And you are 100% delusional about that answer. You are simply wrong.
A president or any other leader is always responsible for the outcomes of their tenure. Always and immutably. It doesn't matter why the failure happened. It doesn't matter if they were stymied or an asteroid hits or a pandemic occurs. The buck stops there.
You can feign ignorance of that or pretend its some other way, but it doesn't change anything.
The pandemic happened under Trump and he was ultimately held accountable for that. In spite of his shockingly poor ability to mange the state through the pandemic he still barely lost. If not for the randomness of a global pandemic, and his utterly bungled response, he'd probably still be President now.
Biden is accountable for the US's failure to support Ukraine. Biden is responsible for the US enabling of a genocide in Israel. Biden is also responsible for how peoples lives have improved or failed to improve post covid. If he can get some loan forgiveness to people on student loans, he'll be responsible for that too.
Deferring responsibility isn't just a bad look, its a direct example of one being disqualified for the role they are seeking. When you argue that someone else is responsible for Biden failure to get things done, you are arguing that Biden is not qualified for the office.
Why do you keep evading my question? Are you unable to answer?
I'm not interested in a sidebar. I'm only interested in discussing the main point of this conversation.
You aren't interested in discussing something you brought up? That sounds like you know the answer is inconvenient.
You sound like a genocidal apologist whose arguments are weakening Biden's chances of winning the general election, who also has no conception of leadership or responsibility, stuck in a boot-loop unable to understand why they keep voting correctly but the world continues to fall apart around them, unable to understand how their apologetic's are actually an argument in favor of the other guy.
I think you can do better, and I hope you choose to.
Insulting me will not answer the inconvenient question.
inconvenient question
There is no inconvenient question. Just an apologist spinning in circles wondering why their candidate is losing the general election.
This is the second time you have insulted me. I don't think I should have to remind you of the civility rule in the sidebar. I do moderate discussions I am involved in, but I would remind you to be civil.
If you consider being an apologist insulting, you should maybe reconsider your approach to rhetoric, since this is the rhetorical approach you are using. Its a rhetorical approach that goes back to Socrates. I'm sorry for your ignorance but I can't help that beyond providing you with resources, as I've tried to do in this conversation. Only you can help your own ignorance. Since you don't understand apologetics or what it means to be an apologist, here is a primer. You should read it. It can help you improve your approach to rhetoric.
Please do describe a scenario where being called a genocide apologist is not an insult.
I also sincerely doubt you would say that so someone you were in the same room with.
The entire structure of your argument(s) around why we have to support Biden in-spite of his flaws is series of apologist arguments. The principal of supporting something in-spite of its flaws is the fundamental basis of apologetics. Its the basis of your entire argument, that Biden is a flawed candidate, but in-spite of this we need to support him, because the alternative is far worse. And in principal I agree with the sentiment, however, the actual act of engaging in apologetic has the opposite effect. The apologetics being used to argue in favor of Biden have made him a weaker candidate, not a stronger one. Defending the indefensible just makes you look like a cheerleader for something deeply wrong, which is what I'm calling you out for. Continuing to engage in apologetics on behalf of Biden is weakening him as a candidate, and I don't want him to lose this election. Biden is accountable for his shoddy record over the previous four years. The buck stops with him.
Holding him accountable in media and conversation forces him to respond and thereby makes him a stronger candidate, because instead of obscuring your weakness, you have to address them. Hiding weakness doesn't stop it from existing. Blaming congress or the SC while Biden sits at the helm just makes him look less qualified to do the job. Alternatively, we can be critical of Biden and force him to move on policy positions, to stronger, more defensible positions. In this way we can force him to be a better candidate going into the general election.
I also sincerely doubt you would say that so someone you were in the same room with.
Oh I have, and I assure you, its insufferable (if you couldn't figure that out). I'll call you out as coward, or a apologist, or racist, whatever I need to say. I have little interest in the polities of society if they are used to defend the indefensible. The buck stops with me, and I am accountable for the way I conduct myself, for better or for worse. There are tables I'm not invited back to because of this, and I do not mind. Its a badge of honor to not be invited back (imo) to a polite table with fascists and their apologists. I do not give apologists a pass, be them racist, bigots, fascists, or otherwise.
Please tell me about the time you called someone a genocide apologist to their face, because I don't believe you.
In fact, I don't believe you've called people any of the other things to their face either, unless you don't have any teeth left.
It's not about politeness, it's about not being stupid enough to provoke someone into physically assaulting you. And I don't believe you're that stupid.
But please, prove me wrong. Tell me about the time you called me a genocide apologist to their face.
I'm going to make a prediction: Like everything else I've asked of you, you'll ignore my request and give me a rude and insulting lecture instead.
(Don't forget to downtvote this post so I'll learn my lesson.)
It was at a pau hana a couple weeks ago. I called out a neighbor on this. I also called them a coward when the didn't want to share some of their more 'problematic' opinions on immigrants, gay and trans rights, and abortion. Beyond the scope of this conversation, but if you have an opinion you aren't willing to share publicly because its that 'problematic', then you are a coward. You don't get to hide behind civility to shroud your racism or bigotry, at least not around me.
And I'm not at all afraid of physical confrontation. I've stood face to face against proud boys and white nationalists from Portland to dc. I've taken the punches and drank the tear gas. No mind. We have to stand up against bigotry and hatred where ever we find it, and with physical confrontation if need be.
And you are 100% delusional about that answer. You are simply wrong.
A president or any other leader is always responsible for the outcomes of their tenure. Always and immutably. It doesn't matter why the failure happened. It doesn't matter if they were stymied or an asteroid hits or a pandemic occurs. The buck stops there.
You can feign ignorance of that or pretend its some other way, but it doesn't change anything.
The pandemic happened under Trump and he was ultimately held accountable for that. In spite of his shockingly poor ability to mange the state through the pandemic he still barely lost. If not for the randomness of a global pandemic, and his utterly bungled response, he'd probably still be President now.
Biden is accountable for the US's failure to support Ukraine. Biden is responsible for the US enabling of a genocide in Israel. Biden is also responsible for how peoples lives have improved or failed to improve post covid. If he can get some loan forgiveness to people on student loans, he'll be responsible for that too.
Deferring responsibility isn't just a bad look, its a direct example of one being disqualified for the role they are seeking. When you argue that someone else is responsible for Biden failure to get things done, you are arguing that Biden is not qualified for the office.
Why do you keep evading my question? Are you unable to answer?
I'm not interested in a sidebar. I'm only interested in discussing the main point of this conversation.
You aren't interested in discussing something you brought up? That sounds like you know the answer is inconvenient.
You sound like a genocidal apologist whose arguments are weakening Biden's chances of winning the general election, who also has no conception of leadership or responsibility, stuck in a boot-loop unable to understand why they keep voting correctly but the world continues to fall apart around them, unable to understand how their apologetic's are actually an argument in favor of the other guy.
I think you can do better, and I hope you choose to.
Insulting me will not answer the inconvenient question.
There is no inconvenient question. Just an apologist spinning in circles wondering why their candidate is losing the general election.
This is the second time you have insulted me. I don't think I should have to remind you of the civility rule in the sidebar. I do moderate discussions I am involved in, but I would remind you to be civil.
If you consider being an apologist insulting, you should maybe reconsider your approach to rhetoric, since this is the rhetorical approach you are using. Its a rhetorical approach that goes back to Socrates. I'm sorry for your ignorance but I can't help that beyond providing you with resources, as I've tried to do in this conversation. Only you can help your own ignorance. Since you don't understand apologetics or what it means to be an apologist, here is a primer. You should read it. It can help you improve your approach to rhetoric.
Please do describe a scenario where being called a genocide apologist is not an insult.
I also sincerely doubt you would say that so someone you were in the same room with.
The entire structure of your argument(s) around why we have to support Biden in-spite of his flaws is series of apologist arguments. The principal of supporting something in-spite of its flaws is the fundamental basis of apologetics. Its the basis of your entire argument, that Biden is a flawed candidate, but in-spite of this we need to support him, because the alternative is far worse. And in principal I agree with the sentiment, however, the actual act of engaging in apologetic has the opposite effect. The apologetics being used to argue in favor of Biden have made him a weaker candidate, not a stronger one. Defending the indefensible just makes you look like a cheerleader for something deeply wrong, which is what I'm calling you out for. Continuing to engage in apologetics on behalf of Biden is weakening him as a candidate, and I don't want him to lose this election. Biden is accountable for his shoddy record over the previous four years. The buck stops with him.
Holding him accountable in media and conversation forces him to respond and thereby makes him a stronger candidate, because instead of obscuring your weakness, you have to address them. Hiding weakness doesn't stop it from existing. Blaming congress or the SC while Biden sits at the helm just makes him look less qualified to do the job. Alternatively, we can be critical of Biden and force him to move on policy positions, to stronger, more defensible positions. In this way we can force him to be a better candidate going into the general election.
Oh I have, and I assure you, its insufferable (if you couldn't figure that out). I'll call you out as coward, or a apologist, or racist, whatever I need to say. I have little interest in the polities of society if they are used to defend the indefensible. The buck stops with me, and I am accountable for the way I conduct myself, for better or for worse. There are tables I'm not invited back to because of this, and I do not mind. Its a badge of honor to not be invited back (imo) to a polite table with fascists and their apologists. I do not give apologists a pass, be them racist, bigots, fascists, or otherwise.
Please tell me about the time you called someone a genocide apologist to their face, because I don't believe you.
In fact, I don't believe you've called people any of the other things to their face either, unless you don't have any teeth left.
It's not about politeness, it's about not being stupid enough to provoke someone into physically assaulting you. And I don't believe you're that stupid.
But please, prove me wrong. Tell me about the time you called me a genocide apologist to their face.
I'm going to make a prediction: Like everything else I've asked of you, you'll ignore my request and give me a rude and insulting lecture instead.
(Don't forget to downtvote this post so I'll learn my lesson.)
It was at a pau hana a couple weeks ago. I called out a neighbor on this. I also called them a coward when the didn't want to share some of their more 'problematic' opinions on immigrants, gay and trans rights, and abortion. Beyond the scope of this conversation, but if you have an opinion you aren't willing to share publicly because its that 'problematic', then you are a coward. You don't get to hide behind civility to shroud your racism or bigotry, at least not around me.
And I'm not at all afraid of physical confrontation. I've stood face to face against proud boys and white nationalists from Portland to dc. I've taken the punches and drank the tear gas. No mind. We have to stand up against bigotry and hatred where ever we find it, and with physical confrontation if need be.