Argue with one of these idiots and be prepared to see gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Harris wasn’t Joe Biden
She said she wouldn’t do anything differently
Joe Biden was working on a ceasefire. Trump is going to finish the job!
He had over a year and not only didn’t get one, he kept shipping weapons. Why would you do that if you wanted a ceasefire?
Harris called for a ceasefire.
She also said her support for Israel was unconditional. How were you going to get a ceasefire if you’re continuing to support the side that refuses to agree to a ceasefire?
That’s fake news! She didn’t actually say that.
Here it is on CN-fucking-N
You’re forgetting that Hamas is a terrorist organization!
Even if it were, how do you defeat a terrorist organization by bombing refugee camps?
The law says we have to support Israel!
The law also says we can’t ship weapons to states committing gross human rights violations. Quite the quandary.
If we don’t support Israel, Iran would wipe them out.
Well maybe they should’ve considered that before doing all the terrorism and violating Iran’s sovereignty by carrying out assassinations on their soil and the genocide.
Iran is a settler-colonial state. The native religion of Iran isn’t Islam, it’s Zoroastrianism. The Muslims are colonists!
i sometimes wish that there was a liberal who could defend positions like these in an intelligent manner so that i can re-evaluate my own beliefs; but i’m starting to doubt that they exist and it’s a pity because straw-men don’t help anything.
People don’t seem really interesting in defending it, probably because they aren’t coming at this issue from a place of logic; they’re just mad Trump won and are trying to minimize their personal discomfort, and because there isn’t really much you can argue from a pro-Biden/Harris position that has hard evidence behind it, we’re stuck speculating on what might have happened based on Harris’s public statements, which, to put it generously, were all over the place.
The most favorable argument I could see is that Bibi was probably deliberately preventing an agreement from being reached because he knew that it would hurt Biden with his base and Israel overwhelmingly wanted a Trump presidency. Any attempt to play hardball would’ve won him the ire of AIPAC and could’ve hurt Harris in eastern PA (hence also “fracking fracking fracking”). Stopping arms shipments might also be interpreted as a signal of weakness by Iran and Yemen and who knows what would happen then.
You could probably identify a lot of issues with this argument and I’m probably not the best one to make it, but from a personal perspective this is the best one I’ve seen: the Harris campaign was in a double bind and they gambled on trying up the center to convince Netanyahu that Harris was the friendliest face he was going to get and he needed to get a deal done before there were consequences.
Argue with one of these idiots and be prepared to see gold-medal mental gymnastics.
She said she wouldn’t do anything differently
He had over a year and not only didn’t get one, he kept shipping weapons. Why would you do that if you wanted a ceasefire?
She also said her support for Israel was unconditional. How were you going to get a ceasefire if you’re continuing to support the side that refuses to agree to a ceasefire?
Here it is on CN-fucking-N
Even if it were, how do you defeat a terrorist organization by bombing refugee camps?
The law also says we can’t ship weapons to states committing gross human rights violations. Quite the quandary.
Well maybe they should’ve considered that before doing all the terrorism and violating Iran’s sovereignty by carrying out assassinations on their soil and the genocide.
i sometimes wish that there was a liberal who could defend positions like these in an intelligent manner so that i can re-evaluate my own beliefs; but i’m starting to doubt that they exist and it’s a pity because straw-men don’t help anything.
People don’t seem really interesting in defending it, probably because they aren’t coming at this issue from a place of logic; they’re just mad Trump won and are trying to minimize their personal discomfort, and because there isn’t really much you can argue from a pro-Biden/Harris position that has hard evidence behind it, we’re stuck speculating on what might have happened based on Harris’s public statements, which, to put it generously, were all over the place.
The most favorable argument I could see is that Bibi was probably deliberately preventing an agreement from being reached because he knew that it would hurt Biden with his base and Israel overwhelmingly wanted a Trump presidency. Any attempt to play hardball would’ve won him the ire of AIPAC and could’ve hurt Harris in eastern PA (hence also “fracking fracking fracking”). Stopping arms shipments might also be interpreted as a signal of weakness by Iran and Yemen and who knows what would happen then.
You could probably identify a lot of issues with this argument and I’m probably not the best one to make it, but from a personal perspective this is the best one I’ve seen: the Harris campaign was in a double bind and they gambled on trying up the center to convince Netanyahu that Harris was the friendliest face he was going to get and he needed to get a deal done before there were consequences.
those were the only cogent arguments that i could think of as well; but biden’s actions in gaza since the election proved them to be wrong.
Kinda tough to beat Occam’s razor on “actually the situation is not complicated and Biden’s been doing exactly what he wanted the whole time.”
not if you have enough propaganda; treats; and captive control over the entire system.
Liberals don’t really have beliefs beyond treats addiction.