Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[Dill]

(04-03-2024, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, Dill.  Are you claiming Israel hadn't existed in the past?  Hard for me to take a person seriously who isn't aware of that.

I'm disputing the claim of some essential or essentialist continuity. Yes.

Just a modern re-imagining/construction of a national identity.

[Dill]

(04-03-2024, 02:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: [url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Democrats-losing-all-credibility-in-denial-of-overwhelming-evidence?pid=1470670#pid1470670][/url]"Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex."
There is no "cannot exist" in that statement. Just a recognition that in current international law (and humanitarian ethics), there is no "right" to territory seized in war. (And no "right" for any state to "exist.)

Since this debate goes nowhere anyway, I will restate that I understand an uneasy feeling about the underlined part. It's odd to me how one would muse about something like "right to exist" in the first place and then set conditions for said right, like being part of a x-state solution, having the right intents or fufilling conditions for multiethnicity, or not living up to initial ideas. Seems wording like that is not brought up for other states, not even north korea or younger ones. No one would claim Croatia or East Timor doesn't have the right to exist in particular versions. And might values lie as they do, Israel does still exist in its current form and given the surroundings, I too wonder whether statemets like "does not have the right to exist as state which does this and that [aka things they are probably deemed guilty of]" are appropriate under any context.

Yow! Didn't want to get back into this today, but I'd like to offer some perfunctory clarification/backstory. To the first bolded.

1. The notion of a state's "right to exist" first pops up in partial, specific forms in the 17th century with the liberal revolution, whose reps. declared absolute monarchy an illegitimate state form. In the 19th century, a more general (if vague) ethical notion of a right of peoples and states to exist emerges as various nationalists begin constructing national/ethnic identities from within empires and the like (one very close to home for you lol).  Zionism is rooted in that push for nationalist identity, though the idea maybe originated with non-Jews who thought it a way to get them out of Europe. 

2. It's not "brought up for other states" now, as you recognize, because it is not part of international law. No state, therefore, violates IL by "existing" in the sense one could violate IHL by committing piracy or war crimes. No one brings a charge before the ICC that "X state has no right to exist but here it is existing in contravention of the law." But people do question the legitimacy of governments, in the liberal tradition, according to whether they represent their citizens or not. Your EU sets conditions on admittance along these lines, so the idea cannot be wholly unfamiliar to you. Few think NK is a legitimate state, in this sense.

3. To the second bolded, you might want to know, then, who brings up and pushes front and center this "right to existence" whose appropriateness you question and doesn't seem to be an issue anywhere else. That would be the State of Israel. E.g. in the 70s, as a condition for peace dialogues, Israel demanded that the PLO recognize its right to exist. Which it finally did, in 1993 https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-205528/, on the assumption that the Israelis would then work in good faith towards a two-state solution. They didn't. This seriously compromised the PLO, because Palestinians see such recognition as a call to legitimate their dispossession, and PA then worked with Israel to police Palestinians, as the settlements continued. This was the major impetus for Hamas and its source of support. It will not "collaborate" with the occupier. 

And of course, all of the various right wing governments of Israel cannot bring them selves to recognize any "right to exist" of a Palestinian people,* because of the complications of legal/political equality which would follow. The demand that Israel's "right to exist" be acknowledged was just a lever to use against the PLO in the UN and with the US--until the PLO gave in. Oh wait, they did? Well then here are some more conditions.

4. E.g., As the PA tried to keep the "Roadmap to Peace" alive after 2000, Ehud Olmert came up with a nifty new tactic for the Annapolis Conference in 2007. Require the PA to recognize Israel as JEWISH state, another condition sure to split and weaken them, and strengthen Hamas. There is an eye towards the international community too--what, the PA won't recognize a JEWISH state? So it's really just about anti-semitism?  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/124218. SSF was repeating the tactic on the Superthread when he asked if I recognized Israel's right to exist. You can make propaganda hay with the answer, where people don't know the backstory; the propagandist can associate it with calls for the literal destruction of all Jews and the like. 

So hopefully you understand now why I am musing on one-sided Israeli demands for a "right to exist" and conditions for such rights, which it denies others.  And why no one kept talking about Croatia or East Timor's "right to exist" once they existed.

Well I have to run. I'll just close saying that my statement you quoted is worded so that to disagree with it is to disagree with the assertion that Palestinians have the same universal rights as everyone else, and that Israel should recognize and honor the right of the Palestinian people to exist and have state, if it wants the same recognition for itself. It has no right to hold millions of Palestinians under the gun while daily appropriating their land and homes. I don't think it should be welcomed into the community of nations as a partner in good standing until it resolves the occupation. You'd see that position clearly enough if SSF quoted his "evidence" for my alleged anti-semitism.

Thank you, by the way, for sticking to the "surface" of my beliefs, limiting your inferences to what I've actually written, as opposed to ruminating on dark hidden motives others may project into them. My statements are not calls to violence or destruction, but a prescription for ending such without denying the human rights of one side.

* E.g., https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-says-no-such-thing-palestinian-people-2023-03-20/
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-minister-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-palestinian-people-/3145118
https://peacenow.org/page.php?name=they-say-we-say-the-palestinians-are-not-a-real-people
https://www.wrmea.org/1998-march/zionism-at-100-the-myth-of-palestine-as-a-land-without-people.html

[Dill]

(04-03-2024, 04:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Say what you mean.  And provide some links of his words to prove it.

Split the difference.

He is saying what he means--I am an anti-semite and Hamas supporter.

But he has not proved it while claiming he has--numerous times. So that's half right.  

Everyone is ready to provide evidence if he or she has it. Everyone. Even SSF does when he really thinks he has it.
(Remember when he was only to happy to use one of my quotes in his signature?) 

Now, the one big "proof" he thought he had going was my supposed "directly stated" claim that Israel "cannot exist."
He cannot even let that one "speak for itself."  

[Dill]

(04-02-2024, 08:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote:You say he is “socially left,” but the only evidence for that are his CLAIMS he is pro choice and gay marriage and the like.

Well, I for one just believe him, and why wouldn't I? Say what you will, you can't say that SSF is shy to voice his own opinion, why would he lie about that?

RESET needed here.  I was responding to the question of whether SSF is a "centrist."  

And I've already explained why I don't "just believe" him on that, and shown my work.

As for his "socially left" beliefs, 

1. I don't consider being pro-choice "socially left." Over half of Republicans were before Trump. Many Catholics too. Gay marriage has become centrist at least. "Socially left" was Sunset's phrasing.

2. I don't doubt SSF is ok with pro-choice, gay marriage, and trans people. I just recognize the weak position of his beliefs in the rank order of his priorities. He's always ready to remind us "everyone knows" he's pro-choice and was for gay marriage before Obama, but the defenders of these ideals have tended' to be "the modern left" and "progressives"--targets of rage and hatred for him. 

Further, the Trump court has proven not friendly to the abovementioned policies, but SSF approves of how Trump's choices protect our "freedoms." He's also expressed admiration for DeSantis, not exactly a defender of any of these "socially left" policies.

So I don't see a "lie" here, just someone who, e.g., mostly attacks pro-choice politicians, not on their pro-choice stance, but across a range of other issues, just as he defends pro-life politicians, not on their pro life stance, but on those other issues, i.e., a guy who consistently and insistently attacks "the modern left" and defends the policies, political maneuverings, and SCOTUS selections of their anti-choice, anti-gay opponents.  

Thus it's his claim of "independence"/neutrality/nonpartisanship that takes people by surprise, as he calls others "hacks" for much more measured discourse. On his fascist thread he maintained that accurate labels are very important to political discourse. That centrist label cannot be maintained in this case without the kind of gaslighting which is destructive of accurate labeling. 

[GMDino]

I wish we could get back to discussing the topics and stop deciding who "really" thinks what.  But I also understand the need to defend oneself from being labeled.

We already know who doesn't like each other.  Comment on the facts or the topic or ignore the person completely.  It's hard to do, and I've failed miserably at it multiple times, but's its the only way.

[Dill]

(04-04-2024, 09:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wish we could get back to discussing the topics and stop deciding who "really" thinks what.  But I also understand the need to defend oneself from being labeled.

We already know who doesn't like each other.  Comment on the facts or the topic or ignore the person completely.  It's hard to do, and I've failed miserably at it multiple times, but's its the only way.

I think that's what I'm doing in post #122. 

It expands the expands the "right to exist" issue to include Palestinians as well as Israelis. 

So it's more about providing backstory to an issue, though self-defense was the impetus.

[GMDino]

(04-04-2024, 09:39 AM)Dill Wrote: I think that's what I'm doing in post #122. 

It expands the expands the "right to exist" issue to include Palestinians as well as Israelis. 

So it's more about providing backstory to an issue, though self-defense was the impetus.

I guess, not being an expert myself, when does "self-defense" turn into "offensive"?  That's the question I have.

I can defend myself from someone who sucker punches me but I can say I have to kill them and their family to ensure I never get punched again.

Bad analogy, I know. But my point is Israel can NEVER eliminate all of Hamas...so when do they stop "defending themselves" from them? 

[Dill]

(04-04-2024, 09:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess, not being an expert myself, when does "self-defense" turn into "offensive"?  That's the question I have.

I can defend myself from someone who sucker punches me but I can say I have to kill them and their family to ensure I never get punched again.

Bad analogy, I know. But my point is Israel can NEVER eliminate all of Hamas...so when do they stop "defending themselves" from them? 

The most serious and credible "defense" in this case would be to come to the peace table in good faith, without intentionally jamming the process,

and then when you find people on the Palestinian side ready to work with you, don't kneecap them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

So sorry to interrupt the bro-fest.  Just wanted to remind you that you said this about the state of Israel.  Just in case anyone else missed it.

(03-03-2024, 06:59 PM)Dill Wrote: It is an ethnic settler state, an occupying force which drove the families of the "terrorist organization" from their homes, employing 
rape and massacre, then bottled them up inside a narrow strip of land, all illegally according to international law.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-04-2024, 09:25 AM)Dill Wrote: 2. I don't doubt SSF is ok with pro-choice, gay marriage, and trans people. I just recognize the weak position of his beliefs in the rank order of his priorities. He's always ready to remind us "everyone knows" he's pro-choice and was for gay marriage before Obama, but the defenders of these ideals have tended' to be "the modern left" and "progressives"--targets of rage and hatred for him. 

Further, the Trump court has proven not friendly to the abovementioned policies, but SSF approves of how Trump's choices protect our "freedoms." He's also expressed admiration for DeSantis, not exactly a defender of any of these "socially left" policies.

So I don't see a "lie" here, just someone who, e.g., mostly attacks pro-choice politicians, not on their pro-choice stance, but across a range of other issues, just as he defends pro-life politicians, not on their pro life stance, but on those other issues, i.e., a guy who consistently and insistently attacks "the modern left" and defends the policies, political maneuverings, and SCOTUS selections of their anti-choice, anti-gay opponents.  

Thus it's his claim of "independence"/neutrality/nonpartisanship that takes people by surprise, as he calls others "hacks" for much more measured discourse. On his fascist thread he maintained that accurate labels are very important to political discourse. That centrist label cannot be maintained in this case without the kind of gaslighting which is destructive of accurate labeling. 

It's about Priorities.
Abortions, gay marriage and Trans people are social issues. Thus a low priority in the overall picture.
We have laws that protect them (other than abortion which i've made clear i want a middle ground on), I don't want "special" laws that give benefits to one group over others, Just make a blanket law and be done with it.  

How we spend our tax money, immigration, economy/jobs are my Priorities. 
If everyone has a job and can support their families, then we can get to work on the social side of politics. 

Til then get us the hell out of debt and spend the money on USC's not immigrants and corrupt countries, and for the love of God stop policing the world. 
Let NATO, UN and all the others take care of themselves. I get tired of the US being the bad guy when we try to handle something and it goes wrong. 

Stop blowing it on Electric cars, ffs 7.5 B's spent on it 2 years ago and we only have 7 fully functional charge stations in 4 states?? WTF. Manage that shit better. 

Been better off spending it on infrastructure.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2024, 12:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's about Priorities.
Abortions, gay marriage and Trans people are social issues. Thus a low priority in the overall picture.
We have laws that protect them (other than abortion which i've made clear i want a middle ground on), I don't want "special" laws that give benefits to one group over others, Just make a blanket law and be done with it.  

How we spend our tax money, immigration, economy/jobs are my Priorities. 
If everyone has a job and can support their families, then we can get to work on the social side of politics. 

Til then get us the hell out of debt and spend the money on USC's not immigrants and corrupt countries, and for the love of God stop policing the world. 
Let NATO, UN and all the others take care of themselves. I get tired of the US being the bad guy when we try to handle something and it goes wrong. 

Stop blowing it on Electric cars, ffs 7.5 B's spent on it 2 years ago and we only have 7 fully functional charge stations in 4 states?? WTF. Manage that shit better. 

Been better off spending it on infrastructure.

The funny thing is Dill never actually reads what you write, he interprets it as he wills.  I have said I preferred Trump to Hillary for SCOTUS picks as with Hillary the 2A would be a thing of the past.  I think the 2A is among the most important protections in our Constitution, and it's pretty much unique.  

The other confusion comes from his deliberate obtuseness on the issue of Roe.  While I believe we should have a federal law protecting abortion access, at least up to a point for elective abortions, I thought Roe was poorly decided.  Abortion being a Constitutional right under the 14thA right to privacy was a tenuous link at best.  Oddly enough, Bel entirely agrees with me on this, but somehow the opinion makes me right wing, not him.  I used to have drag out fights on this and the old board regarding same sex marriage.  I've been arguing since I could that marriage has civil benefits, thus excluding two consenting adults from accessing those benefits is blatantly unconstitutional.  Another very right wing position to have.

As much as he complains about labels he seems exceedingly comfortable slapping them on people.  

[GMDino]

(04-04-2024, 12:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's about Priorities.
Abortions, gay marriage and Trans people are social issues. Thus a low priority in the overall picture.
We have laws that protect them (other than abortion which i've made clear i want a middle ground on), I don't want "special" laws that give benefits to one group over others, Just make a blanket law and be done with it.  

How we spend our tax money, immigration, economy/jobs are my Priorities. 
If everyone has a job and can support their families, then we can get to work on the social side of politics. 

Til then get us the hell out of debt and spend the money on USC's not immigrants and corrupt countries, and for the love of God stop policing the world. 
Let NATO, UN and all the others take care of themselves. I get tired of the US being the bad guy when we try to handle something and it goes wrong. 

Stop blowing it on Electric cars, ffs 7.5 B's spent on it 2 years ago and we only have 7 fully functional charge stations in 4 states?? WTF. Manage that shit better. 

Been better off spending it on infrastructure.

Honestly if we had politicians who were forward thinking we'd have fixed our infrastructure ahead of the push for electric cars.  Sadly it always comes down to  wanting to "cut taxes" and spend less...even though they still spend the same or more without addressing the issues that would help out all of us.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-04-2024, 01:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Honestly if we had politicians who were forward thinking we'd have fixed our infrastructure ahead of the push for electric cars.  Sadly it always comes down to  wanting to "cut taxes" and spend less...even though they still spend the same or more without addressing the issues that would help out all of us.

I agree with that, kinda, they can still cut taxes, there is plenty to go around. It's like Dept budgets at my work. Everyone fights for every penny and rather than being under budget, they will go out and spend up to the budget at the end just to make sure they can stay the same or get an increase. People can make due with slight cuts.

And not making regulations for Electric cars is killing us.

The tech will grow and when it does it will jump and then the stations have to all scramble again and again. If they would regulate it and upgrade bi-annually or annually it would help growth alot, as it is, it's a mess at charging stations. Different charging speeds for different cars and so on. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-04-2024, 03:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I agree with that, kinda, they can still cut taxes, there is plenty to go around. It's like Dept budgets at my work. Everyone fights for every penny and rather than being under budget, they will go out and spend up to the budget at the end just to make sure they can stay the same or get an increase. People can make due with slight cuts.

And not making regulations for Electric cars is killing us.

The tech will grow and when it does it will jump and then the stations have to all scramble again and again. If they would regulate it and upgrade bi-annually or annually it would help growth alot, as it is, it's a mess at charging stations. Different charging speeds for different cars and so on. 

More than just the lack of infrastructure for electric cars, the fact that they aren't yet even a feasible option for most Americans economically or technologically.  Not only do they cost a lot, they don't have enough range for road trips, recharging is a lengthy process, replacing the battery is about the same as 70% of the car's retail value when it was new, disposal of the battery material is an eco-hazard in and of itself, and they eat the hell out of tires. About the only practical applications for them are just for local driving and for moderate commuters.

[Luvnit2]

(04-04-2024, 07:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: More than just the lack of infrastructure for electric cars, the fact that they aren't yet even a feasible option for most Americans economically or technologically.  Not only do they cost a lot, they don't have enough range for road trips, recharging is a lengthy process, replacing the battery is about the same as 70% of the car's retail value when it was new, disposal of the battery material is an eco-hazard in and of itself, and they eat the hell out of tires. About the only practical applications for them are just for local driving and for moderate commuters.

The government is pushing a commodity weak in demand. Only 7% of vehicles on the road are electric. Just today another auto maker Ford is slowing down on electric car production. 

I agree with you, they are local driving option currently due to a poor job by Joe creating charging stations. He was given the money, but problem is the land to put them. Some say a gas station is an option, but why would a gas station give up gasoline pumps for charging stations? 

I purchased a new home in Florida in 2022, and it came with electric in my garage to charge a vehicle. But I have no desire to buy an electric vehicle. Take a close look, their resell value sucks versus gas powered vehicles. They also are high maintenance. The government needs to stay out of the car business, like everything else they touch it goes to hell. 

But hey, trust Mayor Pete, the new Biden salesperson to buy electric. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2024, 07:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: More than just the lack of infrastructure for electric cars, the fact that they aren't yet even a feasible option for most Americans economically or technologically.  Not only do they cost a lot, they don't have enough range for road trips, recharging is a lengthy process, replacing the battery is about the same as 70% of the car's retail value when it was new, disposal of the battery material is an eco-hazard in and of itself, and they eat the hell out of tires. About the only practical applications for them are just for local driving and for moderate commuters.

(04-04-2024, 07:18 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The government is pushing a commodity weak in demand. Only 7% of vehicles on the road are electric. Just today another auto maker Ford is slowing down on electric car production. 

I agree with you, they are local driving option currently due to a poor job by Joe creating charging stations. He was given the money, but problem is the land to put them. Some say a gas station is an option, but why would a gas station give up gasoline pumps for charging stations? 

I purchased a new home in Florida in 2022, and it came with electric in my garage to charge a vehicle. But I have no desire to buy an electric vehicle. Take a close look, their resell value sucks versus gas powered vehicles. They also are high maintenance. The government needs to stay out of the car business, like everything else they touch it goes to hell. 

But hey, trust Mayor Pete, the new Biden salesperson to buy electric. 

Elon Musk equated the conversion from the internal combustion engine to electric cars to the change from the steam engine to internal combustion.  It was quickly pointed out that no one had to force or incentivize this conversion, because the internal combustion engine was demonstrably better and more practical than the steam engine.  Electric cars may get there, but they're not there yet.  

[StoneTheCrow]

Say, what happens when you plug your EV into the wall or a charging station? Do unicorn farts get that battery good and charged? Is anyone thinking of the poor unicorns?

[CKwi88]

(04-04-2024, 08:50 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Say, what happens when you plug your EV into the wall or a charging station? Do unicorn farts get that battery good and charged? Is anyone thinking of the poor unicorns?

Haven't seen unicorn farts but I'll tell you I do not miss going to the gas station, especially in winter.

[StoneTheCrow]

(04-04-2024, 09:16 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Haven't seen unicorn farts but I'll tell you I do not miss going to the gas station, especially in winter.

[Dill]

(04-04-2024, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The funny thing is Dill never actually reads what you write, he interprets it as he wills.  I have said I preferred Trump to Hillary for SCOTUS picks as with Hillary the 2A would be a thing of the past.  I think the 2A is among the most important protections in our Constitution, and it's pretty much unique.  

The other confusion comes from his deliberate obtuseness on the issue of Roe.  While I believe we should have a federal law protecting abortion access, at least up to a point for elective abortions, I thought Roe was poorly decided.  Abortion being a Constitutional right under the 14thA right to privacy was a tenuous link at best.  Oddly enough, Bel entirely agrees with me on this, but somehow the opinion makes me right wing, not him.  I used to have drag out fights on this and the old board regarding same sex marriage.  I've been arguing since I could that marriage has civil benefits, thus excluding two consenting adults from accessing those benefits is blatantly unconstitutional.  Another very right wing position to have.

As much as he complains about labels he seems exceedingly comfortable slapping them on people.  

??? So where is this at any point different from my "willed interpretation" of your position?  

This doesn't correct any "misunderstanding" on my part.  It just repeats what I say your right wing beliefs are and your justifications for them. 
I'd only disagree with oddly false framing comments like "I don't read you" and am "deliberately obtuse" on Roe.
I not only read your posts, I remember them better than you do.    

Sure, somewhere in the deep dark past you used to defend same-sex marriage. Like a (YUCK!) progressive.

But now that you've become one of this forum's LOUDEST and most constant opponents of "the modern left" and "white guilt,"
a defender of nationalism and law and order who expresses his love for the most conservative court in a hundred years, and his anger over
the liberal double standard on Trump, and channels the IDF on the Super thread--surprise surprise--people think you are not "centrist" 
but, yes, a "rightist," by same kind of evidence and logic that, correctly, make me a "leftist." 

It would be silly and inaccurate for me to claim I'm a "centrist"  because I own guns and had "drag out fights" on the old board,
or a right wing poster agrees with me, then go back to criticizing Trump and the GOP and  Right wing politics day in and day out 
from a left-wing angle. Reminding people every now and then that I OWN GUNS TOO! and so must be free of partisan entanglements. 
People would be justified in wondering why the insistent self-misrepresentation, the discomfort with accurate labeling.

So I am comfortable with people "slapping" a left label on me when I practice leftist politics, calling me a "leftist" when I support/defend liberal or actual leftist positions/politicians. Might be different if my criticism were 50/50. But it is not and I don't pretend otherwise.

One SHOULD be comfortable with accurate labeling, but very UNCOMFORTABLE with generating labels ad hoc as rhetorical weapons,
like calling someone a racist or an anti-semite or an ISIS supporter or an ANTIFA supporter as a tactic, depending on the thread topic. 
There is no evidence in this forum that I am "comfortable" using labels that way.