Trump says Palestinians have ‘no alternative’ but to leave Gaza

[email protected]

Your argument's defense of a nonexistent boundary between genocide and ethnic cleansing boils down to genocide denial. There is no agreed upon definition of ethnic cleansing. There is no way to peacefully forcefully relocate a group of people. An attempt to forcefully relocate a group of people is motivated by the desire to destroy that group in whole or in part.

The quote from the wiki article points out everything I have now written down in this comment. It's written as a series of rhetorical questions with clear answers. Your argument's effort to misrepresent the wiki page's descriptive analysis of ethnic cleansing as an official definition is an attempt to police a none existent boundary. You argument left out the last part of that section.

Multiple genocide scholars have criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide, with Martin Shaw arguing that forced deportation necessarily results in the destruction of a group and this must be foreseen by the perpetrators.

A call for ethnic cleansing is a call for genocide. There is no way to engage in peaceful forceful deportation or population transfer. There is no meaningful difference between getting rid of a group by forcefully removing them and destroying them.

The Armenian genocide involved death marches, into the desert without food or water. What's the meaningful difference between sending people to die in the desert and destroying them? There isn't one.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/armenian-genocide

[email protected]

your dogmatism did nothing to stop genocide either. we are both in hell.

[email protected]

They don't, actually. They are practically masturbating to the idea of Palestinian genocide.

[email protected]

Unless you're being foolish, by election day they are the same thing.

[email protected]

Funny how there's always someone doing defense for the DNC before anyone even mentions them.

[email protected]

That was the problem though wasn't it? Right after the Economy was Gaza and the Dems were the guy on the right. It was only ever the leadership on the left.

[email protected]

agian they are deffinitionaly not, witholding support, and activly giving it to someone else are not the same

[email protected]

Tell yourself that all you want. Unless you change from first past the post voting, it is the same.

[email protected]

I think the vast majority of Democrats in House and Senate will bend the knee or just stay silent before facing persecution.

Since Trump's inauguration, the Democrats have been ineffective so far, but they haven't been silent. We'll find out soon.

And everybody voting the furthest left viable is a flimsy strategy for fighting fascism.

It was the only useful, viable strategy we had.

Many people already do that all the time, but you can’t make sure that everybody does.

We can count on people to act in their own self-interest. People can organize online to spread true information. The issue was that people fell for propaganda that convinced them to act against their own interests without them realizing it.

Also, with this there never was a chance to move the party any further left. Every election there was this myth that you have to vote moderate to change the party, but it never happened. Why should it? Moderates can say that the voters have shown they want moderate positions when they win. And when they lose for some reason they go, “Well, if you need them the most the progressives will stab you in the back. Let’s cut them out”. This is what I mean there are no consequences for Democrats, at least for the leadership that’s moderate and neoliberal. They will never move.

My argument is that voting for neoliberal Democrats will only incrementally shift the party to the left. In order to make the Democrats meaningfully change from a leaning right of center organization to at least a leaning left of center organization they must be co-opted by a progressive or socialist candidate with a populist narrative. This populist narrative would ideally be a progressive and socialist agenda. Like Bernie tried to do twice. In order for someone like Bernie to do this we needed more time before a fascist takeover.

We know this strategy can work because Trump did it to the Republican party. He used a populist narrative of white christian nationalism. However, we are now out of time and relying on the idea that fascist incompetence will give us another chance.

There is no fulcrum on the political spectrum that can force Democrats to change. And if what your argument wants is a reason for Democrats to change that is not consequences but incentives. To be clear, in a democracy the only consequence for losing elections is to lose out on political power. There is no mechanism besides voting to make Democrats agree with one group of constituents. Democrats look at who voted and then chase those votes.

As long as money is in politics the incentives will always be for the Democrats to incrementally change at best. At a pace that is far to slow to fix wealth inequality or climate change. Political power has to be seized when it is up for grabs during primaries in order to see more systemic change. But in order to do that there needed to be future elections which is no longer guaranteed.

[email protected]

Yeah, because Kamala was so pro-palestine lmfao

What does that have to do with people who claimed they cared about Palestinians doing the right thing and voting for the BEST candidate regarding Palestine? Because Trump made it extremely clear he wanted Israel to steamroll Palestine and, oh shit, now that he's president that's the stance he's taking. WHO COULD HAVE FORESEEN THIS!?!?!?!?

Honestly, you're doing a great job of personifying the exact fools I'm talking about.

Like, any sane party would have seen how polling showed that a huge chunk of your base rejected your stance on Palestine and reevaluated.

You realize that a responsible government can't just change its stance regarding allies every 4 years just to win an election, right? We would have no allies. It'll be a cold day in hell before we jeopardize our most important ally in the Middle East. So are you suggesting Democrats should have stooped to Republican levels and lied to the American people by saying they would stop supporting Israel and then just take that back after they won?

Like goddamn, you’re here calling other people trash because they didn’t want to support a candidate who was okay giving a blank check to a foreign country earmarked for carpet bombing civilians?

No, I'm here calling trash people trash for pretending they cared about Palestinians and then refusing to vote for the BEST AVAILABLE OUTCOME for Palestinians. I mean, I guess you could argue that they aren't actually trash, but just really, really, super stupid people that somehow thought not voting for Palestinian's best shot would be a smart thing to do. I'm willing to meet you in the middle on that one.

These dipshits sealed Palestinian's fate AND put our own nation in extreme jeopardy. They can honestly go fuck themselves.

[email protected]

Yeah loser, my first thought after these dipshits sealed Palestinian's fate by not voting for the BEST candidate regarding Palestine while simultaneously placing our own nation in extreme jeopardy is to point out that they're fucking fools and WE all told them so before they made a huge fucking mistake.

[email protected]

even “vote blue no matter who” shills know Kamala’s position on Gaza was indefensible

Herp derp, I guess we should vote 3rd party or not vote at all and guarantee that the worst possible candidate for Palestine gets elected. That'll help Palestine. Herp derp.

[email protected]

Kiddo, why would I feel stupid when I voted for the BEST candidate regarding Palestine's future? I made the right decision while these fools wasted their vote on a 3rd party or didn't vote at all in protest, ensuring Palestine's worst-case-scenario, which is now happening.

Do you tie your own shoes in the morning or do you use velcro?

[email protected]

I'm sure the kids being killed in airstrikes really care if the bombs were bankrolled by a blue or red administration.

[email protected]

What a daft thing to say. Shove your shill gambit up your arse ya troglodyte and grow a spine.

[email protected]

A majority chose Jill Stein

Jill Stein? You mean the clown that shows up a couple months out from every election, then disappears for 4 years? You mean the Jill Stein that got more votes than any other 3rd party candidate and that amounted to a whopping HALF OF A SINGLE PERCENT of the total votes cast by Americans?

That Jill Stein?

Lol. Anyone that voted 3rd party for president is a fool of the highest caliber. They threw their votes away on candidates that COULD NOT win, ensuring a Trump victory. Because every one of those fools went into the election not knowing if their vote for a 3rd party was going to be the deciding factor of the election.

[email protected]

The amount of mental gymnastics you're doing to justify the Democratic party supporting genocide is genuinely sad. And I do mean that, like it's truly sad to me that so many people have convinced themselves that it's a fine and normal thing that a nominally progressive party should support the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. I didn't vote for that platform and I never will, because it's truly, fundamentally evil. "Oh but it's better then the other guy" so? I'm still voting to kill these people. I'd sooner not vote at all.

If Kamala had won, I absolutely guarantee you the overwhelming majority of Democrats would have conveniently forgotten how we were bankrolling these terrible crimes overseas.

[email protected]

I mean does anything in your reply change that Harris was a better option for Palestine's future than Trump?

I don't see what you're getting at here.

[email protected]

“Grow a spine and vote Democrat” hahaha shut up forever.

[email protected]

Fuck the DNC

agnos.is Forums

Trump says Palestinians have ‘no alternative’ but to leave Gaza