Libs eating Libs over Biden stance in Israel

[Luvnit2]

Biden has tried to saddle the fence, one minute all in for Israel, next all in for Islama Phobia (while Jews are under attack) trying to appease the Arab community. Looks like he is losing on all fronts. Tlaib and the squad are not happy. They are threatening Biden's 2024 election vote.

51 min(s) agoPINNED
State Department employee accuses Biden admin of being 'complicit' in Israel 'genocide'
State Department employee accuses Biden admin of being 'complicit' in Israel 'genocide'
State Department employee accuses Biden admin of being 'complicit' in Israel 'genocide'

A woman identified as a State Department employee has used social media to accuse President Biden and his administration of being "complicit in genocide" toward the people in Gaza and warned that it could stifle his re-election chances in 2024.

Sylvia Yacoub, who has served for more than two years as a foreign affairs officer in the State Department's Bureau of Near East Affairs, according to her LinkedIn page, has outspokenly shared her opinions on the matter through a variety of posts to X, formerly known as Twitter.

Yacoub used the platform to take aim at President Biden and his administration over its support for Israel in the country's war against Hamas, though the posts have since been made private.

In a response Thursday to one of Biden's posts on X, which highlighted his support for additional U.S. military aid to Israel, Yacoub "You are providing significantly more military assistance to the government that is indiscriminately attacking innocent Gazans….you are complicit in genocide."

"Embarrassingly out of touch @VP," Yacoub tweeted at Vice President Kamala Harris after Harris met with U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Harris had just posted that she and Sunak discussed "our support for Israel's right to defend itself and the urgent need to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza."

[*pally*]

imagine a political party that allows for differing opinions

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I'm actually pretty pleased with Biden's response to Israel so far.

Offer support (released supplies stored around there in mass) to the attacked to support an ally while also supporting the fight against the people who killed a couple dozen US Citizens. Brought in a couple big sticks (two carrier groups) to send a message to keep other countries from joining in to escalate.... but also forced Israel down from their stance of not allowing any supplies into Gaza. No matter what you have to at least allow food and water to the people even if a lot of it ends up taken by Hamas.

Also got over 300 US Citizens safely out of Gaza.

- - - - -

He's not exactly an inspiring President, but I would have considered voting for him if Harris wasn't his VP. Or at least if he was like 70 instead of 80 and Harris was his VP. When a candidate is 80-ish, you really gotta look at who is next in line because you might be voting for them to be President as well. Lol

[Dill]

(11-05-2023, 03:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm actually pretty pleased with Biden's response to Israel so far.

Offer support (released supplies stored around there in mass) to the attacked to support an ally while also supporting the fight against the people who killed a couple dozen US Citizens. Brought in a couple big sticks (two carrier groups) to send a message to keep other countries from joining in to escalate.... but also forced Israel down from their stance of not allowing any supplies into Gaza. No matter what you have to at least allow food and water to the people even if a lot of it ends up taken by Hamas.

Also got over 300 US Citizens safely out of Gaza.

- - - - -

He's not exactly an inspiring President, but I would have considered voting for him if Harris wasn't his VP. Or at least if he was like 70 instead of 80 and Harris was his VP. When a candidate is 80-ish, you really gotta look at who is next in line because you might be voting for them to be President as well. Lol

Would you vote for Trump instead of Biden?

[Dill]

(11-05-2023, 01:36 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Biden has tried to saddle the fence, one minute all in for Israel, next all in for Islama Phobia (while Jews are under attack) trying to appease the Arab community. Looks like he is losing on all fronts. Tlaib and the squad are not happy. They are threatening Biden's 2024 election vote.

How do you think Trump would be handling the war if he were president?

Do you suppose there would be any division in the Republican party over the war?

Christian Zionists would certainly support it. But what about the America Firsters who want us out of the Ukraine?

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2023, 12:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Would you vote for Trump instead of Biden?

If Trump makes his VP Gary Johnson and has several massive strokes in November 2024?  Yes.

[HarleyDog]

(11-06-2023, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: How do you think Trump would be handling the war if he were president?

None of this would have happened if Trump was President.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2023, 12:48 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: None of this would have happened if Trump was President.

And 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the 2000 election hadn't been stolen from Gore.  Man, this is some full circle stuff.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2023, 12:48 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: None of this would have happened if Trump was President.

Bull. Shit.

[CJD]

Liberal infighting has actually been the historical norm. It's why the Democratic party can have a nearly filibuster proof majority in the Senate (in 2009 to 2011) and still not get very much done (yes, they got Obamacare, but the passed bill was much less ambitious than it could have been).

It only seems like a relatively new thing recently because the Republicans have been in open mutiny for the majority of this term since they took control of the house. So we've been distracted by that whole mess.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-05-2023, 01:42 PM)pally Wrote: imagine a political party that allows for differing opinions

Interesting.  You sang a completely different tune when the GOP didn't have a consensus on who should be Speaker.

(11-06-2023, 12:48 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: None of this would have happened if Trump was President.

(11-06-2023, 01:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bull. Shit.

Addressing both of these with the same response.  I firmly believe Putin would not have invaded Ukraine under Trump's presidency.  I stated several years ago that Trump being unpredictable actually had some benefits in regard to foreign policy, especially when dealing with hostile nations.  I don't know that I'd say the current war in Israel would not have occurred under Trump.  Hamas and Iran are motivated by religious conviction.  All their hate, atrocities and motivations are caused by this religious conviction.  People motivated by religion often do not act logically.  Iran poked the bear several times under Trump, I don't think him being in office would have stopped them this time either.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I firmly believe Putin would not have invaded Ukraine under Trump's presidency.

I figured Putin's disaster of a "three day war" with Ukraine occurred because he had expected Trump to stick around after the 2020 election and further erode trust in NATO and our former allies and/or stand aside while he invaded.  The fact that Putin still went ahead with his plan after Trump lost is likely due to the guy buying into his own BS after years of anyone who disagrees with him dying after making it known.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine has gone so poorly that I have to assume he was banking on getting some US support or at least a president who like the MAGA congress folks played the "America first" card and stood aside and badmouthed NATO and maybe threw some more love and support in the hearts and minds of the US people ol' Vlad's way.  Is the war going to stop any time soon?  If Trump wins in 2024 is Putin going to withdraw? 

[CJD]

(11-06-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Addressing both of these with the same response.  I firmly believe Putin would not have invaded Ukraine under Trump's presidency.  I stated several years ago that Trump being unpredictable actually had some benefits in regard to foreign policy, especially when dealing with hostile nations.  I don't know that I'd say the current war in Israel would not have occurred under Trump.  Hamas and Iran are motivated by religious conviction.  All their hate, atrocities and motivations are caused by this religious conviction.  People motivated by religion often do not act logically.  Iran poked the bear several times under Trump, I don't think him being in office would have stopped them this time either.

I actually agree with this. I think other nations were scared of Trump and his unpredictability. If Putin invaded Ukraine while Trump was president, it would be a roll of the dice whether Trump would have just sat there and let it happen, if he would have backed Ukraine, or if he just declared war on Russia and sent in ground troops or, worse, threats of nuclear war (I don't think the US government would ever allow him to launch them though, but you never know). Or, you know, Trump could have further weakened NATO, which would have benefitted Putin and emboldened him. It's really hard to say.

Trump supporters offer this as a positive of Trump's presidency, but what they either don't realize or refuse to admit is that it cuts both ways. Trump is extremely unpredictable internationally, which creates hesitation in our enemies, but he is also extremely unpredictable with our allies and domestically, which causes a lot of chaos in its own right. He created fluctuations in the stock market just by tweeting, after all.


Putin knew that Biden would take measured approach to his invasion of Ukraine and likely accounted for it in his decision to invade Ukraine and that may be seen as a disadvantage in a president. Predictability is good domestically and with allies, not so good with enemies, turns out.

As far as Israel, Trump would have been equally unpredictable, but I think it is most likely he would have backed Israel with plenty of supplies. The question I have is would he have been endorsing a full scale invasion sooner and even provided American troops to assist in the extermination of Hamas (and any other civilians that happened to be in the way). Again, Biden took a fairly measured approach of supporting our ally, but begging caution and restraint, focusing on preventing larger scale attacks from neighboring countries. Predictable and measured is the name of the game for Biden in most international situations and that has its advantages and disadvantages.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Addressing both of these with the same response.  I firmly believe Putin would not have invaded Ukraine under Trump's presidency.  I stated several years ago that Trump being unpredictable actually had some benefits in regard to foreign policy, especially when dealing with hostile nations.  I don't know that I'd say the current war in Israel would not have occurred under Trump.  Hamas and Iran are motivated by religious conviction.  All their hate, atrocities and motivations are caused by this religious conviction.  People motivated by religion often do not act logically.  Iran poked the bear several times under Trump, I don't think him being in office would have stopped them this time either.

I agree with this, partially. I think the Ukraine invasion would have occurred, just a little later.

(11-06-2023, 01:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I figured Putin's disaster of a "three day war" with Ukraine occurred because he had expected Trump to stick around after the 2020 election and further erode trust in NATO and our former allies and/or stand aside while he invaded.  The fact that Putin still went ahead with his plan after Trump lost is likely due to the guy buying into his own BS after years of anyone who disagrees with him dying after making it known.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine has gone so poorly that I have to assume he was banking on getting some US support or at least a president who like the MAGA congress folks played the "America first" card and stood aside and badmouthed NATO and maybe threw some more love and support in the hearts and minds of the US people ol' Vlad's way.  Is the war going to stop any time soon?  If Trump wins in 2024 is Putin going to withdraw? 

So, this is where I expand on my "galaxy brain" thinking on this. I agree with your argument, here. I think Putin invaded so soon because he didn't want to see Biden strengthen NATO before he had a chance. He knew there was damage done under Trump and he didn't want those repairs to be made before he had his chance. Because Trump didn't win and continue to dismantle the alliance he had to strike fast, faster than he maybe wanted to.

I firmly believe we would have seen Putin invade under Trump (or immediately following his second term) simply because of how much he was banking on the erosion of the NATO bonds.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2023, 01:24 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I actually agree with this. I think other nations were scared of Trump and his unpredictability. If Putin invaded Ukraine while Trump was president, it would be a roll of the dice whether Trump would have just sat there and let it happen, if he would have backed Ukraine, or if he just declared war on Russia and sent in ground troops or, worse, threats of nuclear war (I don't think the US government would ever allow him to launch them though, but you never know). Or, you know, Trump could have further weakened NATO, which would have benefitted Putin and emboldened him. It's really hard to say.

Maybe.  The GOP via Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been talking up Putin and Russia since Trump was still a TV celebrity.  I just don't trust that Trump would be a genuine coin flip as to whether he'd declare war on Russia or not.  Putin has been built up in the eyes of the now-MAGA conservatives a bit too much for me to just believe Trump would have kept him in check.

Trump can say he'd end the war, but he also said he'd lock up Hillary Clinton and make Mexico pay for the wall.  When he's not in office he's not going to offer anything other than the most instantly amazing results IF ONLY he were in office.


I think a second Trump presidency will have him too involved in our domestic situation and his own revenge plot rather than the affairs of other countries.  He's the "monkey's paw" version of all that non interventionalism libertarians wished for.  I assume it's going to be a lot of "we can't help or get involved in other countries when the USA is a corrupt 3rd world shithole that needs completely dismantled and AMERICA FIRST."

[CJD]

(11-06-2023, 01:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Maybe.  The GOP via Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been talking up Putin and Russia since Trump was still a TV celebrity.  I just don't trust that Trump would be a genuine coin flip as to whether he'd declare war on Russia or not.  Putin has been built up in the eyes of the now-MAGA conservatives a bit too much for me to just believe Trump would have kept him in check.

Trump can say he'd end the war, but he also said he'd lock up Hillary Clinton and make Mexico pay for the wall.  When he's not in office he's not going to offer anything other than the most instantly amazing results IF ONLY he were in office.


I think a second Trump presidency will have him too involved in our domestic situation and his own revenge plot rather than the affairs of other countries.  He's the "monkey's paw" version of all that non interventionalism libertarians wished for.  I assume it's going to be a lot of "we can't help or get involved in other countries when the USA is a corrupt 3rd world shithole that needs completely dismantled and AMERICA FIRST."

Yep, all this is why I consider his unpredictability to be a disadvantage haha. He says one thing, does another, or just completely ignores it, or completely overreacts to it, or does something brash and uncalled for, or does nothing at all. It's like having a rabid German Shepherd for a president.

[Luvnit2]

(11-05-2023, 01:42 PM)pally Wrote: imagine a political party that allows for differing opinions

Didn't the GOP just oust the speaker over different views? I would argue GOP is way more diverse and rarely vote together 100% along party lines.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2023, 01:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yep, all this is why I consider his unpredictability to be a disadvantage haha. He says one thing, does another, or just completely ignores it, or completely overreacts to it, or does something brash and uncalled for, or does nothing at all. It's like having a rabid German Shepherd for a president.

I haven't kept up on Trump's take on Putin or Russia but I feel like he's been about as consistent as he can be regarding his admiration and respect for him.  I take his assertions that he wouldn't have allowed this on his watch more as a loving parent or spouse would straighten Putin out with tough love rather than Putin being afraid Trump would declare war on him.
When I think of Trump talking about how he'd keep Putin from being bad, I feel him channeling the same energy as this cringe woman:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2023, 01:24 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I actually agree with this. I think other nations were scared of Trump and his unpredictability. If Putin invaded Ukraine while Trump was president, it would be a roll of the dice whether Trump would have just sat there and let it happen, if he would have backed Ukraine, or if he just declared war on Russia and sent in ground troops or, worse, threats of nuclear war (I don't think the US government would ever allow him to launch them though, but you never know). Or, you know, Trump could have further weakened NATO, which would have benefitted Putin and emboldened him. It's really hard to say.

Trump supporters offer this as a positive of Trump's presidency, but what they either don't realize or refuse to admit is that it cuts both ways. Trump is extremely unpredictable internationally, which creates hesitation in our enemies, but he is also extremely unpredictable with our allies and domestically, which causes a lot of chaos in its own right. He created fluctuations in the stock market just by tweeting, after all.


Putin knew that Biden would take measured approach to his invasion of Ukraine and likely accounted for it in his decision to invade Ukraine and that may be seen as a disadvantage in a president. Predictability is good domestically and with allies, not so good with enemies, turns out.

As far as Israel, Trump would have been equally unpredictable, but I think it is most likely he would have backed Israel with plenty of supplies. The question I have is would he have been endorsing a full scale invasion sooner and even provided American troops to assist in the extermination of Hamas (and any other civilians that happened to be in the way). Again, Biden took a fairly measured approach of supporting our ally, but begging caution and restraint, focusing on preventing larger scale attacks from neighboring countries. Predictable and measured is the name of the game for Biden in most international situations and that has its advantages and disadvantages.

(11-06-2023, 01:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with this, partially. I think the Ukraine invasion would have occurred, just a little later.


So, this is where I expand on my "galaxy brain" thinking on this. I agree with your argument, here. I think Putin invaded so soon because he didn't want to see Biden strengthen NATO before he had a chance. He knew there was damage done under Trump and he didn't want those repairs to be made before he had his chance. Because Trump didn't win and continue to dismantle the alliance he had to strike fast, faster than he maybe wanted to.

I firmly believe we would have seen Putin invade under Trump (or immediately following his second term) simply because of how much he was banking on the erosion of the NATO bonds.

Some interesting positions here.  I have a few follow ups.  I see Trump "weakening" NATO raised a lot.  I don't know if that's necessarily the case.  I'm sure both of you could provide specific examples of this, but I also recall him castigating NATO members for not living up to the agreed upon defense budgets (Germany especially).  I do recall him warning Europe about Putin and his using his gas and heating oil supplies to hold them hostage..  Are you both referring to his being abrasive and turning our allies off because of that?  Because while I will certainly acknowledge that being the case my response to it is, where are they gonna go?  Is the POTUS being an ass who berates you publicly enough to throw your lot in with the China axis, including Iran, Russia and North Korea?  I would think not.  Go it alone as the EU?  Good luck with that.

I think the worst case for NATO under Trump is hard feelings that dissipate a few years into a more normal presidency.  Honestly, I think getting rid of NATO is a good idea.  By that I mean abandoning the name and it's cold war implications, and expanding the alliance to include democracies like Japan and South Korea, maybe even India is they can make some guarantees.  Call it something else, keep the same structure, agreements and guarantees.  I honestly think something as simple as a name change would go some ways towards making Russia less bellicose about the alliance.

[Luvnit2]

(11-06-2023, 12:48 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: None of this would have happened if Trump was President.

All we know is under Trump there were no new wars started, he ended terrorist ISIS quickly.
Under Biden, Russia invades Ukraine and Iran back terrorist Hamas started a war by brutally killing men, women, children and babies. Then they took over 240 hostages.

Israel chose to Fight Hamas and did not ask for US troops to help them. We know these things happened under Biden, we know under Trump the Abraham Accord was created and the middle east was stabilized. We know Trump took Iran to its knees financially, yet Iran chose to not attack us through the terrorists they sponsor.

We know Biden's policies emboldened Iran again financially, the Biden policy allowed Iran to again make almost 100 Billion on the open market selling oil to China, something Trump had stopped.

We know if no Iran, no Hamas. What did Hamas do during the Trump administration? What did they do under Biden? The facts say Trump help the middle east at bay, but Biden's policy have led to another dumpster fire in the region.

These are facts (outcomes), like you said the facts say this would not have happened under Trump because it didn't.