Go ahead, downvote because you’re mad that I’m right.
Upvoted because I'm happy you're right. Biden will lose to the orange criminal if he doesn't stand up and stop money and weapons to Israel. America is fucked if it keeps supporting Israel.
I think you're overestimating how many voters are deeply against Israel's assault on Palestine, while also underestimating the ability of those virtuous people to understand the landslide of harmful outcomes that would come with another trump presidency.
Trump won without the popular vote. He won Michigan by ~10,000 votes in 2016. I'm not the one who decided this system, but this system doesn't give a shit about the majority. It doesn't take much to sway the balance.
Yeah but the Dems will always lose without the majority
Why is there a "but" in your statement? You're effectively agreeing with my sentiment. The Democrats will indeed always lose without the majority.
Because I misunderstood where you were going with it
Well some protests. Did anything really happen at all after the BLM protests? Cops are still able to get away with murder and have very little oversight.
The BLM protests did work, they exposed that the US is a violent police state where voting doesn’t actually do anything to change whether we live in a violent police state because both the Republicans and centrist Democrats will collaborate as much as needed to betray their voters in order to sustain the system of policing and prisons.
The fact that in the wake of George Floyd a lot of cities and municipalities actually went more draconian with their policing laws in backlash is only an indicator of a failure of the BLM protests if you don’t look closer, step closer and you see the truth is far scarier, the BLM protests did massively change the psyche of America, it’s just that actually has no effect upon policy making because democracy is so broken in the US to the extreme point where many city governments chose to actively do their opposite of the will of the people as a show of force and a chilling warning to leftists.
In particular, I witnessed ACAB go from something that when I would say it would be nearly impossible to defend to many people, to something almost everyone (with some lefty tendencies ofc) immediately understands and agrees with. The first shift was BLM, the second Uvalde.
Agreed, and the important thing to remember is that the shift in police to seeing the population they are policing as their enemy, and as universally dangerous in black and poor areas, has been accelerating for decades.
The other side (police, the prison industrial complex and the 1% who employs these thugs) is already very clear about this this being Us vs Them, but the general US population was still pretty heavily in denial about it up until BLM.
Yup, and after BLM they would say "but who do you call if there is a shooter?", until Uvalde disproved that idea.
I'm mostly with you, but if I tried to exercise and my legs broke, it'd be kinda wild to say the exercising "worked" because it exposed my shitty, unhealthy knees
That said, I'm all for changing up the narrative and using practical propaganda to expand support for protesters!
I’m mostly with you, but if I tried to exercise and my legs broke, it’d be kinda wild to say the exercising “worked” because it exposed my shitty, unhealthy knees
I mean I think where I disagree with this mapping of the metaphor is that it isn't a personal failing or problem, BLM was one of the biggest protest movements around police violence ever.
You're completely right.
I think framing the success in terms of awareness raised is likely the best way to demonstrate the impact of a protest/movement.
It depends on what kind of effect you're expecting. Did the US state and federal governments suddenly defund the police and start sending reparations to black Americans? No, not exactly. But Derek Chauvin was convicted and sent to prison for 20+ years. Different municipalities did reform their police departments and even implemented things like unarmed crisis response units. BLM has helped introduce policy discussions that would not otherwise be on the table.
The effects of a protest aren't always direct or immediate, their benefit is as much about changing the national narrative on any given issue than it is just achieving a primary goal by the time the protesrs end, and also it's a way to learn what's effective and what's not.
For example, part of why these recent protests were effective and why they illicited such a desperate response from authorities and the media is because the young people looked at the failed tactics from protests like the Occupy movement and adapted.
One if the weaknesses of Occupy was that there was no unified voice, instead the media would walk up and find some random individual, get them to make some unflattering soundbyte and then put that on blast on their networks. By contrast, the students anti-genocide protests designated a spokes person, and when the media approached random protestors they would just direct the media to that spokes person.
It's really smart and that kind of tactical refinement is arguably a result of the failures of Occupy. It made it difficult for the media to fool the public as to what these protests are really about, and you see that born out in people's growing awareness of how fucked up the situation in Gaza not only is right now, but has been for decades.
Protesting and social justice is iterative and experimental, it's about making it more difficult to just continue with business as usual going forward.
we have to keep fighting back against this genocide
This had nothing to do with the protests.
Yo check your tether, friend. Reality can get away from you quick.
He's gonna start calling you a propagandist soon.
Mmmkay. Prove it.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had 'nothing' to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.
So, prove it.
Ahh. So when one person makes a claim that’s unproven, but you believe it- the onus is on the person that asks it to be proven to prove it isn’t?
Sorry, but that’s not how it works..
There is zero evidence to support the statement that this has anything to do with protests. ZERO. you cannot prove it.
I'll save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
I'll also save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
That's just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you're going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election...You're going to look at all that and say it had 'nothing to do' with those same protests.
Not, 'there were other factors', nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
So your proof is no proof. Correlation isn’t causation. Check your work and try again.
Provide proof please.
So this whole time you're simply being pedantic about the word "proof"?
That's pretty pathetic.
If they claim it’s proof without there being proof, it’s a bad faith statement. It’s not pedantic to call it out just because you disagree with it.
It’s disingenuous to take credit for something where no credit was ever given.
Hey you're crushing this whole internet discussion thing, provided we all join you in persistently ignoring all of the circumstances I keep mentioned.
I have no proof. I have a mountain of evidence, and I am keen to hear your erudite take on why none of it matters.
The, if you like, you can share your evidence, but I doubt you want to.
So if I have no proof the protests didn’t cause this, and you have no proof they did, I’d say it’s a wash and both are wrong.
Which was my point all along.
Just accept that a good thing happened without taking credit for something someone who you do nothing but shit on did.
Also, Internet discussions aren’t something one worries about “crushing” when they’re an adult. I’m not here to “crush” anything. I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
Nothing more. Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
Can’t prove a negative. Prove it was a result of protests. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Also… I asked first.
I’ll be waiting.
Can’t prove a negative.
Nobody asked you to.
I asked first
No, you didn’t.
You said “proof that protests work”
Where is the proof. Provide it.
you said:
This had nothing to do with the protests.
Where is the proof. Provide it.
I asked first...
Can’t prove a negative. You should prove that protests cause this. Provide it or walk away.
Can’t prove a negative.
Nobody asked you to.
You should prove that This had nothing to do with the protests.. Provide it or walk away.
I can’t prove something didn’t happen kiddo. That’s not how this works. You claimed it did, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so…. Thanks for playing. We’re done here.
I can’t prove something didn’t happen kiddo
nobody asked you to
This had nothing to do with the protests.
You claimed this, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so….
Deflect all you wish. This is pointless, and over. You can’t support your claim with any proof so it it’s dismissed.
Blocking you now. I’ve no need to discuss anything further with someone like you.
That’s a tough statement to back up. Especially considering the scale of the protests, and Biden’s refusal to speak against isreal until this point.
And saying it is a result of protests is a tough statement to back up especially considering that old leaders do this shit all the time without the need of protestors.
If it was a result of, good. Glad it worked. But saying it’s proof of- which is what I responded to, is disingenuous.
Additionally, these socialists bag on him constantly to the point that it’s damn near a propaganda campaign and then take credit for anything good that he does?
Seriously??????
Prove it
You can't prove a negative
You aren't claiming a negative.
Logically, it was caused by something. You are claiming that the something that caused it was not the protests.
The only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
If you don't do that, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
I am claiming a negative. I sad it protests did not cause his actions.
We don’t know what it was caused by, therefore one cannot claim it’s proof of anything.
What should have been said, was
“Maybe the protests helped nudge this into happening….” Or…
“Looks like maybe the protests worked!”
But disingenuously claiming this as a “w” by the same people that spend all day finding hit-piece articles to drag Biden through the mud is pretty shitty.
You don’t get to call someone out as the worst thing for America and then take credit for the good that they do.
I’m done with this discussion.
I sad it protests did not cause his actions.
Again, the only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
What should have been said, was
Agreed. And what you should have said was "There's no evidence that the protests caused his actions." But you didn't, you instead made a falsifiable claim, and refuse to back it up with proof. Making you a hypocrite.
Same interview.. “US is committed to Israel’s defense and would supply Iron Dome rocket interceptors and other defensive arms, but that if Israel goes into Rafah, we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used”. Defense secretary Austin Lloyd reiterated that same point
Ok, good? All you can do with Iron Dome is shoot down mortar rounds and slower-moving rockets (and maybe drones?) - it really only works for defense. I don't see the problem.
In general I love the idea of the US moving more and more towards only supplying defensive munitions to countries (such as the long list of really fucked up countries we deal arms to that would surprise most people).
We could always take special action to supply offensive arms in response to justified conflicts such as in Ukraine, but let's not let authoritarians build up a stockpile of offensive capabilities from US sweat during times of peace. That's a recipe for less peace.
But by all means we should let allies buy as much defensive capabilities as they desire.
Being an ally to the US should be more associated with the benefits of protection from bullies than capacity to bully.
(And most important IMO is that we don't allow selling tech officially or privately by US corporations to enable authoritarians to abuse their own citizens. Something we very much do and I really wish we didn't.)
Israeli companies make and sell a ton of that spy tech. Probably more than the US.
My issue is with the definition of defense, seeing as the US's department of war is called the department of defense and in the past israel's actions have been excused as a right to defend itself.
I'm fine with this model. Defend them from attacks, but don't help them offensively. And leverage our defensive aid to strongarm them into not being genocidal.
US worded its statements carefully. They'll still provide support for all the other parts of Israel's military operations, just not for the Rafah invasion. Israel is free to shuffle things around so that it won't make a difference.
This is a good move. He's doing what he can to temper Netanyahu's attempts at genocide, while still protecting Israel.
I just hope it's enough to stop the killings. That monster will sacrifice every man, woman and child to stay in power (and out of prison).
Just like all the other things Biden has done in this conflict, this is merely a symbolic gesture to say "don't blame us if Israel flattens Rafah".
The US has already provided huge amounts of unconditional military aid to Israel, and remains committed to continuing to do so. So Israel is free to shuffle around their ample resources internally to reach the same outcome.
don't blame us if Israel flattens Rafah
Yeah, that's literally the point. Biden is being blamed for the genocide up to now, so he's literally saying not to blame him if they flatten Rafah.
Not sure why that's supposed to be a gotcha...
Yeah, israel already has all it needs to carry out this mission. It remains to be seen if this action now will do anything, but given past actions by the US, I'm afraid it won't go far enough to stop israel.
um, didn't the supply already happen?
AFAIK Other stuff has gone forward but they're specifically holding back the large bombs that caused so much death in the rest of Gaza.
Now though we have the problem of Israel holding all but one border crossing closed. (Unless they've reopened some in the last 24 hours) Aid is not getting through at all right now. The single border crossing is in the North of Gaza where they're already in a Famine. The With now has no aid access by ground. It's all ship stuff, but the ground access is actually far better. There's also the problem that Israel will not let aid groups import fuel and with the borders closed they can't drive trucks in to unload the ships.
So the new position has to be either Israel lets aid in or the US steps out of the way in the UN security council.
No, those had a sticky note on them that specifically said, "not for usse in rafah".
Agent Provacateurs Left Confused After Biden Does What They Want - "How do we make Biden look bad now?"
Biden was making himself look bad by supporting genocide. Hopefully this is indicative of more positive change to come.
I love to see optimistic Ensign Crab posts. It's always a good sign
Hahahahaha I thought it too.. this place is too small
It's cozy
Cautiously optimistic.
That's still optimism, so I'll take it as a win
Easy - move the goalposts.
Despite the pause, the Israeli military has enough weapons supplied by the U.S. and other partners to conduct the Rafah operation if it chooses to cast aside U.S. objections, the first official said.
He added that none of the pauses apply to the billions of dollars in additional israel aid passed by Congress last month. With regards to that, the Biden administration just approved $827 million worth of weapons and equipment for Israel in the latest tranche of Foreign Military Financing, the official said.
Take it with a grain of salt. A good first step however.
This should have been the move on day 10 of the invasion. And a white house insisting on peace negotiations and the release of hostages on both sides. He would have instantly been viewed favorably on this issue and likely wouldn't have tanked his polling.
He would have instantly been viewed favorably on this issue and likely wouldn’t have tanked his polling.
His polling didn't tank in tandem with the Gaza genocide.
Most Americans are either in support or ambivalent towards Israel in this conflict.
Every poll I've seen asks the most important issue to voters, and it's always the economy, with the Israel-Palestine conflict coming in near the bottom.
Israel is committing a genocide, to be clear. The moral thing is to, at minimum, stop supporting their genocide. But that's not the same as saying that the Palestinian genocide is what brought Biden's poll numbers down, or that it's a silver bullet (or even an unambiguous net gain) electorally speaking.
Most Americans are either in support or ambivalent towards Israel in this conflict.
I literally quoted your words right there: "Most Americans are either in support or ambivalent towards Israel in this conflict." Solid attempt at moving the goalposts though.
Do you... do you NOT know that 22% is less than 78%?
Or do you think that "Biden is doing just the right amount of help towards Israel" means... support for Palestine?
The 52-22 you cited was whether Israel's conduct was too far, not whether they supported Israel or Israeli aid in the conflict - as the other charts clearly demonstrate. But uh, you have fun disproving yourself with your own source.
You literally didn't read anything I wrote. Your chart is for a different thing than you claimed. You claimed most Americans support or don't care, I gave you two polls, one where that exact question was asked and it was just flat out untrue (which you ignored completely), and a second one to demonstrate that even in more favorable splits it was only true if you care what Republicans think. You apparently weren't put off by a direct poll answering the direct question you asked and figured digging into a related question in the poll that at least gave you a shot at sticking to your wrong statement was a totally important thing to do.
"Do you support the president's actions" is different than "do you approve of Israel in the conflict" with a whole lot of partisan defaulting and nothing in your wrong statement was about the president or about aid, not to mention "not sure" being an entirely different thing than "I don't care". This follow up trying to pretend people who think Israel is "going to far" isn't the same as not supporting Israel in the conflict is just pathetic. Just fucking accept you were wrong and move on with your life rather than dedicating yourself to these sad follow-ups.
This could have been a one line "oh, I guess it's changed from when I last looked". Or even nothing at all.
You have fun in the world where "Do you support Israel's current offensive" is the same as "Do you support Israel" or "Do you support continued aid to Israel"
Holy fuck man, that's not what you said! I quoted the claim I was correcting, I was very specific, then requoted it so you'd recognize your own words. Jesus the forum brain.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he would not supply offensive weapons that Israel could use to launch an all-out assault on Rafah — the last major Hamas stronghold in Gaza — over concern for the well-being of the more than 1 million civilians sheltering there.
It also comes as the Biden administration is due to deliver a first-of-its-kind formal verdict this week on whether the airstrikes on Gaza and restrictions on delivery of aid have violated international and U.S. laws designed to spare civilians from the worst horrors of war.
Biden’s administration in April began reviewing future transfers of military assistance as Netanyahu’s government appeared to move closer toward an invasion of Rafah, despite months of opposition from the White House.
The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said they only learned about the military aid holdup from press reports, despite assurances from the Biden administration that no such pauses were in the works.
“If we stop weapons necessary to destroy the enemies of the state of Israel at a time of great peril, we will pay a price,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., his voice rising in anger during an exchange with Austin.
The State Department is separately considering whether to approve the continued transfer of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits, which place precision guidance systems onto bombs, to Israel, but the review didn’t pertain to imminent shipments.
The original article contains 1,417 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So, since they're attacking Rafah right now, that means you're going to stop giving them weapons right now, right? Right?
Literally yes. There was a weapon shipment of bombs that was scheduled last week and they withheld them.
Biden’s comments and his decision last week to pause a shipment of heavy bombs to Israel are the most striking manifestations of the growing daylight between his administration and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Biden has said that Israel needs to do far more to protect the lives of civilians in Gaza.
The shipment was supposed to consist of 1,800 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) bombs and 1,700 500-pound (225-kilogram) bombs, according to a senior U.S. administration official
I knew about that, but that action was taken a couple of days ago before the Rafah attack started. I remember the news articles about it then. Hopefully the above indicates this stoppage will be true for any and all weapons shipments, not just those bombs.
So you knew about them stopping shipments, but you still comment asking when they are going to start stopping shipments?
The shipment stopping prior was only for that one set of bombs. Not all weapons aid entirely.
Now make them stop.
Riiiiight I'll believe it when the weapon shipments actually stop.
Proof that protest works.
Go ahead, downvote because you’re mad that I’m right.
Upvoted because I'm happy you're right. Biden will lose to the orange criminal if he doesn't stand up and stop money and weapons to Israel. America is fucked if it keeps supporting Israel.
I think you're overestimating how many voters are deeply against Israel's assault on Palestine, while also underestimating the ability of those virtuous people to understand the landslide of harmful outcomes that would come with another trump presidency.
Trump won without the popular vote. He won Michigan by ~10,000 votes in 2016. I'm not the one who decided this system, but this system doesn't give a shit about the majority. It doesn't take much to sway the balance.
Yeah but the Dems will always lose without the majority
Why is there a "but" in your statement? You're effectively agreeing with my sentiment. The Democrats will indeed always lose without the majority.
Because I misunderstood where you were going with it
Protesters vote…
Well some protests. Did anything really happen at all after the BLM protests? Cops are still able to get away with murder and have very little oversight.
The BLM protests did work, they exposed that the US is a violent police state where voting doesn’t actually do anything to change whether we live in a violent police state because both the Republicans and centrist Democrats will collaborate as much as needed to betray their voters in order to sustain the system of policing and prisons.
The fact that in the wake of George Floyd a lot of cities and municipalities actually went more draconian with their policing laws in backlash is only an indicator of a failure of the BLM protests if you don’t look closer, step closer and you see the truth is far scarier, the BLM protests did massively change the psyche of America, it’s just that actually has no effect upon policy making because democracy is so broken in the US to the extreme point where many city governments chose to actively do their opposite of the will of the people as a show of force and a chilling warning to leftists.
In particular, I witnessed ACAB go from something that when I would say it would be nearly impossible to defend to many people, to something almost everyone (with some lefty tendencies ofc) immediately understands and agrees with. The first shift was BLM, the second Uvalde.
Agreed, and the important thing to remember is that the shift in police to seeing the population they are policing as their enemy, and as universally dangerous in black and poor areas, has been accelerating for decades.
The other side (police, the prison industrial complex and the 1% who employs these thugs) is already very clear about this this being Us vs Them, but the general US population was still pretty heavily in denial about it up until BLM.
Yup, and after BLM they would say "but who do you call if there is a shooter?", until Uvalde disproved that idea.
I'm mostly with you, but if I tried to exercise and my legs broke, it'd be kinda wild to say the exercising "worked" because it exposed my shitty, unhealthy knees
That said, I'm all for changing up the narrative and using practical propaganda to expand support for protesters!
I mean I think where I disagree with this mapping of the metaphor is that it isn't a personal failing or problem, BLM was one of the biggest protest movements around police violence ever.
You're completely right.
I think framing the success in terms of awareness raised is likely the best way to demonstrate the impact of a protest/movement.
It depends on what kind of effect you're expecting. Did the US state and federal governments suddenly defund the police and start sending reparations to black Americans? No, not exactly. But Derek Chauvin was convicted and sent to prison for 20+ years. Different municipalities did reform their police departments and even implemented things like unarmed crisis response units. BLM has helped introduce policy discussions that would not otherwise be on the table.
The effects of a protest aren't always direct or immediate, their benefit is as much about changing the national narrative on any given issue than it is just achieving a primary goal by the time the protesrs end, and also it's a way to learn what's effective and what's not.
For example, part of why these recent protests were effective and why they illicited such a desperate response from authorities and the media is because the young people looked at the failed tactics from protests like the Occupy movement and adapted.
One if the weaknesses of Occupy was that there was no unified voice, instead the media would walk up and find some random individual, get them to make some unflattering soundbyte and then put that on blast on their networks. By contrast, the students anti-genocide protests designated a spokes person, and when the media approached random protestors they would just direct the media to that spokes person.
It's really smart and that kind of tactical refinement is arguably a result of the failures of Occupy. It made it difficult for the media to fool the public as to what these protests are really about, and you see that born out in people's growing awareness of how fucked up the situation in Gaza not only is right now, but has been for decades.
Protesting and social justice is iterative and experimental, it's about making it more difficult to just continue with business as usual going forward.
we have to keep fighting back against this genocide
This had nothing to do with the protests.
Yo check your tether, friend. Reality can get away from you quick.
He's gonna start calling you a propagandist soon.
Mmmkay. Prove it.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had 'nothing' to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.
So, prove it.
Ahh. So when one person makes a claim that’s unproven, but you believe it- the onus is on the person that asks it to be proven to prove it isn’t?
Sorry, but that’s not how it works..
There is zero evidence to support the statement that this has anything to do with protests. ZERO. you cannot prove it.
I'll save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
I'll also save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
That's just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you're going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election...You're going to look at all that and say it had 'nothing to do' with those same protests.
Not, 'there were other factors', nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
So your proof is no proof. Correlation isn’t causation. Check your work and try again.
Provide proof please.
So this whole time you're simply being pedantic about the word "proof"?
That's pretty pathetic.
If they claim it’s proof without there being proof, it’s a bad faith statement. It’s not pedantic to call it out just because you disagree with it.
It’s disingenuous to take credit for something where no credit was ever given.
Hey you're crushing this whole internet discussion thing, provided we all join you in persistently ignoring all of the circumstances I keep mentioned.
I have no proof. I have a mountain of evidence, and I am keen to hear your erudite take on why none of it matters.
The, if you like, you can share your evidence, but I doubt you want to.
So if I have no proof the protests didn’t cause this, and you have no proof they did, I’d say it’s a wash and both are wrong.
Which was my point all along.
Just accept that a good thing happened without taking credit for something someone who you do nothing but shit on did.
Also, Internet discussions aren’t something one worries about “crushing” when they’re an adult. I’m not here to “crush” anything. I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
Nothing more. Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
You sure are dumb. You've provided enough evidence for that to be fact.
Dumb for disagreeing with something you like? Do you insult everyone that disagrees with you?
I wonder if there’s a way to describe that…..
Hmmmm….
Can’t prove a negative. Prove it was a result of protests. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Also… I asked first.
I’ll be waiting.
Nobody asked you to.
No, you didn’t.
You said “proof that protests work”
Where is the proof. Provide it.
you said:
Where is the proof. Provide it.
I asked first...
Can’t prove a negative. You should prove that protests cause this. Provide it or walk away.
Nobody asked you to.
You should prove that This had nothing to do with the protests.. Provide it or walk away.
I can’t prove something didn’t happen kiddo. That’s not how this works. You claimed it did, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so…. Thanks for playing. We’re done here.
nobody asked you to
You claimed this, the onus is on you. But- you clearly have nothing so….
Deflect all you wish. This is pointless, and over. You can’t support your claim with any proof so it it’s dismissed.
Blocking you now. I’ve no need to discuss anything further with someone like you.
Would you like protests to stop?
Of course he would. They work.
Biden's actions are pretty clearly NOT a reaction to the protests.
We know this because the protests have been going on for a while now and Biden took no action whatsoever.
It DOES immediately follow THIS news, and my suspicion is this is what caused the change in policy.
March 27th - Israel uses US supplied bombs to illegally attack Southern Lebanon, killing seven aid workers:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/07/israel-us-arms-used-strike-killed-lebanon-aid-workers
April 2nd, Biden reportedly "outraged" over the attack that killed seven members of World Central Kitchen.
https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-outraged-by-israeli-airstrike-that-killed-aid-workers-gaza-2024-04-02/
Now he's saying no, we aren't giving you weapons for Rafa. The last thing he wants is more dead civilians with US supplied bombs.
Yeah. They won’t listen.
That’s a tough statement to back up. Especially considering the scale of the protests, and Biden’s refusal to speak against isreal until this point.
And saying it is a result of protests is a tough statement to back up especially considering that old leaders do this shit all the time without the need of protestors.
If it was a result of, good. Glad it worked. But saying it’s proof of- which is what I responded to, is disingenuous.
Additionally, these socialists bag on him constantly to the point that it’s damn near a propaganda campaign and then take credit for anything good that he does?
Seriously??????
Prove it
You aren't claiming a negative.
Logically, it was caused by something. You are claiming that the something that caused it was not the protests.
The only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
If you don't do that, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
I am claiming a negative. I sad it protests did not cause his actions.
We don’t know what it was caused by, therefore one cannot claim it’s proof of anything.
What should have been said, was
“Maybe the protests helped nudge this into happening….” Or…
“Looks like maybe the protests worked!”
But disingenuously claiming this as a “w” by the same people that spend all day finding hit-piece articles to drag Biden through the mud is pretty shitty.
You don’t get to call someone out as the worst thing for America and then take credit for the good that they do.
I’m done with this discussion.
Again, the only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
Agreed. And what you should have said was "There's no evidence that the protests caused his actions." But you didn't, you instead made a falsifiable claim, and refuse to back it up with proof. Making you a hypocrite.
Better luck next time, then.
What caused it?
Same interview.. “US is committed to Israel’s defense and would supply Iron Dome rocket interceptors and other defensive arms, but that if Israel goes into Rafah, we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used”. Defense secretary Austin Lloyd reiterated that same point
Ok, good? All you can do with Iron Dome is shoot down mortar rounds and slower-moving rockets (and maybe drones?) - it really only works for defense. I don't see the problem.
In general I love the idea of the US moving more and more towards only supplying defensive munitions to countries (such as the long list of really fucked up countries we deal arms to that would surprise most people).
We could always take special action to supply offensive arms in response to justified conflicts such as in Ukraine, but let's not let authoritarians build up a stockpile of offensive capabilities from US sweat during times of peace. That's a recipe for less peace.
But by all means we should let allies buy as much defensive capabilities as they desire.
Being an ally to the US should be more associated with the benefits of protection from bullies than capacity to bully.
(And most important IMO is that we don't allow selling tech officially or privately by US corporations to enable authoritarians to abuse their own citizens. Something we very much do and I really wish we didn't.)
Israeli companies make and sell a ton of that spy tech. Probably more than the US.
My issue is with the definition of defense, seeing as the US's department of war is called the department of defense and in the past israel's actions have been excused as a right to defend itself.
I'm fine with this model. Defend them from attacks, but don't help them offensively. And leverage our defensive aid to strongarm them into not being genocidal.
US worded its statements carefully. They'll still provide support for all the other parts of Israel's military operations, just not for the Rafah invasion. Israel is free to shuffle things around so that it won't make a difference.
This is a good move. He's doing what he can to temper Netanyahu's attempts at genocide, while still protecting Israel.
I just hope it's enough to stop the killings. That monster will sacrifice every man, woman and child to stay in power (and out of prison).
Just like all the other things Biden has done in this conflict, this is merely a symbolic gesture to say "don't blame us if Israel flattens Rafah".
The US has already provided huge amounts of unconditional military aid to Israel, and remains committed to continuing to do so. So Israel is free to shuffle around their ample resources internally to reach the same outcome.
Yeah, that's literally the point. Biden is being blamed for the genocide up to now, so he's literally saying not to blame him if they flatten Rafah.
Not sure why that's supposed to be a gotcha...
Yeah, israel already has all it needs to carry out this mission. It remains to be seen if this action now will do anything, but given past actions by the US, I'm afraid it won't go far enough to stop israel.
um, didn't the supply already happen?
AFAIK Other stuff has gone forward but they're specifically holding back the large bombs that caused so much death in the rest of Gaza.
Now though we have the problem of Israel holding all but one border crossing closed. (Unless they've reopened some in the last 24 hours) Aid is not getting through at all right now. The single border crossing is in the North of Gaza where they're already in a Famine. The With now has no aid access by ground. It's all ship stuff, but the ground access is actually far better. There's also the problem that Israel will not let aid groups import fuel and with the borders closed they can't drive trucks in to unload the ships.
So the new position has to be either Israel lets aid in or the US steps out of the way in the UN security council.
No, those had a sticky note on them that specifically said, "not for usse in rafah".
Agent Provacateurs Left Confused After Biden Does What They Want - "How do we make Biden look bad now?"
Biden was making himself look bad by supporting genocide. Hopefully this is indicative of more positive change to come.
I love to see optimistic Ensign Crab posts. It's always a good sign
Hahahahaha I thought it too.. this place is too small
It's cozy
Cautiously optimistic.
That's still optimism, so I'll take it as a win
Easy - move the goalposts.
Take it with a grain of salt. A good first step however.
Source.
This should have been the move on day 10 of the invasion. And a white house insisting on peace negotiations and the release of hostages on both sides. He would have instantly been viewed favorably on this issue and likely wouldn't have tanked his polling.
His polling didn't tank in tandem with the Gaza genocide.
Most Americans are either in support or ambivalent towards Israel in this conflict.
Every poll I've seen asks the most important issue to voters, and it's always the economy, with the Israel-Palestine conflict coming in near the bottom.
Israel is committing a genocide, to be clear. The moral thing is to, at minimum, stop supporting their genocide. But that's not the same as saying that the Palestinian genocide is what brought Biden's poll numbers down, or that it's a silver bullet (or even an unambiguous net gain) electorally speaking.
This either isn't true or is only true when you're including Republicans, whose opinions are irrelevant to Biden's reelection. Dem/Lean Dem oppose Israel's conduct 52-22, while Rep/Lean Rep support it 59-17 (they love blowing up Arabs).
From your own source, man
I literally quoted your words right there: "Most Americans are either in support or ambivalent towards Israel in this conflict." Solid attempt at moving the goalposts though.
Do you... do you NOT know that 22% is less than 78%?
Or do you think that "Biden is doing just the right amount of help towards Israel" means... support for Palestine?
The 52-22 you cited was whether Israel's conduct was too far, not whether they supported Israel or Israeli aid in the conflict - as the other charts clearly demonstrate. But uh, you have fun disproving yourself with your own source.
You literally didn't read anything I wrote. Your chart is for a different thing than you claimed. You claimed most Americans support or don't care, I gave you two polls, one where that exact question was asked and it was just flat out untrue (which you ignored completely), and a second one to demonstrate that even in more favorable splits it was only true if you care what Republicans think. You apparently weren't put off by a direct poll answering the direct question you asked and figured digging into a related question in the poll that at least gave you a shot at sticking to your wrong statement was a totally important thing to do.
"Do you support the president's actions" is different than "do you approve of Israel in the conflict" with a whole lot of partisan defaulting and nothing in your wrong statement was about the president or about aid, not to mention "not sure" being an entirely different thing than "I don't care". This follow up trying to pretend people who think Israel is "going to far" isn't the same as not supporting Israel in the conflict is just pathetic. Just fucking accept you were wrong and move on with your life rather than dedicating yourself to these sad follow-ups.
This could have been a one line "oh, I guess it's changed from when I last looked". Or even nothing at all.
You have fun in the world where "Do you support Israel's current offensive" is the same as "Do you support Israel" or "Do you support continued aid to Israel"
Holy fuck man, that's not what you said! I quoted the claim I was correcting, I was very specific, then requoted it so you'd recognize your own words. Jesus the forum brain.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he would not supply offensive weapons that Israel could use to launch an all-out assault on Rafah — the last major Hamas stronghold in Gaza — over concern for the well-being of the more than 1 million civilians sheltering there.
It also comes as the Biden administration is due to deliver a first-of-its-kind formal verdict this week on whether the airstrikes on Gaza and restrictions on delivery of aid have violated international and U.S. laws designed to spare civilians from the worst horrors of war.
Biden’s administration in April began reviewing future transfers of military assistance as Netanyahu’s government appeared to move closer toward an invasion of Rafah, despite months of opposition from the White House.
The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said they only learned about the military aid holdup from press reports, despite assurances from the Biden administration that no such pauses were in the works.
“If we stop weapons necessary to destroy the enemies of the state of Israel at a time of great peril, we will pay a price,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., his voice rising in anger during an exchange with Austin.
The State Department is separately considering whether to approve the continued transfer of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits, which place precision guidance systems onto bombs, to Israel, but the review didn’t pertain to imminent shipments.
The original article contains 1,417 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So, since they're attacking Rafah right now, that means you're going to stop giving them weapons right now, right? Right?
Literally yes. There was a weapon shipment of bombs that was scheduled last week and they withheld them.
I knew about that, but that action was taken a couple of days ago before the Rafah attack started. I remember the news articles about it then. Hopefully the above indicates this stoppage will be true for any and all weapons shipments, not just those bombs.
So you knew about them stopping shipments, but you still comment asking when they are going to start stopping shipments?
The shipment stopping prior was only for that one set of bombs. Not all weapons aid entirely.
Now make them stop.
Riiiiight I'll believe it when the weapon shipments actually stop.