The circular firing squad arrives, right on cue.
edit: What's the over/under on the time it takes to get to "Genocide Tim"?
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
politics
19047 readers
3923 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People just really dislike genocide it seems. It's almost like they'd rather vote for people who don't support it. The real question is why you apparently have such a problem with that?
Harris seems better on this and the party is basically united, so why fuck it up now? The fact that you jump to blame voters is embarrassing
I'll take "more reductive absolutism" for 100, Alex.
I'll take "more apologetics the abhorrent" for 100, Alex.
Tripling down doesn't make you look smarter.
I don't really care dude
Your desperate need to pigeonhole me as your enemy says otherwise.
I really don't have any intention to do that, I don't know you. Anyway looks like she chose correctly now. So it's all good.
apologetics the abhorrent
Hmmm. Could have fooled anyone who can read.
Them: "We don't want a VP candidate that supports genocide"
You: "Oh look here comes the circular firing squad" ie "these people who take issue with the candidate are the problem, not the candidate"
Please tell me how this isn't apologetics or playing defense for someone supporting genocide
The crazy thing about arguing with the far left is that they presuppose frames the exact same way as the far right, and then they blow a gasket when I refuse to engage on their bad faith terms, because obviously my unwillingness to accept their preliminary assumptions makes me an "apologist" for something. You're a whisper away from baselessly calling me a Zionist. I can feel it coming.
Go ahead, say it. Let the hate flow through you.
I like that YouTube series.
I'm not saying you're an apologist, but clearly your initial comment laid the blame at the feet of unhappy voters, not the genocide supporting VP candidate. That feels like apologetics. Perhaps you think he would have been a bad choice too, but you chose to blame the left (or "far left") for having a problem with this in your comment, without acknowledging the issue, and that speaks volumes.
You're a whisper away from baselessly calling me a Zionist. I can feel it coming.
Lol and I'm supposedly the one making bad faith assumptions?
I’m not saying you’re an apologist, but clearly your initial comment laid the blame at the feet of unhappy voters, not the genocide supporting VP candidate.
You're so close to seeing your presupposed framing for what it is.
That feels like apologetics.
To you? Sure. That's not in any way surprising.
Perhaps you think he would have been a bad choice too, but you chose to blame the left (or “far left”) for having a problem with this in your comment, without acknowledging the issue, and that speaks volumes.
There you go again. I'm not sure why you feel the need to ascribe your brain dump binaries onto me, as if somehow I can only believe the things you make up for me.
Lol and I’m supposedly the one making bad faith assumptions?
Bad faith terms. Read more carefully. Also that's not an assumption, that's a prediction. Again, read more carefully. I'm not surprised the message in that video was totally lost on you. Disappointed, to be sure, but not at all surprised.
What happened to "I don’t really care dude"? Seems like you suddenly care again. When did that change?
You're so close to seeing your presupposed framing for what it is.
Please just spell it out for me and stop this bullshit.
There you go again. I'm not sure why you feel the need to ascribe your brain dump binaries onto me, as if somehow I can only believe the things you make up for me.
You could just clarify. Good VP choice, yes or no?
Also that's not an assumption, that's a prediction.
Not a good one so far.
What happened to "I don’t really care dude"? Seems like you suddenly care again. When did that change?
Perhaps you should read more carefully. You said that tripling down doesn't make me look smarter. I don't care about that.
Genocide is something that should be reductively absolute.
Why do you think it shouldn't be?
If you support genocide, that should be something you are saddled with for the rest of your life.
Some day you'll interact with enough adults to learn that they're not cartoons.
I'm 45.
Supporting genocide is a good reductive test for if someone has any kind of morality. Same as with racism.
The fact that you don't recognize that, and think that not recognizing that makes you an adult that is not a cartoon says everything about your morality.
It says nothing about my age or how many people I interact with.
EDIT: You also didn't answer the question on why you think Genocide shouldn't be a reductive label.
Do you think that genocide is ever justifiable?
Yeah, lefties just hate how Shapiro called Netanyahu “a dangerous and destructive force” and “one of the worst leaders of all time.”
This is all just attacks from the people who can't attack Biden anymore but know they'd look bad saying Kamala isn't left enough. They prop us Walz because they know he won't get picked, even though he's been just as bad as Shapiro on Gaza. Shapiro has been explicit when he's said Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace, something Walz has not said afaik.
Make no mistake: there's a reason the person who posted this is known for spamming anti-Biden content.
When Biden dropped out, I asked r2o in a number of their threads if they were going to cool it with the source-agnostic concern troll spamming. Never got an answer. It was pretty obvious where this was going.
"anything critical of Democrats is trolling!"
Yeah, no. I even said I'd still post critical news articles as well as positive news about Biden/Harris/Dems.
They're lost.
And yet.
Who was wrong about Walz.
Why do you think you were wrong?
Walz went from around 20% at the start of the day, to over 50% over the course of the day on polymarket.
Walz makes more sense than Shapiro does for winning the election.
Harris is a Democrat, and Shapiro is a very tempting unforced error. Defeat is right there in the very jaws of victory, and all Harris has to do is reach down and seize it.
Look, I've trained myself to not do what I'm about to do. I've sought professional help to stop me from typing exactly what I'm about to type. I've lost fingers to this mousetrap.
I really think Harris might be different.
She's shown better political instinct than I could ever have hoped. She is like, actually working the opportunity, and frankly, seems to be good at it. Overcooked pasta was going to poll better than Biden. But it really seems like Harris understands that she needs to do better with specific groups, and progressives and Muslims, the undecided vote, is that group. PA and "never Trump" Republicans might just have to come along on this ride. Democratic politicians and party managers have spent their entire modern political history wishing they had Republicans for voters. It might be she recognizes what she needs to do to win.
She might be able to win with Shapiro, but it comes real fucking close and its a big fuck you to a lot of people, who specifically withheld their votes because of the US policy on Israel Gaza.
If she goes Walz, all the fucking blue-maga/ Biden bullshit artists here who sandbagged, like they know shit and were giving us, and people like @return2ozma@lemmy.world grief can suck our collective dicks. If it wasn't for a very small, but very vocal cohort of people CONTINUOUSLY ringing the alarm bell, we would be facing an absolute fucking blow-out in November. The Democrats deserve all the fucking criticism they earn, and if you have a problem with that, fuck off and go be a republican.
But maybe, just fucking maybe, Harris is different.
