• Count042@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t have a duty to google to find sources that you won’t provide, nor guess at what your point is. I don’t actually have access to the thoughts in your head beyond what you have written.

    Apparently not even to click a link. Did you click it? Or did you just get offended at the “Let me google that for you” method? This is literally the top link: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-to-attacks-in-a-blunt-telephone-call-to-begin.html

    I’ll summarize this point by saying you’re arguing in essence that if Biden demanded an end to the war, it would end because Israel would run out of weapons. This leaves out several other possibilities, the most notable of which is that Democrats are voted out by (usually democratic-voting) jews and Trump takes office and gives Israel whatever they want.

    https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling

    This is wrong.

    To think otherwise is really a rather far left view that has never been popular is US politics.

    Far left… Like Reagan? Again, I provided you the link, did you even click it? This isn’t rational.

    Another possibility is Israel allying with Russia or China to get the weapons they need. Either way, the war continues. I happen to think Biden should’ve cut them off anyway, but the point I’m arguing is that every other president would’ve done no more than Biden did.

    LOL. How to say you know nothing about geopolitics without saying you know nothing about geopolitics.

    Countries are not fungible. Other countries have different views and different alliances than our country does.

    Again, countries are not fungible.

    Furthermore, you are ignoring how much fucking money we give them.

    If. The voters used their power to put Trump in office after he was quite clear about wanting Netanyahu to do whatever he wants in Gaza and even the West Bank. I think that says a lot about Biden’s abilities.

    Not if. I provided you link, you just took offense at the format and didn’t follow through.

    I completely reject this as impractical and harmful to discussions everywhere. If something is not common knowledge and can be doubted, you need to provide a source. Think about it. The alternative is that I am left to either 1) Trust some random person on the internet or 2) do the work myself to find out, which in your case also involves trying to figure out what you’re even trying to say first, or 3) just assert the opposite without providing a source is response. Most people choose 1) if it’s someone they already agree with, and 3) if it’s someone they disagree with. This is why we have so many culty filter bubbles. Cite your sources. Not only for me, but also for you so you can verify that your memory is correct, and end up making a better point as a result.

    It’s funny how this doesn’t apply to your (wrong) assertions that justify your (wrong) viewpoint.

    Go justify your favorite presidents genocide somewhere else.

    You do have a responsibility to have some understanding of the topic you’re commenting on. It’s not other peoples responsibility to teach you. Especially when you refuse to actually follow links or read things.

    • rational_lib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      This is literally the top link

      Yes, but here’s the problem: I don’t know you were referring to the top link, nor would it make sense for me to assume that you were. After all, the top link refers to a phone call Reagan made 1) to a different Israeli president 2) in a different war 3) against an entirely different group 4) in which the lengthy article, from what I can tell, doesn’t actually specify that the call had any particular effect. Of course, in reality Israel’s attack on Lebanon continued for a month and a half after this article was published. Nowhere does it specify that Reagan took the step of cutting off any weapons whatsoever, as Biden did. So it would actually be the height of irrationality for me to assume this was support for your point, as it doesn’t support it at all.

      https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling

      To reiterate, my point is that Biden had reason to presume that in some alternate universe (that doesn’t actually exist and cannot be polled today) if he had cut off aid to Israel it would’ve alienated Jewish voters and lost the election. The poll you provided not only cannot relate to that point, but it doesn’t even include option for insufficient support for Israel. But I do know both from my own discussions with Jewish voters and articles like this one that “weakness against Hamas” drove many pro-Israel jews to support Trump this election. It was a lose-lose situation. Y’all could’ve helped garner a bit of sympathy by maybe not chanting edgy slogans that are designed to sound scary, and skipping the spraypainting of neighborhoods and late night loud camping events on campuses. Of course Hamas could’ve also helped by not filming themselves murdering white teenagers just trying to have a party. That’s who the blame for the failure to stop Israel really lies with.

      LOL. How to say you know nothing about geopolitics without saying you know nothing about geopolitics.

      Well then neither does Netanyahu, who had been quite openly friendly with Putin up until the Hamas attacks and China thereafter.

      It’s not other peoples responsibility to teach you.

      It actually is though. I’m not demanding to be taught, you’re the one who volunteered to teach me. You can’t then assign me homework. Any business owner will tell you that if you want your bill to be paid, you should make it easy to be paid - provide many forms of payment, send an envelope, etc. Likewise, if you want to be heard, make it easy to listen.