• sovietknuckles [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        From Reagan’s biographer:

        The carnage caused by Israeli bombings of Beirut was regularly highlighted on the nightly news, causing reactions within the Reagan administration that cut across the usual conservative-pragmatist divisions. The speechwriters were appalled; one of them, Landon Parvin, refused to write remarks for Reagan when Begin visited the White House for a chilly visit in June. On August 12, after Israeli planes had bombed Beirut for eleven consecutive hours, Deaver told Reagan he couldn’t continue to be part of “the killing of children” and intended to resign. Shultz and Clark had been sending similar signals to Reagan, albeit more diplomatically.

        Reagan, also disgusted at the bombings, took the unusual step of calling Begin. “Menachem, this is a holocaust,” he told him.

        In a voice that the aide who monitored the conversation said was “dripping with sarcasm,” Begin replied: “Mr. President, I think I know what a holocaust is.” But Reagan persisted. Begin called back twenty minutes later to say he had given the order to stop the bombings. After he hung up the phone, Reagan said to Deaver, “I didn’t know I had that kind of power.”

        Biden during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon:

        As Biden’s colleagues “grilled” Begin over Israel’s disproportionate use of force, including by targeting civilians with cluster bomb munitions, Begin said Biden “rose and delivered a very impassioned speech” defending the invasion. Begin said he was shocked at how passionately Biden supported Israel’s invasion when Biden “said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.”

  • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s amazing the way all these silly vote rationales collapse the moment you apply the logic from the other side or even just follow the logic beyond the exact rhetorical cul-de-sac they’ve convinced themselves is the whole world.

    Not voting for a candidate just tells them they won’t ever get your vote, so why bother changing.

    So what does voting for them unconditionally do?

    It… umm… well… ensures they rely our your vote instead of going to the right. Which gives you power… somehow

    Power I can use by threatening to withhold my vote?

    No, because then they know you’re not reliable and can and will ignore you.

    So my choice is to vote against my interests and morals and be ignored, while supporting a monster. Or not do that, be ignored, and focus on something else.

    Uhm no. I mean yes. But no because something something Trump, something something you can’t come to my dinner party

    • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the rationale is something like:

      If the democrats/Labour/the SPD etc. (ie. the lib blob party) gets few votes they will be afraid and move right to claw back those votes.

      If the lib blob party gets many votes they feel safe to do the good things they really want to do.

      If the lib blob party does bad things it is evidence that they didn’t get enough votes and you have to vote for them. Anything bad the lib blob does is the voters’ fault.

  • JayTwo [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    3 months ago

    THERE IS NO WAY THE AVERAGE CITIZEN CAN PUSH A POLITICIAN IN ANY DIRECTION IF THAT POLITICIAN KNOWS THOSE PEOPLE ARE GUARANTEED TO VOTE FOR THEM NOMATTER WHAT.

    THE ONLY WAY IS TO COMMUNICATE DEMANDS EN BLOC, THREATEN TO WITHHOLD VOTES IF IGNORED, AND FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT.

  • ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    3 months ago

    They are trying so hard to convince themselves that they are the moral and smart ones for voting in favor of genocide.

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Put your big boy pants on”. What a time to be alive.

    Biden is génocidaire. I will not vote for him.

    Yes, that doesn’t fit your equation. But then again - people who think as I do and will not be pro-génocidaire are not the problem.

    No one has their ideal candidate on the ballot. Put your big boy pants on and vote for whoever you think will move the country in a positive direction.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s kind of incredible to me that libs respond by saying “Don’t let the perfect be enemy of the good on election day,” even on a day when Israel has openly assassinated aid workers.

        • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Because I opened an account at Bluesky - I occasionally get libs who reply to me with all the crazy lib arguments I haven’t experienced directly. A few hours ago somebody there replied to me with “But Trump would nuke Gaza” take. It’s scary how Trump Derangement Syndrome has destroyed so many lib brains and souls.

          • ziggurter [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            But Trump would nuke Gaza

            Hey libs, you sure you really want to convince me that Trump will exterminate every Palestinian in Gaza just like Biden is doing, but instead of going and congratulating Bibi when ground is broken on the first Zionist settlement, Trump would instead make it uninhabitable to the colonists? Hmm.

            I’ve seen this take on reddit-logo quite a bit though, TBH. No BlueSkkky needed.

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    The post is by Kevin M. Kruse - a lib historian.

    Kevin M. Kruse

    Kevin Michael Kruse (born 1972) is an American historian and a professor of history at Princeton University. […] Kruse self-identifies as a liberal, though he has stated that he is “too amenable to compromise and coalition-building to be an avatar of the far left”.

    I guess my comment to him that Biden is a génocidaire wasn’t “coalition-building” enough so he blocked me. Haha.

  • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you don’t care enough to even attempt to compromise or win anyone over, then what’s the point of running as the “opposition?” Why not just run as as a republican and appeal to the right from the get go? All this says is that liberals have no moral compass or consistency, which is true, but also a lie because their moral compass points to evil and they’re consistently useless

  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    “You see if I vote for a politician no matter what, I am sure to be listened to!” And other statements manifested by the utterly not-at-all-deranged