assault innocent people without consequence"

      "expect perfect"

      I think your definition of "perfect" might be a little off, as I think those are all fairly reasonable to ask of a candidate.

      Yes, Harris would have been better than Trump, but that is a pretty low bar. She spent her time trying to get as close to that bar as she thought she could get away with.

32 comments