archomrade [he/him] @ archomrade @midwest.social

Posts

15

Comments

1,616

Joined

2 yr. ago

Lol, uh, no It doesn't

Thanks for playing though

What the fuck are you smoking

Unless you meant to link a different source, I have to just assume you didn't actually read it

2,800 injured (according to the Lebanon health minister, not Hezbollah - and no data on how many were associated with hezbolla)

12 dead, of which 2 children and 4 health care workers (50% unaffiliated, a far-cry from your claimed 0.1%)(also reported from the health minister

Thanks for providing a source, though

I’m otherwise not sure why this is relevant.

Because you were claiming the explosions were too small to "bruise and apple"

What reports?

Literally any reports on the subject

“It is a major conflict that has the potential to escalate, but it’s also not the only thing at stake in this election.”

Idk what to tell you, that's a dismissal of the issue as unimportant, even if simply unimportant as compared to the other things you say are at stake.

You've not sourced your 0.1% figure. Safe to assume there is none.

Not to mention that Hezbollah is an actual political party in Lebanon, not just a resistance group.

That particular pager was in a bag, against a person, pointed away from anyone or anything else. Not to mention anything of the second attack, which used much larger charges and started fires and blew out windows across Lebanon.

And anyway, a single example isn't going to assuage anyone who has been reading reports of women and children dying from the attack.

Didn't you say they were the ones who reported your non-Hezbollah casualty figure though?

You could just link to what you're talking about, that might clear up any confusion.

'Hyperbolizing' what, exactly? In the middle of what, exactly?

It would be easier to tell if you're suggesting a false compromise if you were at all specific about what you're talking about instead of making vague centrist gestures.

People get upset when you point to multiple things you're looking to concessions on, otherwise yea, I'm 100% in agreement.

In an effort to meet those people halfway: Harris only needs enough of green/psl protest voters (or at least needs to not loose too-many democratic votes, depending on your philosophical bent) to win. How many voters that is, and which issues are the ones to win them to her ticket, are questions very much up for debate. Even if she can even win them back is questionable at this point.

But the one thing that is certain is that if she were to somehow loose despite everything that's going right for her, it'll be because she abandoned those issues in favor or courting anti-immigrant and status-quo republicans. Her loss will be 100% attributable to the fucks not given for the issues driving voters to third parties, and that's nobodies fault but her own.

Candidates get themselves elected by pledging to address voters' concerns - if anyone has an ego here it's Harris and liberals like yourself who think they are owed votes they haven't made any effort to get.

They have the power to put a dictator in place

That's power, bud, but it's misplaced. It's Harris that has the power to respond to those voters, or to ignore them. As you mentioned, the cost of ignoring them could put a dictator in place.

What constitutes power to you, exactly?

A voting block big enough to spoil a victory is power: that's what makes organizing of all types valuable to begin with.

Nobody, not even Jill Stein, believes she has a chance of winning against Harris and Trump. The reason why it's still important for her to run is because she represents a dissenting group of voters who find something unacceptable about Harris and Trump, and if that group is enough of a threat then Harris will be forced to address it else risk loosing her campaign.

Liberals are mad because that threat is potentially big enough to spoil their victory, and that's reason enough to be happy she's around. Harris needs to cut her support of Israel, otherwise Green and PSL voters (and uncommitted voters) will remain a threat to her campaign. That's reason enough for me to cheer them on.

It's crazy to me that democrats use extreme language when speaking of the risks of middle eastern conflic escalating into Europe, but then dismiss it as an unimportant issue as soon as it's pointed out that they are actively contributing to that escalation.

This just isn't true. Third party candidates put pressure on the duopoly candidates to adopt a diversity of policies that better represent the interests of the country.

If the democrats wanted to make the Green and PSL parties irrelevant this election, all they have to do is drop their unconditional support for Israel's genocide.

Democrats desperately want to be able to run with status quo positions without risking a loss, and stein makes that just barely difficult enough as to go after her candidacy, because that's easier than attacking her policy positions.

Why would I entertain your a-historical reactionary bullshit with a substantive response? If I said 'Hezbollah was justified in firing missiles into Tel Aviv everyday because Israel is a blood-thirsty religious apartheid state dead-set on killing every Muslim in the middle east in the name of a 'Judeo-Christian crusade'', would you see it as an honest attempt at good-faith debate?

Of course not.

swallowed up by a far right religious dictatorship sworn to kill every Jew in the middle east in the name of a new Islamic Caliphate

oof, that's quite the Islamophobic take there