6 ms·

Seeing your posts hours after Trump launched a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite the sight. You’re like the black knight from Monty python. Edit: I wel

by eigart 2y ago

Seeing your posts hours after Trump launched a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite the sight. You’re like the black knight from Monty python. Edit: I welcome the pushback on this post. The message I meant to convey is that of two evils. Yelling at the losing candidate does nothing for Gaza. It alienates even people who care (but I’m not perfect). I apologize for the divisive nature of my post.

helpfulContrib 2y ago
Anyone who had hope that Trump would avert the catastrophe was clearly ignorant of the facts of his subservience to the greater Israel plan. Meanwhile, while Palestinians are eating cats, we are free to refer to Monty Python all we like. Just don't mention the war.
- Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - immibis 2y ago
    I'm flagging this because it's two paragraphs of propaganda opposite to base reality.
    - Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - edanm 2y ago
        This is not a response worthy of HN. Calling the parent poster names, saying they support "baby murderers" with no possible justification - please keep this kind of comment off this site.
        Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        The Palestinians are in the situation they are in because of their own choices, not because of some Greater Israel plan which the poster seems to think is the reason. The German people and the Japanese people suffered similar privations in WW2 - shouldn’t have attacked Poland and Pearl Harbor then. Choices have consequences. Do you see this rather simple point now?
        edanm 2y ago
        > Do you see this rather simple point now? There's no need to talk to me in this way, either. Whether or not you're right, you're not doing your arguments any favor by being mean to other commenters with no reason.
        Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        [flagged]
        edanm 2y ago
        > Now do you see, my darling? Once again, your argument aside, your way of speaking is the issue here. If you think you're winning anyone to your arguments in this way, you're wrong. > And point two is that if you see these facts and decide that you support the Gazans, then you are not holding a different view, you are guilty of being an apologist to Ghengis Khan-level savagery and therefore are deserving of condemnation. No, your point is wrong. You switched between talking about Hamas to talking about Gazans. It is entirely consistent to be against Hamas but still support Gazans. In fact, some people claim that supporting Gazans means being against Hamas, because of Hamas's brutal dictatorship over the Gazans.
        Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        The Gazans voted for Hamas as their leaders knowing their genocidal policy towards Jews. The October 7 attack was popular among Palestinians including Gazans at first. Less so now. It is fair then to say that the Gazans bear some responsibility for the attack. Also, the IDF are targeting Hamas, not the Gazans as a whole. Additional civilian deaths are caused by the cowardly tactics of Hamas to use human shields. The Gazans knew that Hamas used these tactics when they voted for them. Again, you reap what you sow.
  - red019 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - helpfulContrib 2y ago
        [dead]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - immibis 2y ago
        You are clearly saying it's acceptable for Israel to respond to the pogrom on their citizens. Can you clarify whether or not it's also acceptable for Palestine to respond to the pogrom on their citizens? Is this a privilege that every country gets, or just Israel? And does the amount of acceptable response scale in proportion to the amount of citizens killed in the pogrom?
        Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        [dead]
    - edanm 2y ago
      Even if you believe that Israelis are mass murderers, and even if you are willing to ignore that plenty of other groups have killed far more people, there's zero justification for making this statement about Jews and not Israelis. This comment is simply antisemitism.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - dang 2y ago
      We've banned this account. If you keep creating accounts to break HN's rules with, it will get your main account(s) banned as well, so please stop doing this.
mandmandam 2y ago
> Seeing your posts hours after Trump launched a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite the sight. Biden provided the bombs and the diplomatic cover that allowed Israel to decimate Gaza's population, permanently damaging entire generations, reducing the most densely populated areas on Earth to smoking rubble, and explicitly supported Netanyahu's ethnic cleansing plans. He basically alley-ooped this scenario to Trump. > You’re like the black knight from Monty python. Sheer projection. Democrats lost because they supported genocide [0], [1]. They tried to court Republican women instead of their own base, trotting out people like Dick fucking Cheney [2] (after removing any mention of stopping torturing people from their platform). When over 30% of Biden 2020 voters told pollsters they felt so strongly about an arms embargo that it could affect their vote, and Harris responded by saying she would keep sending bombs "no matter what", she lost. The win could have been a landslide, and Dems chose to tell their base to eat shit instead. 0 - https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling 1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/opinion/kamala-harris-young-voters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/opinion/kamala-harris-you... 2 - https://www.yahoo.com/news/dick-cheney-groundbreaking-endorsement-kamala-100011201.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/dick-cheney-groundbreaking-endors...
- eigart 2y ago
  It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What about all the voters you lose by dropping support for Israel? Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide. Gaza voters weakened them further.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What about all the voters you lose by dropping support for Israel? Nonsense. As can be plainly seen in the posted links, far fewer Democrat votes would have been lost by support for an arms embargo. What would have been lost was the support of many Democrat funders - fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, Zionist billionaires, and a vast swathe of complicit corporate media. As in, the people perverting the party against the interests of their base. > Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide. Again, utter nonsense. Democrats voted against ceasefire four times at the UN; and made a mockery of domestic and international law by providing billions in arms to a regime that was likely to commit genocide. And so it needs to be said: lack of money for Harris' campaign was not the issue. She outspent Trump, ffs. > Gaza voters weakened them further. That was a choice! Gaza voters would have strengthened them, if they had simply decided to stop arming a genocidal apartheid regime. That's what the polls I posted showed beyond doubt; and Dem elites knew all this months before the election.
suraci 2y ago
is this mean american must select one from two genocide participant to support? can this topic be negotiatable? like migrants and abortion, one party supports it, one party againsts it, let people choose which party to vote for
- kuschku 2y ago
  Or you could switch to a different voting system which allows more than two parties, allowing people to make more nuanced choices? There are even voting systems which are perfectly representative (as a popular vote would be) and ensure all states get a voice (the goal of the electoral college). Say, a bicameral system. One chamber allocating each state a fixed number of voices, ensuring each state has a voice, and a second chamber with mixed-member-proportional voting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU), which allows perfectly proportional majorities in this chamber while giving each district a representative (in the process also fixing gerrymandering). In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II.
  - suraci 2y ago
    sounds perfect, how to change to this system? who should people vote for to make it happen? > In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II. is there any other way to get this system besides a WW III?
    - kuschku 2y ago
      > sounds perfect, how to change to this system? who should people vote for to make it happen? That's another issue with the US system. If you've got only two choices, and one option is straight up "tear it all down", then the entire rest of the political spectrum has to be represented by the democratic party. The only candidates in recent years that wanted to improve the situation were Obama, Romney, Bernie and now Walz. I'd say register democrat, become active on the local level, and vote in primaries.

by eigart 2y ago

helpfulContrib 2y ago

Anyone who had hope that Trump would avert the catastrophe was clearly ignorant of the facts of his subservience to the greater Israel plan. Meanwhile, while Palestinians are eating cats, we are free to refer to Monty Python all we like. Just don't mention the war.

Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
[flagged]
- immibis 2y ago
  I'm flagging this because it's two paragraphs of propaganda opposite to base reality.
  - Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - edanm 2y ago
      This is not a response worthy of HN. Calling the parent poster names, saying they support "baby murderers" with no possible justification - please keep this kind of comment off this site.
      - Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        The Palestinians are in the situation they are in because of their own choices, not because of some Greater Israel plan which the poster seems to think is the reason. The German people and the Japanese people suffered similar privations in WW2 - shouldn’t have attacked Poland and Pearl Harbor then. Choices have consequences. Do you see this rather simple point now?
        edanm 2y ago
        > Do you see this rather simple point now? There's no need to talk to me in this way, either. Whether or not you're right, you're not doing your arguments any favor by being mean to other commenters with no reason.
        Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        [flagged]
        edanm 2y ago
        > Now do you see, my darling? Once again, your argument aside, your way of speaking is the issue here. If you think you're winning anyone to your arguments in this way, you're wrong. > And point two is that if you see these facts and decide that you support the Gazans, then you are not holding a different view, you are guilty of being an apologist to Ghengis Khan-level savagery and therefore are deserving of condemnation. No, your point is wrong. You switched between talking about Hamas to talking about Gazans. It is entirely consistent to be against Hamas but still support Gazans. In fact, some people claim that supporting Gazans means being against Hamas, because of Hamas's brutal dictatorship over the Gazans.
        Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        The Gazans voted for Hamas as their leaders knowing their genocidal policy towards Jews. The October 7 attack was popular among Palestinians including Gazans at first. Less so now. It is fair then to say that the Gazans bear some responsibility for the attack. Also, the IDF are targeting Hamas, not the Gazans as a whole. Additional civilian deaths are caused by the cowardly tactics of Hamas to use human shields. The Gazans knew that Hamas used these tactics when they voted for them. Again, you reap what you sow.
- red019 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - helpfulContrib 2y ago
      [dead]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - immibis 2y ago
      You are clearly saying it's acceptable for Israel to respond to the pogrom on their citizens. Can you clarify whether or not it's also acceptable for Palestine to respond to the pogrom on their citizens? Is this a privilege that every country gets, or just Israel? And does the amount of acceptable response scale in proportion to the amount of citizens killed in the pogrom?
      - Ste_Tokyo 2y ago
        [dead]
  - edanm 2y ago
    Even if you believe that Israelis are mass murderers, and even if you are willing to ignore that plenty of other groups have killed far more people, there's zero justification for making this statement about Jews and not Israelis. This comment is simply antisemitism.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - dang 2y ago
    We've banned this account. If you keep creating accounts to break HN's rules with, it will get your main account(s) banned as well, so please stop doing this.

mandmandam 2y ago

> Seeing your posts hours after Trump launched a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite the sight. Biden provided the bombs and the diplomatic cover that allowed Israel to decimate Gaza's population, permanently damaging entire generations, reducing the most densely populated areas on Earth to smoking rubble, and explicitly supported Netanyahu's ethnic cleansing plans. He basically alley-ooped this scenario to Trump. > You’re like the black knight from Monty python. Sheer projection. Democrats lost because they supported genocide [0], [1]. They tried to court Republican women instead of their own base, trotting out people like Dick fucking Cheney [2] (after removing any mention of stopping torturing people from their platform). When over 30% of Biden 2020 voters told pollsters they felt so strongly about an arms embargo that it could affect their vote, and Harris responded by saying she would keep sending bombs "no matter what", she lost. The win could have been a landslide, and Dems chose to tell their base to eat shit instead. 0 - https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling 1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/opinion/kamala-harris-young-voters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/opinion/kamala-harris-you... 2 - https://www.yahoo.com/news/dick-cheney-groundbreaking-endorsement-kamala-100011201.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/dick-cheney-groundbreaking-endors...

eigart 2y ago
It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What about all the voters you lose by dropping support for Israel? Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide. Gaza voters weakened them further.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What about all the voters you lose by dropping support for Israel? Nonsense. As can be plainly seen in the posted links, far fewer Democrat votes would have been lost by support for an arms embargo. What would have been lost was the support of many Democrat funders - fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, Zionist billionaires, and a vast swathe of complicit corporate media. As in, the people perverting the party against the interests of their base. > Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide. Again, utter nonsense. Democrats voted against ceasefire four times at the UN; and made a mockery of domestic and international law by providing billions in arms to a regime that was likely to commit genocide. And so it needs to be said: lack of money for Harris' campaign was not the issue. She outspent Trump, ffs. > Gaza voters weakened them further. That was a choice! Gaza voters would have strengthened them, if they had simply decided to stop arming a genocidal apartheid regime. That's what the polls I posted showed beyond doubt; and Dem elites knew all this months before the election.

suraci 2y ago

is this mean american must select one from two genocide participant to support? can this topic be negotiatable? like migrants and abortion, one party supports it, one party againsts it, let people choose which party to vote for

kuschku 2y ago
Or you could switch to a different voting system which allows more than two parties, allowing people to make more nuanced choices? There are even voting systems which are perfectly representative (as a popular vote would be) and ensure all states get a voice (the goal of the electoral college). Say, a bicameral system. One chamber allocating each state a fixed number of voices, ensuring each state has a voice, and a second chamber with mixed-member-proportional voting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU), which allows perfectly proportional majorities in this chamber while giving each district a representative (in the process also fixing gerrymandering). In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II.
- suraci 2y ago
  sounds perfect, how to change to this system? who should people vote for to make it happen? > In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II. is there any other way to get this system besides a WW III?
  - kuschku 2y ago
    > sounds perfect, how to change to this system? who should people vote for to make it happen? That's another issue with the US system. If you've got only two choices, and one option is straight up "tear it all down", then the entire rest of the political spectrum has to be represented by the democratic party. The only candidates in recent years that wanted to improve the situation were Obama, Romney, Bernie and now Walz. I'd say register democrat, become active on the local level, and vote in primaries.