604
State Department official resigns after Biden administration says Israel not blocking Gaza aid
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
604 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19094 readers
4549 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Rage quit? Dude… you’re the one refusing to answer a simple question. And then trying to pretend you’re on some more high ground?
You’re not.
If you don’t have an answer, then you have no reason to be telling people who to vote for, or not to vote at all. Simple as that. Well, you do have that right-
But no one in their right mind should take you seriously.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasspoiler
asdfasfasfasfasOh I am fully aware. I’m pretty sure I’m familiar with their sock puppet accounts as well. And if not, they’re so interchangeable that they may as well be the same person.
But where you see trolls being fed, I see it as them being called out. And the more it happens, the more we can keep them from spreading their misinformation.
Since I guess you missed your bus, here is a little light reading for you:
https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=64978
My argument: President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He's unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.
In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden's campaign performance and polling.
By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden's campaign effectiveness and polling issues.
You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.
The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.
Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.
So after that wall of nonsense, you STILL refuse to answer the question.
Who would you suggest instead of Biden? I will keep asking you this until you provide a name, or admit you have no answer.
Oh, and while you’re answering things, how about you explain to me what bus you think I missed?
How about Gretchen Whitmer?
Try again with someone currently running. And no, she still stands no chance.
… says the guy that’s famous for moving goalposts.
Ad hominem. The question has been answered.
It has not. Keep trying though. Maybe… try offering Iron Man, or… perhaps Harry Potter next.
Both have the same chance to beat Trump.
I’m done arguing with you. I’m not going to have you report me like you do others. We’re going to end this here.
Why would I report you? MegaUltraChicken asked a question, you reiterated that question. I answered. I’m not angry or trolling, or even taking this personally. I’m answering the question.
You are accusing me of ad hominym after using ad hominym on me and you’re asking why I might think you’re trying to get me removed?
You’re answering a question in bad faith. She’s not running. You know that. And you know that question wasn’t asking who of anyone, could beat Trump.
Then you offer an op-ed written in January as evidence.
Maybe not trolling, but this isn’t a response in good faith.
That’s a great meme.
It’s the same post, genius.
This would be funny if you weren't so obtuse.
And its sad, because like, its clear you are very scared. But insisting on a failed strategy is actually making things worse. You aren't helping the cause of defeating Trump by trying to collapse criticism of Biden. We need to be clear eyed about Biden's prospects, which aren't great. Instead you are just jerking off to your own denialism and engaging in what-about-ism.
Biden can't win, not with the current trends we're seeing in polling.
So now I’m obtuse and scared and… jerking off? Why the vulgarities?
You still haven’t answered the questions:
Who would you suggest instead of Biden? And what bus did I miss?
Come on man. You can accuse me of being scared when you can’t answer a simple question? Seems it would be an easy task for someone as brave as you.
Explained: https://lemmy.world/comment/10340530
Still no answer? And now some Hexbear style edgelord memes from you and your sockpuppet?
How fun!
President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He’s unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.
In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden’s campaign performance and polling.
By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden’s campaign effectiveness and polling issues.
You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.
The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.
Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.
You have yet to answer the question;
Who instead of Biden would you suggest has a chance to win November?
President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He’s unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.
In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden’s campaign performance and polling.
By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden’s campaign effectiveness and polling issues.
You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.
The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.
Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.
I know you think you’re being clever, but seeing as how you’ve already been banned for trolling and harassment once today, it’s probably not a good idea to go to another community with the same tired shit.
I’m asking in good faith that you simply answer a question:
Who has a better chance- that THAT IS CURRENTLY RUNNNG- to beat Trump?
Come back with you copy pasta again, and you’re admitting you’re out of gas. I’ve allowed you to troll here because you’ve made my point for me quite clearly.
There not much more for it at this point that to just ignore you.
No, you've not been having this discussion in good faith. You are a troll trying to change the conversation to "something else, anything else".
If you were you would stay focused on the issue at hand: Bidens viability.
You don't seem to realize that your attempt to derail the question isn't worth engaging with. And it works against you when I can put you on display like this. Its a non-sequiter and irrelevant to the point that Bidens chances are what they are, and if you are truly strategic about where to place your support, you need to consider the viability of the candidate. Your question is a basic, non-sequiter, trollish bait, and not worth engaging with.
Jesus fucking christ dude YOU are the troll. You are literally intentionally engaging in fallacy to distract from Bidens clear lack of viability as a candidate.
The only value you offer is that I get to put you on display.
And its working. See how the conversation has shifted.
Putting the apologists, the trolls like you, those who are truly ignorant, on display: it works. Its effective at showing people what you are about. And people are getting it. They see the rhetorical slight of hand you are engaging in.
They see your the flaws in your argument; your intention to distract rather than address. I never entered into a conversation with you about anything other than Bidens viability, so that's where we'll stay.
and I know you can feel it underfoot. Support for Biden is collapsing. Its in the polling data, its on social media.
In a few weeks it will be all over the cable news channels. We're about 12 days from the next sets of polling data getting released. Bidens' going to be coming in mid to low 30's to maybe 40's. Maybe 41-42 in the aggregate if he's lucky.
The question was asked from the beginning. And has not changed. YOU have been side-stepping the topic with every response. So let’s stop with the projection.
Who would you offer if not Biden, to win against Trump? You failed to answer it SEVERAL times. This proving a point I made in another thread about this exact thing.
You cannot answer it without revealing how flimsy your agenda really is.
Thanks for playing along. I’m not going to block you as I normally would with trolls that spam bad-faith nonsense, because you need to be called out when you post misinformation and trollish propaganda that you have been banned for in the past by mods in other communities-
but I won’t respond to this discussion any further.
And any response from you is proof of intent to troll.
Thanks!