Also it’s hard to sell people on a thing when you’re not actually interesting in selling it as a literal major political figure
It is utterly demoralizing the extent to which critiques of Democrats and their foreign policy positions is met with this fatalistic attitude that sums up as “what can you do, the populace will never go for it/don’t care,” when part of the goddamn point of being a lower case r republican politician is to BE a political leader instead of just this sort of vague political weathervane tied to the whims of a disinterest and mercurial public that just magically happens to point in the direction of established power structures that are hurting the oppressed and marginalized, devoid of any internally motivating ideology or history of external praxis.
The whole "welp that just how politics do" thing is pretty gross to be honest. No one here would react with anything other than revulsion if someone pulled that out when a Republican went into another bout of socially acceptable racism.
"What did you expect, of course they are being racist, it's the Republican party" is actually an extremely common comment so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
"Democratic party nominee has standard american position on foreign policy issue" is not at all surprising.
Because the second part of "What did you expect, of course they are being racist, it's the Republican Party” is “and that’s why they’re terrible” and I’m not sure why you’re so resistant to the same applying here
EDIT: Like, why should behavior be condoned simply because it's expected, and why should that ethos be so selectively applied?
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
Is there any indication that the populace you are talking about gives a shit about this issue to any large degree though? That they disagree with the party consensus?
Also it’s hard to sell people on a thing when you’re not actually interesting in selling it as a literal major political figure
It is utterly demoralizing the extent to which critiques of Democrats and their foreign policy positions is met with this fatalistic attitude that sums up as “what can you do, the populace will never go for it/don’t care,” when part of the goddamn point of being a lower case r republican politician is to BE a political leader instead of just this sort of vague political weathervane tied to the whims of a disinterest and mercurial public that just magically happens to point in the direction of established power structures that are hurting the oppressed and marginalized, devoid of any internally motivating ideology or history of external praxis.
I mean, it's not necessarily fatalistic to recognize that people broadly don't care as much as you or I do. I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue. Israel/Palestine is one of those thorny things that doesn't seem solvable to me as it currently stands.
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
Is there any indication that the populace you are talking about gives a shit about this issue to any large degree though? That they disagree with the party consensus?
I think if you actually treat an idea with gravitas and actual effort the public will respond.
In our current environment you’d see it starkly break into partisan camps as the GOP’s base flips their shit while a majority of the country decides “actually yeah apartheid is bad yeah we shouldn’t enable apartheid” so it’s not going to be a 100% conversion to opposing Israel’s policy of apartheid but I think, yes, if Democratic leadership actually, visibly, opposed the apartheid and worked on policy to pressure Israel into ending it I think you would see broad support for it
Your stated position as repeatedly advocated is politically dead. It is inert. It has no actual function beyond being a stagnant acquiescence to suffering you do not have to yourself endure. It is barely even politics. Which honestly makes me question how much of it is really just facade and excuse, even subconsciously, for support of the status quo because you fear what attempting to upset it may entail, which itself is perhaps the driving flaw of the modern Democrats in just about ever field, foreign policy included.
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
Is there any indication that the populace you are talking about gives a shit about this issue to any large degree though? That they disagree with the party consensus?
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
Is there any indication that the populace you are talking about gives a shit about this issue to any large degree though? That they disagree with the party consensus?
“ (There is not a unified Palestinian government; rather, since 2007, there have been two Palestinian governments, one on the West Bank and the other in the Gaza Strip. To make this question accessible for respondents, and to provide a comparison with views of the Israeli government, the question asks about the “Palestinian government.”)“
[Glares in “you are fucking shitting me with this broken from the get go bullshit”]
“To make this question accessible, we lied to our poll subjects about the actual reality of the conflict, about a fundamental political aspect we thought was too complicated”
I'm not sure what your problem is there. It says they ask respondents about "the Palestinian government" without any other qualification.
I am tired, frustrated and so this is going to be somewhat messy. Thematically appropriate I suppose.
The poll elides the reality of the conflict by combining two disparate governments into one for the sake of making it less complex, for a reality that IS messy and complex, and then expects to actually report something useful to reality.
The reality is there isn’t ONE Palestinian government, but the American viewpoint as current among established political classes, punditry and media desperately requires a binary, even if such binary does not exist, so constructs one, playing into cultural biases of binaries tending to be “the good one and the bad one”
I would argue this damages the political utility of the poll, because it has essentially sidestepped reality in order to create something cleaner and more palatable to the status quo. It is trying to dabble in political fiction than fact, under the guise of streamlining the process
Given how the media often refers the Palestinians as either in the West Bank or Gaza (but still Palestinians), and the fact that I didn't even know there were technically two distinct governments, it kinda makes sense to ask about a singular entity for a survey like that. Otherwise you may get the problem that not enough respondents actually have enough information when randomly sampled to provide any kind of response.
Given how the media often refers the Palestinians as either in the West Bank or Gaza (but still Palestinians), and the fact that I didn't even know there were technically two distinct governments, it kinda makes sense to ask about a singular entity for a survey like that. Otherwise you may get the problem that not enough respondents actually have enough information when randomly sampled to provide any kind of response.
I worry I’m being an asshole here but like... you literally walked into the conversation saying “ I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue.” and then post about how Americans favor the Israeli government over the Palestinians, from a poll that talks about how they have literally misconstrued the issues at hand to make the polling an easier binary, and then talk about how you didn’t know that there were two separate governments until the poll pointed out them, well, lying to make it an easier binary.
Like
What do I do with any of this. How do I debate anything here?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for trying to have this discussion because I’d actually like to have an actual conversation an about Biden’s proposed policy and so far it’s a mix of “old news,” “nothing will change,” “I don’t care,” and actual misinformation forming positions and shit and just...
The whole "welp that just how politics do" thing is pretty gross to be honest. No one here would react with anything other than revulsion if someone pulled that out when a Republican went into another bout of socially acceptable racism.
"What did you expect, of course they are being racist, it's the Republican party" is actually an extremely common comment so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
"Democratic party nominee has standard american position on foreign policy issue" is not at all surprising.
Because the second part of "What did you expect, of course they are being racist, it's the Republican Party” is “and that’s why they’re terrible” and I’m not sure why you’re so resistant to the same applying here
EDIT: Like, why should behavior be condoned simply because it's expected, and why should that ethos be so selectively applied?
Without any sort of interest, let alone practice, in self-criticism a party’s sense of rightness over their rival faction will only descend into reactionary politics and abandon the important work of evolution, reform and progress.
Depressingly that feels like this thread when anyone tries to push for Democrats to do better on foreign policy.
Like maybe this is too meta for the thread topic but what is the point of bringing news in here critical of Democratic foreign policy if it’s going to be met with the kinds of posts from the last two pages? Is this just a thread to be morose about and dunk on Trump fucking up the globe, but the moment a prominent Democrat continues his policies we just kick the dirt and go “well, that’s life for ya.”?
Given how the media often refers the Palestinians as either in the West Bank or Gaza (but still Palestinians), and the fact that I didn't even know there were technically two distinct governments, it kinda makes sense to ask about a singular entity for a survey like that. Otherwise you may get the problem that not enough respondents actually have enough information when randomly sampled to provide any kind of response.
I worry I’m being an asshole here but like... you literally walked into the conversation saying “ I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue.” and then post about how Americans favor the Israeli government over the Palestinians, from a poll that talks about how they have literally misconstrued the issues at hand to make the polling an easier binary, and then talk about how you didn’t know that there were two separate governments until the poll pointed out them, well, lying to make it an easier binary.
Like
What do I do with any of this. How do I debate anything here?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for trying to have this discussion because I’d actually like to have an actual conversation an about Biden’s proposed policy and so far it’s a mix of “old news,” “nothing will change,” “I don’t care,” and actual misinformation forming positions and shit and just...
Graaaaaaah?!
I'm not trying to debate you on any of these things. I'm not trying to defend Biden's stance. I already said Biden's stance is disappointing to me (so that should probably tell you where I stand politically).
My broader point is that I think it's worth recognizing that 1) the BDS movement does not have the political power yet to implement its desired policy and 2) Americans generally don't seem to side with it because they view Palestinians less favorably than Israelis and 3) given (1) and (2) it's not surprising to see Biden have the views he does. I then attempt to explain (1) through my own personal experience by demonstrating that, even among people with a degree in public policy and working in government, the Israeli/Palestinian issue isn't as important as other things (read: domestic) and that has an effect on how the BDS movement gains political power and the avenues of activism available to them.
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
Is there any indication that the populace you are talking about gives a shit about this issue to any large degree though? That they disagree with the party consensus?
Given how the media often refers the Palestinians as either in the West Bank or Gaza (but still Palestinians), and the fact that I didn't even know there were technically two distinct governments, it kinda makes sense to ask about a singular entity for a survey like that. Otherwise you may get the problem that not enough respondents actually have enough information when randomly sampled to provide any kind of response.
I worry I’m being an asshole here but like... you literally walked into the conversation saying “ I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue.” and then post about how Americans favor the Israeli government over the Palestinians, from a poll that talks about how they have literally misconstrued the issues at hand to make the polling an easier binary, and then talk about how you didn’t know that there were two separate governments until the poll pointed out them, well, lying to make it an easier binary.
Like
What do I do with any of this. How do I debate anything here?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for trying to have this discussion because I’d actually like to have an actual conversation an about Biden’s proposed policy and so far it’s a mix of “old news,” “nothing will change,” “I don’t care,” and actual misinformation forming positions and shit and just...
Graaaaaaah?!
I'm not trying to debate you on any of these things. I'm not trying to defend Biden's stance. I already said Biden's stance is disappointing to me (so that should probably tell you where I stand politically).
My broader point is that I think it's worth recognizing that 1) the BDS movement does not have the political power yet to implement its desired policy and 2) Americans generally don't seem to side with it because they view Palestinians less favorably than Israelis and 3) given (1) and (2) it's not surprising to see Biden have the views he does. I then attempt to explain (1) through my own personal experience by demonstrating that, even among people with a degree in public policy and working in government, the Israeli/Palestinian issue isn't as important as other things (read: domestic) and that has an effect on how the BDS movement gains political power and the avenues of activism available to them.
I honestly can't tell because your posts in this have cycled, again, between
Also it’s hard to sell people on a thing when you’re not actually interesting in selling it as a literal major political figure
It is utterly demoralizing the extent to which critiques of Democrats and their foreign policy positions is met with this fatalistic attitude that sums up as “what can you do, the populace will never go for it/don’t care,” when part of the goddamn point of being a lower case r republican politician is to BE a political leader instead of just this sort of vague political weathervane tied to the whims of a disinterest and mercurial public that just magically happens to point in the direction of established power structures that are hurting the oppressed and marginalized, devoid of any internally motivating ideology or history of external praxis.
I mean, it's not necessarily fatalistic to recognize that people broadly don't care as much as you or I do. I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue. Israel/Palestine is one of those thorny things that doesn't seem solvable to me as it currently stands.
And followed up with multiple posts about how normal that utter lack of interest in the topic is, for our foreign policy of enabling an ally to maintain an apartheid state.
The whole thing feels fucking bizarre to me, as if the point is trying to defend the lack of care rather than point out what a nightmare it is that a person whose profession is (as you note) literally in public policy, let alone the wider populace as a whole, doesn't care much about one of the pivotal issues of
human rights and Middle East policy in the post-war period through early 21st-century.
So... no, I don't think I actually do get where you stand politically when you go "Yeah that sucks. Don't really care much though." across multiple posts.
Like, I don't know what to tell you there. You've already said you don't care that much, and when you combine that repeatedly defending the party (like when it was pointed out that the party has a strain of Islamophobia running through it, you tried to claim it didn't by pointing out that two Muslim women got elected to the house despite the fact one of those very same women was thrown under the bus by the party the moment she didn't toe the line regarding AIPAC's influence on Israel/Palestine policy), and trying to shift the onus of the state of America's views on Palestine on BDS failing to achieve critical mass, without even bothering to interrogate how America's perceptions of Palestine, the leadership of it's people, etc. have formed, the whole thing just feels so hollow.
It feels more like you and Shryke are just, generally, trying to wash your hands about why you should care than actually engage with the topic. Like, god, why did someone have to bring in such a negative topic of discussion as the presumptive democratic nominee throwing the Palestinians under the bus.
Like, as Sammich said, both parties in the US have spent years demonizing the Palestinian people in favor of the government of Israel's claims to the land. The media in general too. And it's just utterly devastating to think about with even a passing understanding of the history of the Holocaust, the formation of the modern nation state of Israel and America's roles in these things.
We're a nation who, as the Jews were desperately attempting to escape the grasp of the Nazis literally turned them away and denied their attempts at immigration over and over again. We're a nation who harbors what can only be described as a eschatonically genocidal populace who supports the actions of Israel not because of trying to make any kind of amends for our utter lack of care for the refugees who sought safety on our shores, but because they see support of Israel as a means to usher in their apocalypse (at, of course, ultimately the cost of the Jewish people in Israel). And now, we turn that same apathy, and even elevating it to a sense of malice, towards the plight of the Palestinian people.
We now pursue the enablement of an apartheid state, an enablement that the Democrats are complicit in, an enablement that has been doubled down on by Donald Trump and that the presumptive nominee of the party Joe Biden seems fully intent to continue moving forward, while he literally blames the Palestinians for the oppression they face, declaring that efforts to ameliorate the oppression "let(s) the Palestinians off the hook for their choices."
And so we come to the fact that both parties, ultimately, are complicit in what is one of the most obvious human rights abuses of a state in the modern era. Not by some rogue state or dictatorship or whatnot, but by an ally who is supposed to be a modern democratic nation, one whose very modern genesis is supposed to be that it was born out of the horrors of an Ethnostate engaging in a campaign of genocide against her people. And then that nation goes and engages in Apartheid for decades while declaring the land held by members of a marginalized ethnic group is rightly their own instead, ignoring the shared history and claims by both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.
And the most some folks can muster is "I don't really care that much about the issue."
We can do better.
We should do better.
And we should demand better of our foreign policy. Not just sit on our asses and accept that it is what it is.
EDIT: Amended the brackets to parentheses in "Let(s)" because hooray accidental strike through
I do not know how to take any of your posts seriously when your first statement, which you reiterate several posts later, is "I don't care"
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Just as a note, if you had introduced the topic as more of a "man, American foreign policy is awful and literally atrocious in this respect" and less "man, what is Biden up to now?" More people would engage with the subject matter. As it is, I am utterly uninterested in talking about or defending Biden, because he wasn't who I wanted as nominee, but he is the nominee, so what do you expect me to do?
As for interest within the Democratic Party, Bernie got creamed, so it's pretty apparent the issue is at best on the back burner for a lot of people.
Just as a note, if you had introduced the topic as more of a "man, American foreign policy is awful and literally atrocious in this respect" and less "man, what is Biden up to now?" More people would engage with the subject matter. As it is, I am utterly uninterested in talking about or defending Biden, because he wasn't who I wanted as nominee, but he is the nominee, so what do you expect me to do?
As for interest within the Democratic Party, Bernie got creamed, so it's pretty apparent the issue is at best on the back burner for a lot of people.
None of that manages to stop this thread from engaging in the latest nightmare Trump and his entourage vomit upon the world stage in a position particular to the Trump Administration rather than gestalt American Foreign Policy.
At which point, like Javen pointed out: Why is there that difference?
Because it really doesn't feel like the issue is "you didn't post about it right"
+4
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Just as a note, if you had introduced the topic as more of a "man, American foreign policy is awful and literally atrocious in this respect" and less "man, what is Biden up to now?" More people would engage with the subject matter. As it is, I am utterly uninterested in talking about or defending Biden, because he wasn't who I wanted as nominee, but he is the nominee, so what do you expect me to do?
As for interest within the Democratic Party, Bernie got creamed, so it's pretty apparent the issue is at best on the back burner for a lot of people.
And given the other option just fired an inspector general for investigating "emergency" saudi arms deals, it really is an issue that is of secondary concern
By all means raise hell at the convention. I'm with y'all there. But as a general topic?
edit: and seriously why has nobody in this thread even mentioned what is happening at the State department?
Just as a note, if you had introduced the topic as more of a "man, American foreign policy is awful and literally atrocious in this respect" and less "man, what is Biden up to now?" More people would engage with the subject matter. As it is, I am utterly uninterested in talking about or defending Biden, because he wasn't who I wanted as nominee, but he is the nominee, so what do you expect me to do?
As for interest within the Democratic Party, Bernie got creamed, so it's pretty apparent the issue is at best on the back burner for a lot of people.
I mean, what was brought up isn't American foreign policy. Actual American foreign policy is generally worse and somehow also less well thought-out than what Biden is mentioning. I don't know how you frame this as not a Biden issue, considering it's from Biden's election campaign.
Just as a note, if you had introduced the topic as more of a "man, American foreign policy is awful and literally atrocious in this respect" and less "man, what is Biden up to now?" More people would engage with the subject matter. As it is, I am utterly uninterested in talking about or defending Biden, because he wasn't who I wanted as nominee, but he is the nominee, so what do you expect me to do?
As for interest within the Democratic Party, Bernie got creamed, so it's pretty apparent the issue is at best on the back burner for a lot of people.
I mean, what was brought up isn't American foreign policy. Actual American foreign policy is generally worse and somehow also less well thought-out than what Biden is mentioning. I don't know how you frame this as not a Biden issue, considering it's from Biden's election campaign.
eeeh, "isn't foreign policy" only so far as it isn't yet. He's pitching this as what our policy regarding BDS will be should he win, with an insight into how a Biden administration will view the Palestinian people (that is, their suffering is their own fault, because they made bad "choices" according to a hypothetical President Biden).
That's why I figured it was relevant, because the presumptive nominee is saying that, should we elect him, this is what we are choosing as our position on BDS and the Palestinian peoples.
That said, I agree it is bizarre to suggest I should have posted this as a critique of holistic US foreign policy instead of the specific course being charted by the presumptive democratic nominee, despite any other conversation in this thread being weighted against the specific administration promoting it instead of being viewed as a holistically American policy
Lanz on
+1
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Yes, there are multiple Palestinian governments.
This is part of the problem. Even if the political will existed to try for a two state solution again*, who do you negotiate with?
The terrorist group who runs the Gaza Strip, or the former terrorist group who runs the West Bank?
*which let’s be truthful this has been DoA for the last 20 years ever since Clinton tried snd Arafat rejected the best offer the Palestinian people will ever get
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The time for agency here was the primary. Now the only thing we as Americans really have re- the conflict is Trump vs Biden. Both aren’t great on this topic.
Yes it sucks, but thats the choice. If the media hadn’t constantly trashed Warren we’d be talking differently now.
+20
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Just as a note, if you had introduced the topic as more of a "man, American foreign policy is awful and literally atrocious in this respect" and less "man, what is Biden up to now?" More people would engage with the subject matter. As it is, I am utterly uninterested in talking about or defending Biden, because he wasn't who I wanted as nominee, but he is the nominee, so what do you expect me to do?
As for interest within the Democratic Party, Bernie got creamed, so it's pretty apparent the issue is at best on the back burner for a lot of people.
I mean, what was brought up isn't American foreign policy. Actual American foreign policy is generally worse and somehow also less well thought-out than what Biden is mentioning. I don't know how you frame this as not a Biden issue, considering it's from Biden's election campaign.
I can't say I remember a Democratic Party presidential candidate ever going quite so masks off with "It's their fault Israel keeps hitting them." before but maybe I missed it?
On Democrat/Republican influences on Foreign Policy, ignoring Biden being Biden for a moment, the big problem is that Democrat administrations by necessity and because their voters asked for it have been much more focused on domestic policy.
Not to mention that Foreign Policy has been mostly running on auto-pilot since the big goal was accomplished: The defeat of the Soviet Union. Bush Sr. asked "ok now what?", but things keep running, then declining, then President Wrecking Ball was elected and so here we are.
9/10 US voters don't give a single shit about the Israel situation and are just sort of instinctively pro-Israel cos they're an ally etc
Honestly I'm not even really that sure why they should. I think if you really forced the US population to look at the situation and give you an answer you probably wouldn't get one you liked anyway.
An announcement could be made tomorrow, an administration source tells CNN.
The treaty which was signed in 1992 allows member countries to conduct short-notice, unarmed, reconnaissance flights over the others' country entire to collect data on military forces and activities.
It was part of a broad web of arms control agreements meant to ensure stability and predictability on the European continent and reduce the risk of misunderstandings that could spiral into conflict by ensuring transparency....
The President, and many officials in his administration, have criticized the idea that the United States should be bound by international agreements. But analysts said discarding another agreement will potentially deepen global instability.
Because why fucking not. I'm not sure how this even penalizes Russia, as the article states the administration feels like Russia isn't holding up it's end due to restricting flights near Kaliningrad. But even if that's true, how does the US pulling out benefit... anyone? I can't even see the benefit to Russia, which is the usual explanation for these things. Other than just sowing more discord and further weakening American soft power, I guess.
"If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
Given how the media often refers the Palestinians as either in the West Bank or Gaza (but still Palestinians), and the fact that I didn't even know there were technically two distinct governments, it kinda makes sense to ask about a singular entity for a survey like that. Otherwise you may get the problem that not enough respondents actually have enough information when randomly sampled to provide any kind of response.
I worry I’m being an asshole here but like... you literally walked into the conversation saying “ I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue.” and then post about how Americans favor the Israeli government over the Palestinians, from a poll that talks about how they have literally misconstrued the issues at hand to make the polling an easier binary, and then talk about how you didn’t know that there were two separate governments until the poll pointed out them, well, lying to make it an easier binary.
Like
What do I do with any of this. How do I debate anything here?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for trying to have this discussion because I’d actually like to have an actual conversation an about Biden’s proposed policy and so far it’s a mix of “old news,” “nothing will change,” “I don’t care,” and actual misinformation forming positions and shit and just...
Graaaaaaah?!
I'm not trying to debate you on any of these things. I'm not trying to defend Biden's stance. I already said Biden's stance is disappointing to me (so that should probably tell you where I stand politically).
My broader point is that I think it's worth recognizing that 1) the BDS movement does not have the political power yet to implement its desired policy and 2) Americans generally don't seem to side with it because they view Palestinians less favorably than Israelis and 3) given (1) and (2) it's not surprising to see Biden have the views he does. I then attempt to explain (1) through my own personal experience by demonstrating that, even among people with a degree in public policy and working in government, the Israeli/Palestinian issue isn't as important as other things (read: domestic) and that has an effect on how the BDS movement gains political power and the avenues of activism available to them.
I honestly can't tell because your posts in this have cycled, again, between
Also it’s hard to sell people on a thing when you’re not actually interesting in selling it as a literal major political figure
It is utterly demoralizing the extent to which critiques of Democrats and their foreign policy positions is met with this fatalistic attitude that sums up as “what can you do, the populace will never go for it/don’t care,” when part of the goddamn point of being a lower case r republican politician is to BE a political leader instead of just this sort of vague political weathervane tied to the whims of a disinterest and mercurial public that just magically happens to point in the direction of established power structures that are hurting the oppressed and marginalized, devoid of any internally motivating ideology or history of external praxis.
I mean, it's not necessarily fatalistic to recognize that people broadly don't care as much as you or I do. I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue. Israel/Palestine is one of those thorny things that doesn't seem solvable to me as it currently stands.
And followed up with multiple posts about how normal that utter lack of interest in the topic is, for our foreign policy of enabling an ally to maintain an apartheid state.
The whole thing feels fucking bizarre to me, as if the point is trying to defend the lack of care rather than point out what a nightmare it is that a person whose profession is (as you note) literally in public policy, let alone the wider populace as a whole, doesn't care much about one of the pivotal issues of
human rights and Middle East policy in the post-war period through early 21st-century.
So... no, I don't think I actually do get where you stand politically when you go "Yeah that sucks. Don't really care much though." across multiple posts.
Like, I don't know what to tell you there. You've already said you don't care that much, and when you combine that repeatedly defending the party (like when it was pointed out that the party has a strain of Islamophobia running through it, you tried to claim it didn't by pointing out that two Muslim women got elected to the house despite the fact one of those very same women was thrown under the bus by the party the moment she didn't toe the line regarding AIPAC's influence on Israel/Palestine policy), and trying to shift the onus of the state of America's views on Palestine on BDS failing to achieve critical mass, without even bothering to interrogate how America's perceptions of Palestine, the leadership of it's people, etc. have formed, the whole thing just feels so hollow.
It feels more like you and Shryke are just, generally, trying to wash your hands about why you should care than actually engage with the topic. Like, god, why did someone have to bring in such a negative topic of discussion as the presumptive democratic nominee throwing the Palestinians under the bus.
Like, as Sammich said, both parties in the US have spent years demonizing the Palestinian people in favor of the government of Israel's claims to the land. The media in general too. And it's just utterly devastating to think about with even a passing understanding of the history of the Holocaust, the formation of the modern nation state of Israel and America's roles in these things.
We're a nation who, as the Jews were desperately attempting to escape the grasp of the Nazis literally turned them away and denied their attempts at immigration over and over again. We're a nation who harbors what can only be described as a eschatonically genocidal populace who supports the actions of Israel not because of trying to make any kind of amends for our utter lack of care for the refugees who sought safety on our shores, but because they see support of Israel as a means to usher in their apocalypse (at, of course, ultimately the cost of the Jewish people in Israel). And now, we turn that same apathy, and even elevating it to a sense of malice, towards the plight of the Palestinian people.
We now pursue the enablement of an apartheid state, an enablement that the Democrats are complicit in, an enablement that has been doubled down on by Donald Trump and that the presumptive nominee of the party Joe Biden seems fully intent to continue moving forward, while he literally blames the Palestinians for the oppression they face, declaring that efforts to ameliorate the oppression "let(s) the Palestinians off the hook for their choices."
And so we come to the fact that both parties, ultimately, are complicit in what is one of the most obvious human rights abuses of a state in the modern era. Not by some rogue state or dictatorship or whatnot, but by an ally who is supposed to be a modern democratic nation, one whose very modern genesis is supposed to be that it was born out of the horrors of an Ethnostate engaging in a campaign of genocide against her people. And then that nation goes and engages in Apartheid for decades while declaring the land held by members of a marginalized ethnic group is rightly their own instead, ignoring the shared history and claims by both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.
And the most some folks can muster is "I don't really care that much about the issue."
We can do better.
We should do better.
And we should demand better of our foreign policy. Not just sit on our asses and accept that it is what it is.
EDIT: Amended the brackets to parentheses in "Let(s)" because hooray accidental strike through
Except for the first post, which was a reaction to you bringing the presumptive democratic presidential nominee's policy stance into the thread, was basically going "that sucks, but I'll still vote for him."
Each of my other posts was directly quoting something someone said and responding to it. When I brought up the fact that members of the democratic party elected the first two muslim women ever to Congress I immediately followed that statement by saying I think the BDS movement is gaining some power but that it will take time. The democrats' response to them has been disappointing and I take your points that they are actively primarying one of those candidates for stepping out of the party line. The party still has issues there, for sure, and I wish they would do better.
I think you're reading malice and contempt into my posts where there isn't any, and I apologize if I did not write them clearly enough to get my point across. Personally I would like some kind of two-state solution and the end of an effective apartheid state. But, seeing as how I started engaging with the topic in the 7th grade when I wrote my first major research paper on the Balfour Declaration, I've grown rather tired and nihilistic to the whole issue. Writing out my personal view as nightmarish because I have other things going on in my life that limit the mental and emotional capacity I have to think about a particular issue is rather insulting. There are other more important things right now to me than the presumptive democratic nominee's stance on BDS. And that's also the point, people don't care as much. It's not to excuse it, it's to use my personal experience as a demonstration of the problems inherent in changing policy. Bringing up my personal lack of care for the topic is attempting to show that people have other things going on in their life and that the way to change policy -- through activism, etc. -- is limited for the BDS movement because of the fact that they are engaging in foreign policy that many people don't think or care about. I'm not sitting here, writing each of my posts out as "yeah but who fuckin' cares rite this is all pointless". As I said previously, the first time was a response to Biden and that it won't change my vote, the second time was attempting to make a point that wasn't very clear, and that's on me.
Frankly, I think your monologue explains your entire purpose of bringing the topic up: you want to be angry and vent. That's fine, that's valid, but you also don't get to act righteous and surprised when people aren't interested in engaging with the anger but more interested in explaining or figuring out the dynamic that goes beyond "the democrats are corrupt oligarchs". The fact that you see Shryke or my's response to this as a "debate" is itself emblematic of that. I don't think either of us are actually debating or even disagreeing with you here. That you think I brought up the pew poll as some kind of "gotcha!" is just plain wrong since I was literally responding to someone asking for polling on the issue and it was the first thing I came across.
+14
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Does the Open Skies treaty actually have any relevance in a world of ubiquitous satellite imaging? Like we can't do flyovers, ok, just wait like twenty minutes and we'll have a satellite overhead.
Does the Open Skies treaty actually have any relevance in a world of ubiquitous satellite imaging? Like we can't do flyovers, ok, just wait like twenty minutes and we'll have a satellite overhead.
This is like saying that everyone's got a camera in their phone already, why bother investing in a DSLR with a telephoto lens.
American officials also note that Mr. Trump was angered by a Russian flight directly over his Bedminster, N.J., golf estate in 2017. And in classified reports, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies have contended the Russians are also using flights over the United States to map out critical American infrastructure that could be hit by cyberattacks.
Mr. Trump’s decision, rumored for some time, is bound to further aggravate European allies, including those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, who are also signatories to the treaty.
They are likely to remain in the accord, which has about three dozen signatories, but have warned that with Washington’s exit, Russia will almost certainly respond by also cutting off their flights, which the allies use to monitor troop movements on their borders — especially important to the Baltic nations.
Is that supposed to make Trump look better or worse for this? Like he isn't doing this thing that hurts allies but because Russia annoyed him?
Posts
It is utterly demoralizing the extent to which critiques of Democrats and their foreign policy positions is met with this fatalistic attitude that sums up as “what can you do, the populace will never go for it/don’t care,” when part of the goddamn point of being a lower case r republican politician is to BE a political leader instead of just this sort of vague political weathervane tied to the whims of a disinterest and mercurial public that just magically happens to point in the direction of established power structures that are hurting the oppressed and marginalized, devoid of any internally motivating ideology or history of external praxis.
Because the second part of "What did you expect, of course they are being racist, it's the Republican Party” is “and that’s why they’re terrible” and I’m not sure why you’re so resistant to the same applying here
EDIT: Like, why should behavior be condoned simply because it's expected, and why should that ethos be so selectively applied?
Is there any indication that the populace you are talking about gives a shit about this issue to any large degree though? That they disagree with the party consensus?
I mean, it's not necessarily fatalistic to recognize that people broadly don't care as much as you or I do. I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue. Israel/Palestine is one of those thorny things that doesn't seem solvable to me as it currently stands.
I think if you actually treat an idea with gravitas and actual effort the public will respond.
In our current environment you’d see it starkly break into partisan camps as the GOP’s base flips their shit while a majority of the country decides “actually yeah apartheid is bad yeah we shouldn’t enable apartheid” so it’s not going to be a 100% conversion to opposing Israel’s policy of apartheid but I think, yes, if Democratic leadership actually, visibly, opposed the apartheid and worked on policy to pressure Israel into ending it I think you would see broad support for it
Your stated position as repeatedly advocated is politically dead. It is inert. It has no actual function beyond being a stagnant acquiescence to suffering you do not have to yourself endure. It is barely even politics. Which honestly makes me question how much of it is really just facade and excuse, even subconsciously, for support of the status quo because you fear what attempting to upset it may entail, which itself is perhaps the driving flaw of the modern Democrats in just about ever field, foreign policy included.
Based on this poll from Pew it looks like Americans dislike the Palestinian government more than they dislike the Israeli government, which is kind of interesting and says a lot. Also looks like they have more favorable views of Israeli people than Palestinian people.
“ (There is not a unified Palestinian government; rather, since 2007, there have been two Palestinian governments, one on the West Bank and the other in the Gaza Strip. To make this question accessible for respondents, and to provide a comparison with views of the Israeli government, the question asks about the “Palestinian government.”)“
[Glares in “you are fucking shitting me with this broken from the get go bullshit”]
I am tired, frustrated and so this is going to be somewhat messy. Thematically appropriate I suppose.
The poll elides the reality of the conflict by combining two disparate governments into one for the sake of making it less complex, for a reality that IS messy and complex, and then expects to actually report something useful to reality.
The reality is there isn’t ONE Palestinian government, but the American viewpoint as current among established political classes, punditry and media desperately requires a binary, even if such binary does not exist, so constructs one, playing into cultural biases of binaries tending to be “the good one and the bad one”
I would argue this damages the political utility of the poll, because it has essentially sidestepped reality in order to create something cleaner and more palatable to the status quo. It is trying to dabble in political fiction than fact, under the guise of streamlining the process
I worry I’m being an asshole here but like... you literally walked into the conversation saying “ I met shit, I don't really care that much about the issue.” and then post about how Americans favor the Israeli government over the Palestinians, from a poll that talks about how they have literally misconstrued the issues at hand to make the polling an easier binary, and then talk about how you didn’t know that there were two separate governments until the poll pointed out them, well, lying to make it an easier binary.
Like
What do I do with any of this. How do I debate anything here?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for trying to have this discussion because I’d actually like to have an actual conversation an about Biden’s proposed policy and so far it’s a mix of “old news,” “nothing will change,” “I don’t care,” and actual misinformation forming positions and shit and just...
Graaaaaaah?!
Without any sort of interest, let alone practice, in self-criticism a party’s sense of rightness over their rival faction will only descend into reactionary politics and abandon the important work of evolution, reform and progress.
Depressingly that feels like this thread when anyone tries to push for Democrats to do better on foreign policy.
Like maybe this is too meta for the thread topic but what is the point of bringing news in here critical of Democratic foreign policy if it’s going to be met with the kinds of posts from the last two pages? Is this just a thread to be morose about and dunk on Trump fucking up the globe, but the moment a prominent Democrat continues his policies we just kick the dirt and go “well, that’s life for ya.”?
I'm not trying to debate you on any of these things. I'm not trying to defend Biden's stance. I already said Biden's stance is disappointing to me (so that should probably tell you where I stand politically).
My broader point is that I think it's worth recognizing that 1) the BDS movement does not have the political power yet to implement its desired policy and 2) Americans generally don't seem to side with it because they view Palestinians less favorably than Israelis and 3) given (1) and (2) it's not surprising to see Biden have the views he does. I then attempt to explain (1) through my own personal experience by demonstrating that, even among people with a degree in public policy and working in government, the Israeli/Palestinian issue isn't as important as other things (read: domestic) and that has an effect on how the BDS movement gains political power and the avenues of activism available to them.
I mean both parties tell them that Palestinians are barely deserving of even basic freedoms so
I honestly can't tell because your posts in this have cycled, again, between
and
And followed up with multiple posts about how normal that utter lack of interest in the topic is, for our foreign policy of enabling an ally to maintain an apartheid state.
The whole thing feels fucking bizarre to me, as if the point is trying to defend the lack of care rather than point out what a nightmare it is that a person whose profession is (as you note) literally in public policy, let alone the wider populace as a whole, doesn't care much about one of the pivotal issues of
human rights and Middle East policy in the post-war period through early 21st-century.
So... no, I don't think I actually do get where you stand politically when you go "Yeah that sucks. Don't really care much though." across multiple posts.
Like, I don't know what to tell you there. You've already said you don't care that much, and when you combine that repeatedly defending the party (like when it was pointed out that the party has a strain of Islamophobia running through it, you tried to claim it didn't by pointing out that two Muslim women got elected to the house despite the fact one of those very same women was thrown under the bus by the party the moment she didn't toe the line regarding AIPAC's influence on Israel/Palestine policy), and trying to shift the onus of the state of America's views on Palestine on BDS failing to achieve critical mass, without even bothering to interrogate how America's perceptions of Palestine, the leadership of it's people, etc. have formed, the whole thing just feels so hollow.
It feels more like you and Shryke are just, generally, trying to wash your hands about why you should care than actually engage with the topic. Like, god, why did someone have to bring in such a negative topic of discussion as the presumptive democratic nominee throwing the Palestinians under the bus.
Like, as Sammich said, both parties in the US have spent years demonizing the Palestinian people in favor of the government of Israel's claims to the land. The media in general too. And it's just utterly devastating to think about with even a passing understanding of the history of the Holocaust, the formation of the modern nation state of Israel and America's roles in these things.
We're a nation who, as the Jews were desperately attempting to escape the grasp of the Nazis literally turned them away and denied their attempts at immigration over and over again. We're a nation who harbors what can only be described as a eschatonically genocidal populace who supports the actions of Israel not because of trying to make any kind of amends for our utter lack of care for the refugees who sought safety on our shores, but because they see support of Israel as a means to usher in their apocalypse (at, of course, ultimately the cost of the Jewish people in Israel). And now, we turn that same apathy, and even elevating it to a sense of malice, towards the plight of the Palestinian people.
We now pursue the enablement of an apartheid state, an enablement that the Democrats are complicit in, an enablement that has been doubled down on by Donald Trump and that the presumptive nominee of the party Joe Biden seems fully intent to continue moving forward, while he literally blames the Palestinians for the oppression they face, declaring that efforts to ameliorate the oppression "let(s) the Palestinians off the hook for their choices."
And so we come to the fact that both parties, ultimately, are complicit in what is one of the most obvious human rights abuses of a state in the modern era. Not by some rogue state or dictatorship or whatnot, but by an ally who is supposed to be a modern democratic nation, one whose very modern genesis is supposed to be that it was born out of the horrors of an Ethnostate engaging in a campaign of genocide against her people. And then that nation goes and engages in Apartheid for decades while declaring the land held by members of a marginalized ethnic group is rightly their own instead, ignoring the shared history and claims by both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.
And the most some folks can muster is "I don't really care that much about the issue."
We can do better.
We should do better.
And we should demand better of our foreign policy. Not just sit on our asses and accept that it is what it is.
EDIT: Amended the brackets to parentheses in "Let(s)" because hooray accidental strike through
Again
I do not know how to take any of your posts seriously when your first statement, which you reiterate several posts later, is "I don't care"
As for interest within the Democratic Party, Bernie got creamed, so it's pretty apparent the issue is at best on the back burner for a lot of people.
None of that manages to stop this thread from engaging in the latest nightmare Trump and his entourage vomit upon the world stage in a position particular to the Trump Administration rather than gestalt American Foreign Policy.
At which point, like Javen pointed out: Why is there that difference?
Because it really doesn't feel like the issue is "you didn't post about it right"
And given the other option just fired an inspector general for investigating "emergency" saudi arms deals, it really is an issue that is of secondary concern
By all means raise hell at the convention. I'm with y'all there. But as a general topic?
edit: and seriously why has nobody in this thread even mentioned what is happening at the State department?
I mean, what was brought up isn't American foreign policy. Actual American foreign policy is generally worse and somehow also less well thought-out than what Biden is mentioning. I don't know how you frame this as not a Biden issue, considering it's from Biden's election campaign.
eeeh, "isn't foreign policy" only so far as it isn't yet. He's pitching this as what our policy regarding BDS will be should he win, with an insight into how a Biden administration will view the Palestinian people (that is, their suffering is their own fault, because they made bad "choices" according to a hypothetical President Biden).
That's why I figured it was relevant, because the presumptive nominee is saying that, should we elect him, this is what we are choosing as our position on BDS and the Palestinian peoples.
That said, I agree it is bizarre to suggest I should have posted this as a critique of holistic US foreign policy instead of the specific course being charted by the presumptive democratic nominee, despite any other conversation in this thread being weighted against the specific administration promoting it instead of being viewed as a holistically American policy
This is part of the problem. Even if the political will existed to try for a two state solution again*, who do you negotiate with?
The terrorist group who runs the Gaza Strip, or the former terrorist group who runs the West Bank?
*which let’s be truthful this has been DoA for the last 20 years ever since Clinton tried snd Arafat rejected the best offer the Palestinian people will ever get
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yes it sucks, but thats the choice. If the media hadn’t constantly trashed Warren we’d be talking differently now.
I can't say I remember a Democratic Party presidential candidate ever going quite so masks off with "It's their fault Israel keeps hitting them." before but maybe I missed it?
Not to mention that Foreign Policy has been mostly running on auto-pilot since the big goal was accomplished: The defeat of the Soviet Union. Bush Sr. asked "ok now what?", but things keep running, then declining, then President Wrecking Ball was elected and so here we are.
Honestly I'm not even really that sure why they should. I think if you really forced the US population to look at the situation and give you an answer you probably wouldn't get one you liked anyway.
The Trump administration is preparing to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, making it the latest arms control agreement that the US will abandon
Because why fucking not. I'm not sure how this even penalizes Russia, as the article states the administration feels like Russia isn't holding up it's end due to restricting flights near Kaliningrad. But even if that's true, how does the US pulling out benefit... anyone? I can't even see the benefit to Russia, which is the usual explanation for these things. Other than just sowing more discord and further weakening American soft power, I guess.
Except for the first post, which was a reaction to you bringing the presumptive democratic presidential nominee's policy stance into the thread, was basically going "that sucks, but I'll still vote for him."
Each of my other posts was directly quoting something someone said and responding to it. When I brought up the fact that members of the democratic party elected the first two muslim women ever to Congress I immediately followed that statement by saying I think the BDS movement is gaining some power but that it will take time. The democrats' response to them has been disappointing and I take your points that they are actively primarying one of those candidates for stepping out of the party line. The party still has issues there, for sure, and I wish they would do better.
I think you're reading malice and contempt into my posts where there isn't any, and I apologize if I did not write them clearly enough to get my point across. Personally I would like some kind of two-state solution and the end of an effective apartheid state. But, seeing as how I started engaging with the topic in the 7th grade when I wrote my first major research paper on the Balfour Declaration, I've grown rather tired and nihilistic to the whole issue. Writing out my personal view as nightmarish because I have other things going on in my life that limit the mental and emotional capacity I have to think about a particular issue is rather insulting. There are other more important things right now to me than the presumptive democratic nominee's stance on BDS. And that's also the point, people don't care as much. It's not to excuse it, it's to use my personal experience as a demonstration of the problems inherent in changing policy. Bringing up my personal lack of care for the topic is attempting to show that people have other things going on in their life and that the way to change policy -- through activism, etc. -- is limited for the BDS movement because of the fact that they are engaging in foreign policy that many people don't think or care about. I'm not sitting here, writing each of my posts out as "yeah but who fuckin' cares rite this is all pointless". As I said previously, the first time was a response to Biden and that it won't change my vote, the second time was attempting to make a point that wasn't very clear, and that's on me.
Frankly, I think your monologue explains your entire purpose of bringing the topic up: you want to be angry and vent. That's fine, that's valid, but you also don't get to act righteous and surprised when people aren't interested in engaging with the anger but more interested in explaining or figuring out the dynamic that goes beyond "the democrats are corrupt oligarchs". The fact that you see Shryke or my's response to this as a "debate" is itself emblematic of that. I don't think either of us are actually debating or even disagreeing with you here. That you think I brought up the pew poll as some kind of "gotcha!" is just plain wrong since I was literally responding to someone asking for polling on the issue and it was the first thing I came across.
This is like saying that everyone's got a camera in their phone already, why bother investing in a DSLR with a telephoto lens.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar