Sfdebris.net

McAvoy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:42 pm

J!! wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:58 pm

I'd change the Tuna melt to rotten Tuna melt. Technically you can eat it, maybe even stomach it. But even you don't, you will get over it. The other option? Not so much.

TOO BE FAIR... isn't that regular tuna melt?

Nobody700 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:46 pm

McAvoy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:42 pm

J!! wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:58 pm

I'd change the Tuna melt to rotten Tuna melt. Technically you can eat it, maybe even stomach it. But even you don't, you will get over it. The other option? Not so much.

TOO BE FAIR... isn't that regular tuna melt?

You haven't had a good Tuna melt then. I get it though, not everyone can tolerate the canned Tuna smell or taste. But imagine that smell and taste but it goes bad. Then imagine it hot too.

Honestly, he wasn't my first, second, or tenth choice, but Biden's managed to get some things done, despite massive Republican opposition to anything. I just wish he would do more to oppose the genocide in Gaza.

Annoyingly, before October I would have said that foreign policy was by a wide margin Biden's strongest area of achievement. Not perfect to be sure (man, the best thing Obama did for foreign policy was start normalizing relations with Cuba, Trump undid that, not un-undoing it is real annoying), but the withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled about as well as possible under the circumstances, he put real effort into defrosting relations with several nations that could use a good defrost, and until the past six months gave the yahoos in the House more leverage to ignore it he was pretty solid at herding cats to keep Ukraine supplied and avoid an expansion of the conflict.

I dunno, I think you're living in a fantasy land if you imagine any president being able to stop Israel. The domestic political costs alone are too high.

One major thing people tend to forget is, is that congress is the ones in charge of this. Many people have said this but it stands repeating, that many and I mean MANY of the problems destroying this country cannot be blamed on the government. It really can't. The system was built to stop itself if it grew too awful and evil.

But only if the people stop it... and many many many many many many many many many many people SUPPORT this. It's the harsh reality of the game that so many want things to get WORSE because to them, that is better.

"Don't you see, this is heaven."

"Heaven? This... this looks like heaven to you? The agony, the pain, the misery, the horror... this is your idea of heaven?"

"My idea? No... we all agree, this IS Heaven. Everyone here... but you, so frankly... what's wrong with YOU?"

Bit from an old story I like.

TGLS wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:10 pm I dunno, I think you're living in a fantasy land if you imagine any president being able to stop Israel. The domestic political costs alone are too high.

Stop them? Perhaps not. Slow them down more than is being done? Absolutely.

I would further suggest that "The President is powerless to accomplish your political priorities" or "tens of thousands of people must die in order to prevent any discomfort to my life" are, as arguments to vote for your candidate, or indeed vote at all, perhaps extremely counterproductive and things you should studiously avoid saying or implying.

Nobody700 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:15 am One major thing people tend to forget is, is that congress is the ones in charge of this.

Similarly, this is not entirely true. Congress has the power to allot money to a cause, yes. But look at how the actual sales of materiel to even allied nations is conducted and you'll notice that the money is merely a first, albeit important, step, and the President, as both executive and commander in chief, has no small measure of sway over that process.

CmdrKing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:55 am

TGLS wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:10 pm I dunno, I think you're living in a fantasy land if you imagine any president being able to stop Israel. The domestic political costs alone are too high.

Stop them? Perhaps not. Slow them down more than is being done? Absolutely.

I would further suggest that "The President is powerless to accomplish your political priorities"

Not powerless, just having to consider the political priorities of other voters. Consider recent polling on the issue. Americans in general are pretty evenly divided on Biden's stance, with 21% think he's striking the right balance and 22% and 16% think he's favouring Israel or Palestine too much (many aren't sure). If he takes a more strongly anti-Israeli position, are more or less going to think he's striking the right balance? Where would the "not sures" end up with a more radical stance? Right now, Democrats (and independents leaning Democrat), are pretty evenly split, with 34% thinking he favours Israel too much, and 29% and 3% think he's striking the right balance or favouring Palestine too much.

This is a divisive issue, and people need to accept the reality that, "I'm cutting aid to Israel until there's a ceasefire" is probably way too radical for most Americans at the moment.

How about "I'm cutting aid to Israel until they stop deliberately targeting people trying to stop an famine"?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/phot ... rcna146064

Further, who is more likely to stay home in November if Biden ignores their policy priorities:

A) Moderates who traditionally don't really care that much about foreign policy and simply consider Israel a good ally that should be supported who are sorta upset when Biden says "Israel has gone too far and we need to pump the breaks"
B) Arab Americans who've been watching people like them, and in many cases their literal family members, be slaughtered with American bombs for months on end while Biden says "Israel is going too far" and does nothing about it.

Like, I'm gonna tell ya that Biden doesn't win Michigan without Dearborn. So he's gotta repair that rift between him and Arab/Muslim Americans. Where's he losing enough voters to swing an state if he pisses off the real ride-or-die Israel supporters? And how many people who responded positively in a poll to Israel 4 months ago are still there for them in the face of, again, killing aid workers in a manner that's either deliberate or the IDF having so little control of their on-the-ground officers that it's indistinguishable from deliberate?

Like, we can play a numbers game like that, there's a place for it in politics, but that doesn't mean throwing your hands up and saying "it's controversial" like Democrats and their voting base so often do.
More broadly though, this issue doesn't have to be as damaging to Biden's campaign as it seems. American voters do not, on average, have long memories, and there's a lot of calendar yet between us and November. There's things you can point to him and State Department doing to try and pump those breaks. But that only stays true as long as the main fighting has stopped and State has achieved some measurable results by that time. And seeing as Israel keeps escalating, the battle's getting awfully uphill. So the absolute worst thing for him, electorally, is trying to deflect from his relative inaction rather than agitating for results.

CmdrKing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:55 am

TGLS wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:10 pm I dunno, I think you're living in a fantasy land if you imagine any president being able to stop Israel. The domestic political costs alone are too high.

Stop them? Perhaps not. Slow them down more than is being done? Absolutely.

I would further suggest that "The President is powerless to accomplish your political priorities" or "tens of thousands of people must die in order to prevent any discomfort to my life" are, as arguments to vote for your candidate, or indeed vote at all, perhaps extremely counterproductive and things you should studiously avoid saying or implying.

Nobody700 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:15 am One major thing people tend to forget is, is that congress is the ones in charge of this.

Similarly, this is not entirely true. Congress has the power to allot money to a cause, yes. But look at how the actual sales of materiel to even allied nations is conducted and you'll notice that the money is merely a first, albeit important, step, and the President, as both executive and commander in chief, has no small measure of sway over that process.

I think you're ignoring what som of us are saying. A lot pf people, and I mean actual people... SUPPORT ISRAEL. Not a large minority. Not the majority... but large enough to make their voices heard. I drove to Chicago a month ago and I saw a dozen billboards supporting Israel, and their is a common voice in my state (Indiana) to FLATTEN GAZA. I BALK at this shit... but it is sadly VERY common, and it's not just red states.