Please reply like a normal person, what are you doing…

Biden slightly cared about the optics

And hence why people like you were fooled. You had to invent numbers to prove your point because it was never the choice between 150k and 1 million, it has always been the ethnic cleansing of the whole of Palestine. This was in line with ever choice Biden made with regards to Gaza. For optics he “followed the procedure of delivering the food aid” that was stopped at the border, while arming the people threatened to, or actually did, bomb those aid trucks.

What about:

Reuters

BBC

or IPC 1 2

or when aid trucks were bombed by Israel

or the ICC Judge that issued arrest warrants for “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024,”

I am not asking if you would ‘review’ the evidence. I am asking if you would change your opinion. Because what I replied to was you saying:

Oh okay so cutting off the food aid is okay for you? Since thousands of people of dying of bombs you wanna make sure millions die of starvation?

So my point is to ask, is cutting off food and bombing aid trucks so millions can die of starvation okay with you if they do it while wearing a blue tie?

Ive never heard of BDS, thanks for mentioning it.

Oh buddy. Maybe listen to your elders.

What did you want them to cite?

Gender fluid

Hey, our ‘progressive’ party is doing war crimes.

Oh my god, could you fucking commies shut up and fuck off???

I am glad his performance convinced you to do stuff, may it lead to you effective forms of protest that is actually what we need to help our imperfect world.

People that wouldn’t be fired up if it was done to block legislation?

If you were given evidence of starvation conditions and cutting off of aid from before Trump took office would your opinions on this change at all? Like genuinely did you start paying attention when you could use it against Trump?

Neither does talking for 25 hours, blocking legislation does.

I am open to being convinced it was more than performative, mind sharing the context that makes it more than a show, and instead that it is tangible effects on the fascist machinery of the current state?

“Raising awareness” activism has been such a pernicious tool of pacification for the current era.

Wouldn’t it get more media attention, spread a more encouraging message to do this when there is literally any legislation that he is stopping?

Criticizing praxis of those in power is valid and good, and it’s incredibly frustrating to see democrats remember that they can do things like this only when it doesn’t actually have any tangible effect.

You as well!

Good to know, I am sorry our politics are such a fucking problem for everyone!

My point isn’t so much about the party they should ‘join’. I know we are having this conversation in the context of a country that largely aware of the different parties and broadly what they feel about them. Be seeing as this a time of necessary reflection for the democratic party, and in turn reflection for their base, I think it’s worth looking harshly at what they really were before the currently administration. That a party that was offered as pro-worker, anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-trans issues, has become a party of, ‘strike breaking’, ‘most lethal military’, ‘tough on illegals’, and ‘following the law’.

I think it’s valid to classify many in the party as evil because they are either doing evil or capitulating to it, and we need to have a conversation about how much about them needs to change.

I understand and respect optics arguments, but I think this is why I don’t know that we agree to the degree you think we do.

It seems that you think we should be cautious of the optics of unjustly invoking phasing that you don’t feel is justified for the democratic party. To put it a bit more plainly it seems that you are quicker to try and reframe it in such a way that the criticism is not applicable for democrats. To me it seems utterly vital that we use language that is both true and harsh. Openly means without the secret channels governments often use, and nothing about the dems support of Israel is obtuse.

I think this is vital because I don’t think we can let slip the genocidal support of the previous administration be forgotten in the haze of the terrors of the current one.

The democratic party is a vicious and evil group that in the face of massive mounting evidence, continued to defend, and fund an on going genocide. In an age of perpetual wars and bombings, our ‘progressive’ party claimed they would ensure we would have “the most lethal military in the world.”

I don’t want to shy away from this because I think they are blood thirsty people, and should be portrayed as such, especially when it’s literally true.

They said ‘Trump could do a bad thing and it wouldn’t forgive Dems’, you said ‘so you’re willing to do bad thing?’

I simply don’t know how to make this point any more clear.

Where do they say they want or would support turning earth into a cloud of nuclear waste?