Israel vs Hamas (2 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Looks like the fight is on with Israeli soldiers and civilians amongst the dead already. Question becomes, how long before we get dragged into this?

Netanyahu says Israel is ‘at war’ after Hamas launches surprise attack, takes hostages | CNN

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the country was “at war” on Saturday, after Palestinian militants in Gaza fired a deadly barrage of rockets and sent gunmen into Israeli territory in a major escalation of the long running conflict between the two sides.

www.cnn.com

 

[SamAndreas]

And I’ll add, American presence and involvement is likely the primary reason this hasn’t expanded into a far bloodier regional or global conflict already. As awful as Netanyahu is, abandoning Israel would very likely create a power vacuum and be viewed as an opportunity by radical regimes.

They'd push the Israelites into the ocean to drown if the USA left a power vacuum there.

All of a sudden them warm and fuzzy Hamas freedom fighters would be seen attempting a genocide on the Israelis.

Whoever has the upper hand will obviously genocide on the other side. They have four or five generations of hatred for the other side invested here, a major hatred development.

They can't stop now. Shakes head, oh no.

 

[SamAndreas]

i mentioned this on the Ukraine EE thread and ill just put here because i think it applies to this conflict.

We ( Americans ) have become desensitized to what "war" actually is. We have lived the better part of our adult lives witnessing GW1, GW2 and Afghanistan thru the lens of "precision" conflicts. Conflicts that were restrictive in nature to avoid collateral damage ( ie civilians )
Outside of GW1, the latter two were disasters. You cannot wage armed conflict with restrictions.

War is an ugly, barbaric and brutal undertaking. Yet we have somehow gotten to a place where war is supposed to be some relatively clean, protective endeavor. Its not. NEver was and never will be. But i suspect that it was created in part, to make it easier for politicians to "sell it" back home.

Israel had ZERO reservations about waging a war. None. And what everyone is seeing now ( and if you have been paying attention, Russia doing exact same thing to Ukrainian towns and cities ) from Israel is what war REALLY is. Unapologetic combat. Combat that includes the death of civilians in part, in hopes that the citizens of said warring nation/state say enough and pressure their leaders to come to terms. Breaking the will of the opponent thru any means necessary.

Thats what war is. And why after 1945, we had so little of it until the technology made us think we could wage war without harming as many innocents. Simply untrue.

not meaning to derail this thread, but wanted to post this here because i think what many are missing is the true nature of waging war.

As I was taught by the military in school, the US military's definition of war is the complete and total breakdown of diplomatic relations.

It's that simple.

 

[DaveXA]

As I was taught by the military in school, the US military's definition of war is the complete and total breakdown of diplomatic relations.

It's that simple.

Indeed.

 

[Heathen]

I can't know if you did it intentionally or not, but you did it. I see you repeatedly do the same thing to other posters in this thread who disagree with you. You ask them questions about what they've said in a way that blatantly changes the context of what they clearly said.

So to clear the air - none of it was intentional to distort what you were saying. Maybe it could have been taken that way, but it isn’t how I meant it. I saw what I was repeating back to you as the ultimate potential or consequence your own words, where my apparent “help” to get Trump elected by posting on this forum could “get” Trump elected if some ambiguous amount of “saying” - which one can assume means posting, as we are on a message board, is applied.

Did you not mean this literally?

At this point, let’s do this - I’ll redact what I said, give you that it wasn’t the exact phrasing you used (though I’m not going to say it was an attempt to distort - because it wasn’t) and repeat what you said back to you in question form:

“So you are saying that I could say things **(I am assuming that you mean here on this message board) that can help get Trump elected?”

Someone else already pointed out that this was impractical. It deserves the same amount of incredulity in question IMO. It seems to me more like an attempt at a cheap jab, and an example of argumentum in terrorem if you will, in context of disagreement than a real concern of yours, unless you truly believe what you said in the literal sense.

Which is hard to believe - but you tell me.

 

[efil4]

As I was taught by the military in school, the US military's definition of war is the complete and total breakdown of diplomatic relations.

It's that simple.

I still remember the 1st verse of our "company fight song" ( Echo Company ) from boot camp.

Mmm...ngowa
Echo has the power
to kill, destroy
all the little commie boys
war, destruction
we never get enough
and when it comes to fighting
Echos' got the stuff.


Thats what military school taught us grunts. lol.

 

[Incumbent]

There are two schools of thought about that in this discussion.

One view is that people can publicly express their intentions to protest vote against Biden and that’s without a belief in, or concern for, any greater consequence. Freedom. Rights. Full stop.

The other view is that the collective of people doing that online become a suppressing force of opposition against Biden. The concern is that while protest voting in red states won’t have any direct affect on the election, voters in states where their vote does matter might be compelled by left wing voters who oppose Biden to then also oppose Biden, themselves. If you see a strong enough leftwing backlash to a candidate, that can suppress enthusiasm and support. Herd mentality is strong and because of the electoral college, practical election margins can be razor thin. It only takes tilting the scales a little, where it matters, to make a difference. If you need to suppress or swing 50,000 votes and you can take 5,000 off the table by normalizing protest voting, 10% of the goal is accomplished. (Arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point). Many think Hillary Clinton was hurt by this, among other strategies and her own negatives, which any candidate faces.

People are free to vote how they want. People are free to say what they want. That isn’t in question. The election, however, represents a binary outcome - either Biden or Trump will win - and if enough left wing voters are publicly protesting Biden, that quite possibly will cause a cumulative harm to him at the polls, beyond red state protest voters. Messaging helps drive outcomes.

Of course people can decide that’s just too bad, that Biden needs to do more or do better, but then that just leads to debates about any of those specific issues. That’s all fair, too, of course, but at some point, people who genuinely fear a second Trump term have to come together to defeat him. If that’s not possible, we will all be subject to the consequences of that outcome. Some people, much more than others.

Note, I think we all realize that whatever is said here and only here has no meaningful impact on anything - more so it’s a debate about the idea.

 

[Heathen]

It's not the first time I've shared that in this thread. I think it's a possibility, based on what we know about foreign adversary campaigns against our country and our elections. Do you think it's a possibility that Hamas could have been prodded into an unprecedented attack on Israel, with no real outcome other than war? And/or that adversaries would use that conflict to sow discord among American voters? (We know it's happened in the past and shouldn't have any reason to think it wouldn't still be a tool used against us.)

I think it’s certainly a possibility. I’d be foolish to rule that out completely.

My personal thoughts and what I’m assuming without a ton of evidence at this point is thaf Israel knew that Hamas was planning an attack and decided to do nothing about it. This was to help facilitate the outrage they would use to justify wiping Gaza and a large number of its people off the map and (ultimately, I think) occupy it. They are also actively driving out Palestinians in the West Bank where none of this occurred.

Israel has already announced it will not let Hamas continue to govern Gaza, with help of the US. I don’t think that is Israel or the US role, to restructure governments of other nations - but we do have a history of doing that, so it isn’t surprising.

Anyway, that was a tangent but maybe it is also to draw the US and others into a war and effect the elections. We know who Putin wants as President of the US…

It’s all fascinating and confusing.

Ok, I understand. I wasn't sure where you meant the hatred was being directed. I do think there is a real need for democratic leadership who better understand coalition building. That was central to Obama's appeal. And to put it bluntly, I think party leadership needs to get younger and more in tune with current problems and younger voters. That's part of why I can appreciate some of what Biden has accomplished vs what I expected. But until then, I accept the choices I have until it changes. I vote for progressive candidates. My congressman is part of the young progressive coalition in congress. I guess that's why I speak as freely on this as I do, because I'm not just trying to admonish others; I'm walking the walk.

I appreciate that. And FTR, I fully agree that many young people can be overly aggressive and unrealistic about things - “dreamers” if you will. I just hope they can transform that energy into getting rid of this far right Fascist thirst from the GOP.

To be clear, the issue I understand drove you to not want to support Biden is the Hamas-Israel war. So to see you say you think he's done a good job walking the line (or however you phrased it) is why I'm asking if it's other issues, and if so, what those issues are.

Sure. Yes, not super happy with our foreign policy under Biden. Past Israel, apparently we have given the green light to Ukraine to start striking targets in Russia. In the least, that makes me wary.

He’s increased oil drilling to more than Trump, which is a big concern of mine if we hope to eventually break our dependency on fossil fuels and not contribute to a planet warming at disturbingly fast trajectory.

He also has continued the border wall, detention centers and one of if not the must restrictive immigration bill created - much of which continues what people were outraged at Trump for (which they should be).

He doesn’t seem to be open to any national healthcare expansion, and hasn’t done a lot on gun reform.

That all being said, I don’t think he’s done a bad job, just hasn’t delivered or even spoken out about a lot of issues that are important to me. Some of that definitely can be boiled down never ending Republican stalemate, absolutely.

It's frustrating but it's reality. Whatever people can accuse the DNC of doing in 2016, Sanders was on the ballot in every state, on the debate stage, and wasn't lacking for campaign funds and recognition. Voters ultimately rejected him, unfortunately, because, I believe, the appetite for farther left progressivism is overestimated. But...I think we are slowly getting there.

Definitely agree. It was disheartening to see how badly Sanders performed in 2020, but even him running pushed progressive ideals forward.

Agreed. I think voting should be easily accessible to everybody. But even now, in Texas, there are always many days to early vote, and voters can vote at any precinct in their registered county. The GOP is absolutely trying to suppress turnout, but some of that is still on people simply not showing up. We had a strong slate of democratic candidates in our last state elections and turnout was disappointing. Perfect candidates don't exist. Perfect timing doesn't exist. We can't keep complaining about the Trumps, Abbotts, and Landrys if people won't mobilize to support state parties, democratic candidates, and turn out to vote.

I agree with that, and though I appreciate the energy and outrage of people over issues like Gaza, we’ve got to channel that into something productive.

I’m waiting for the glorious day that Texas switches out of the red category. I’m actually kind of shocked it could be borderline purple soon.

 

[LA - L.A.]

“So you are saying that I could say things **(I am assuming that you mean here on this message board) that can help get Trump elected?”

Yes, of course on this message board, because this is where we are having this discussion.

"Can" and "will" do not mean nor imply the same things.

It seems to me more like an attempt at a cheap jab, and an example of argumentum in terrorem if you will, in context of disagreement than a real concern of yours, unless you truly believe what you said in the literal sense.

Let me respond with one of my favorite quotes attributed to Isaac Newton: "Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."

You have a tendency to over complicate what people say and usually in a way that is not consistent with what they are actually saying. It seems like you're too busy trying to impress people with your superior intellect and knowledge, instead of just listening to and talking to people.

It is a real concern of mine, because we are all connected. The things said here by all of us have ripple effects throughout our society. Ripples can amplify and reinforce each other. They can also cancel each other out.

So, what's said here can help, as in contribute to, Trump winning the election. I don't think the things you say will single-handedly lead to Trump winning, but the things you say about Biden can contribute to the ripples that create a wave that leads to Trump getting elected.

Word of mouth campaigns are still highly pursued, because they are one of the most effective forms of campaigns. One individual straw can't break a camel's backs, but if you add enough individual straws, the camel's back will break.

If you don't want the camel's back to break, then it's best not to be one of the straws added to its back.

If you don't want Trump to win the election, then it's best not to give people reasons or excuses not to vote for Biden. Harping on how you can't vote for Biden because you think he is allowing, even assisting, genocide is very much giving people a reason and an excuse not to vote for Biden.

 

[Heathen]

There are two schools of thought about that in this discussion.

One view is that people can publicly express their intentions to protest vote against Biden and that’s without any greater consequence. Freedom. Rights. Full stop.

The other view is that the collective of people doing that online become a suppressing force of opposition against Biden. The concern is that while protest voting in red states won’t have any direct affect on the election, voters in states where their vote does matter might be compelled by left wing voters who oppose Biden to then also oppose Biden, themselves. If you see a strong enough leftwing backlash to a candidate, that can suppress enthusiasm and support. Herd mentality is strong and because of the electoral college, practical election margins can be razor thin. It only takes tilting the scales a little, where it matters, to make a difference. If you need to suppress or swing 50,000 votes and you can take 5,000 off the table by normalizing protest voting, 10% of the goal is accomplished. (Arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point). Many think Hillary Clinton was hurt by this, among other strategies and her own negatives, which any candidate faces.

This is true and my view is that Biden will definitely have to contend in this election with dissatisfaction from young voters in swing states who are either uninformed and/or refusing to vote over the Gaza genocide. I don’t know that many of those voters minds can be changed at this point, but you’d certainly hope so.

I could not say another thing about Biden or Gaza and I still think the cumulative effect of what’s already happened will affect the election in some way. I’m particularly worried about Michigan and PA.

I think Biden’s chances are slightly weaker than before due to many voters experiencing the hurt on their wallets due to inflation, more wars, etc.

Trump is contending with looking more insane by the day, becoming an official convicted felon, not really having much of a message for the middle class, more trying to get elected as a savior figure for those who treat politics like a football rivalry. Somehow this hasn’t hurt him that much among voters.

It’s going to be interesting for sure. I don’t think it will be a landslide at all either way.

 

[Heathen]

Yes, of course on this message board, because this is where we are having this discussion.

"Can" and "will" do not mean nor imply the same things.


Let me respond with one of my favorite quotes attributed to Isaac Newton: "Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."

You have a tendency to over complicate what people say and usually in a way that is not consistent with what they are actually saying. It seems like you're too busy trying to impress people with your superior intellect and knowledge, instead of just listening to and talking to people.

It is a real concern of mine, because we are all connected. The things said here by all of us have ripple effects throughout our society. Ripples can amplify and reinforce each other. They can also cancel each other out.

So, what's said here can help, as in contribute to, Trump winning the election. I don't think the things you say will single-handedly lead to Trump winning, but the things you say about Biden can contribute to the ripples that create a wave that leads to Trump getting elected.

Word of mouth campaigns are still highly pursued, because they are one of the most effective forms of campaigns. One individual straw can't break a camel's backs, but if you add enough individual straws, the camel's back will break.

As someone mentioned earlier, I think many people here if not most have their mind made up on who they will vote for. I don’t fully agree in that regard that me speaking consistently about the Biden administration’s policies with regard to Gaza will help Trump get elected, nor do I know the “right” amount of critique that will voice my right to an opinion strongly held with the wish to change how my party functions in this capacity, and NOT also contribute to opinions that will help get Trump elected.

I don’t know that line, and I’m not sure anything would work past “don’t talk about it, period” as it’s conceivable that it’d just take one posting of an article to change one’s mind. If you know that threshold, I’d be interested to know what it is. Maybe there’s a real number there that has an effect.

I’ll try to be more careful in my retorts and soak a bit of this in, for sake of smoothing things over and wanting ultimately better dialogue. I don’t necessarily disagree with some of your points, TBH.

Thanks for your responses here.

 

[Incumbent]

This is true and my view is that Biden will definitely have to contend in this election with dissatisfaction from young voters in swing states who are either uninformed and/or refusing to vote over the Gaza genocide. I don’t know that many of those voters minds can be changed at this point, but you’d certainly hope so.

I could not say another thing about Biden or Gaza and I still think the cumulative effect of what’s already happened will affect the election in some way. I’m particularly worried about Michigan and PA.

I think Biden’s chances are slightly weaker than before due to many voters experiencing the hurt on their wallets due to inflation, more wars, etc.

Trump is contending with looking more insane by the day, becoming an official convicted felon, not really having much of a message for the middle class, more trying to get elected as a savior figure for those who treat politics like a football rivalry. Somehow this hasn’t hurt him that much among voters.

It’s going to be interesting for sure. I don’t think it will be a landslide at all either way.

This is why I think for Biden to win, he’s going to have to do well with women (very optimistic there) and swing-moderates (we’ll see).

I’d like to see progressives turn out strongly for him because if he wins with lukewarm support from progressives, then it would reinforce the narrative that it’s more important to play to the middle.

But mostly, I have to hope our voices of reason prevail, which is why I think this matter is so important. Biden has some real challenges to overcome with voters but it’s not a foregone conclusion that many people can’t still be reached. Of course if they are constantly getting the messaging from left wing and right wing opposition to not vote for him, then it sets up for a lost cause.

Hopefully, once surrogates start campaigning for Biden in earnest, and lay out the consequences of this election, momentum will shift. There is no plausible scenario where we can get back on track in four years if Trump wins. Young, left wing voters need to understand the importance of weighing that in their decision-making.

The sense I get is women - and men who care about women’s right as a top-line issue (like me) - don’t need to get motivated.

 

[Incumbent]

As someone mentioned earlier, I think many people here if not most have their mind made up on who they will vote for. I don’t fully agree in that regard that me speaking consistently about the Biden administration’s policies with regard to Gaza will help Trump get elected, nor do I know the “right” amount of critique that will voice my right to an opinion strongly held with the wish to change how my party functions in this capacity, and NOT also contribute to opinions that will help get Trump elected.

I think AOC offers an example. She criticizes Biden but also publicly states the importance of voting for him. I offered a hastily written, poorly phrased summary in this discussion speaking to that same idea.

I think Democrats are hurt the most by “both-sides” defeatism and purity politics. Republican voters know that both parties aren’t the same and they actually benefit by infusing rigid absolutism. We don’t often benefit from that and we hurt our candidates when we box them in, because our coalition is much more diverse and tenuous.

Criticism is very much a part of healthy debate and maintaining accountability, but it’s not a betrayal of our principles to understand the consequences of an election and vote accordingly. I don’t see this as rewarding Biden for his shortcomings, but rather preserving, defending, and amplifying progressivism and the people it protects, in whatever measure it appears on the ballot. My blue vote in a red state is my reminder to Republicans that I’m still here and I give a ****.

 

[SamAndreas]

So to clear the air - none of it was intentional to distort what you were saying. Maybe it could have been taken that way, but it isn’t how I meant it. I saw what I was repeating back to you as the ultimate potential or consequence your own words, where my apparent “help” to get Trump elected by posting on this forum could “get” Trump elected if some ambiguous amount of “saying” - which one can assume means posting, as we are on a message board, is applied.

Did you not mean this literally?

At this point, let’s do this - I’ll redact what I said, give you that it wasn’t the exact phrasing you used (though I’m not going to say it was an attempt to distort - because it wasn’t) and repeat what you said back to you in question form:

“So you are saying that I could say things **(I am assuming that you mean here on this message board) that can help get Trump elected?”

Someone else already pointed out that this was impractical. It deserves the same amount of incredulity in question IMO. It seems to me more like an attempt at a cheap jab, and an example of argumentum in terrorem if you will, in context of disagreement than a real concern of yours, unless you truly believe what you said in the literal sense.

Which is hard to believe - but you tell me.

Heathen, you have been treating people who do not agree with you as hostile witnesses since I've known you. I've touched upon it a time or two before in response to you. I think I referred to it as loading, of loaded questions, and maybe even loaded statements.

It's a common thing on forums. I tend to mention "loading" of questions or statements when they are focused at me. I do that because I don't care to be treated that way.

I very much prefer to have what I said that they want to focus on, be quoted exactly the way I said it. Then after that they can criticize what I actually said.

Above you stated, "So to clear the air - none of it was intentional to distort what you were saying. Maybe it could have been taken that way, but it isn’t how I meant it. I saw what I was repeating back to you as the ultimate potential or consequence your own words."

That's a pretty good description of treating someone as hostile witness.


An attorney in court has to request permission from the judge before they can treat a witness as hostile, and that is only after the witness has been hostile. Otherwise it's not allowed in court.

This isn't in court. So I guess it's allowed, but .... ... .. . I would think most folks would rather that you didn't.

 

[Heathen]

Heathen, you have been treating people who do not agree with you as hostile witnesses since I've known you. I've touched upon it a time or two before in response to you. I think I referred to it as loading, of loaded questions, and maybe even loaded statements.

It's a common thing on forums. I tend to mention "loading" of questions or statements when they are focused at me. I do that because I don't care to be treated that way.

I very much prefer to have what I said that they want to focus on, be quoted exactly the way I said it. Then after that they can criticize what I actually said.

Above you stated, "So to clear the air - none of it was intentional to distort what you were saying. Maybe it could have been taken that way, but it isn’t how I meant it. I saw what I was repeating back to you as the ultimate potential or consequence your own words."

That's a pretty good description of treating someone as hostile witness.


An attorney in court has to request permission from the judge before they can treat a witness as hostile, and that is only after the witness has been hostile. Otherwise it's not allowed in court.

This isn't in court. So I guess it's allowed, but .... ... .. . I would think most folks would rather that you didn't.

Edited a bit as I think I would not like to leave things on bad terms. The original response was quoted, so not trying to get out of my response to you. I just don’t feel great about leaving things in a bad state. I’m sure I have said a lot here that hasn’t produced fruitful dialogue and has been borderline or taken as fully inflammatory. That may not have been the intent, but maybe it has come across that way a lot lately.

I don’t think the comment made about what I say helping Trump was made in good faith. I’ll leave that there.

I’m perfectly fine to come full circle where I’ve used loaded language with people and admit fault. I’m not one to refuse feedback, even if I don’t fully agree. I respect a lot of you here even if we don’t agree.


That being said, maybe I need a break from this thread and these interactions for a while. Maybe that will allow things to simmer over a bit and allow me to ponder these issues and put more effort into practicing fruitful discussion outside of a message board.

My intention hasn’t been to personally affront anyone and though I get heated like everyone else, I’m not a bad guy. I don’t assume you or anyone else here is either (guy/girl). But a lot of these interactions are mentally taxing. I’ll take a hiatus from this site for a spell, and will be avoiding this thread indefinitely, so you’re welcome Have a nice, safe summer all.

 

[DaveXA]

You mention that I’ve utilized “loaded language”, and maybe that was the case. I’m sure I’m not guilt free there and a not denying there may be a pattern. However, I think it’d be unfair to myself not to give a defense, even if you validly point out that this isn’t a courtroom.

To start with the particular issue you reference, I am a little puzzled that you did not point out the loaded response that actually started this tiff, before I’d said any of what you quoted — regarding LA’s (paraphrasing) “you’re free to say things that help Trump win” or any of his other loaded, quite passive aggressive statements on (once more, paraphrasing) “I don’t trust people or have respect for people who are purposefully x” etc.

Did you miss that, or maybe you did not look for it? Either way, I think if the concern is behavior of a certain type - I’d think it’s relevant to understand and note full context and truly point out all instances. Not just focusing on who in particular seems to stand out from the norm.

I have noticed several posters who have a posting style that is inflammatory in their own way, and I have commented often on what seems to “slide” here based on what side you’re on or who you’re for/against.

Clearly, one could disparage Trump incessantly (which he deserves) and be endeared here. Criticisms of Biden whether said out of anger or an attempt to be patient and non reactive (believe it or not, I’ve tried both) are usually met with a lot of flak from many and quickly. That’s not a real problem. The problem arises when those responses are returned in a not so civil manner.

Again, I can give many examples of that in this very thread.

For example, there’s a probably right leaning poster (can’t remember name) who had posted simple national news articles in this thread and got a lot of mob mentality responses from many there. Regardless of what someone has said or done before (I don’t know) that isn’t right.

I’m perfectly fine to come full circle where I’ve used loaded language with people and admit fault. I’m not one to refuse feedback, even if I don’t fully agree.



That being said, maybe I need a break from this thread and these interactions for a while. Maybe that will allow things to simmer over a bit and allow me to ponder these issues and put more effort into practicing fruitful discussion outside of a message board.

My intention hasn’t been to personally affront anyone and though I get heated like everyone else, I’m not a bad guy. I don’t assume you or anyone else here is either (guy/girl). But a lot of these interactions are mentally taxing. I’ll take a hiatus from this site for a spell, and will be avoiding this thread indefinitely, so you’re welcome Have a nice, safe summer all.

While we don't always agree, I'll say that I do respect your POV. You're welcome to continue doing so. I've got no issues with someone with whom I respefully disagree with, unlike another poster on here who can't help himself.

I think the tendency is to use emotional or even loaded language when discussing a sensitive subject like the Israel-Gaza conflict. I think most all of us agree both sides bear some responsibility for the suffering as a result of this conflict and clearly none are blameless, although it's clear Israel has the upper hand. The the debate on the narrower topics certainly are more complicated and probably don't have simple or straightforward answers.

It's a discussion worth having, and while we all need to take a beat every now and then, which is a good thing, I would hope the dialog can continue.

Regardless, whatever you decide, nothing but respect from me.

 

[Incumbent]

My intention hasn’t been to personally affront anyone and though I get heated like everyone else, I’m not a bad guy. I don’t assume you or anyone else here is either (guy/girl). But a lot of these interactions are mentally taxing. I’ll take a hiatus from this site for a spell, and will be avoiding this thread indefinitely, so you’re welcome Have a nice, safe summer all.

I don’t think most people here are ill-intended. Easy to recognize the ones who are.

Do what you need to do to take care of yourself. I don’t mind the spirited debates but I much prefer the opportunities to work through disagreements and search for common ground with mutually willing people. I think we’ve had that opportunity the last few days and it’s appreciated. This place won’t experience any benefit from your absence, though I definitely can relate to needing and taking breaks from online spaces.

We’re living through some challenging and stressful times. Enjoy whatever brings you some peace.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don’t think the comment made about what I say helping Trump was made in good faith. I’ll leave that there.

If you're referring to me in this comment, what I said was in completely good faith and a 100% genuine concern of mine.

I'm expressing a genuine concern the things that you say. I've been saying "can" in the usage of it can happen, could happen, or might happen.

You seem to interpret my usage of "can" as is happening or will happen. I think this leads you to misinterpret me as saying you will get Trump elected, because of the things you say.

That is not at all what I've been saying. I've only expressed that I'm concerned that some of the things you keep tenaciously saying about Biden, might be one of the millions of straws that helps break the camel's back, or more on point, our democracy's back. It's not just what you say that concerns me. You're just part of the chorus of individuals that concern me.

I 100% am sincere in everything I say here, unless I explicitly say I'm joking or being sarcastic.

 

[DaveXA]

If you're referring to me in this comment, what I said was in completely good faith and a 100% genuine concern of mine.

I'm expressing a genuine concern the things that you say. I've been saying "can" in the usage of it can happen, could happen, or might happen.

You seem to interpret my usage of "can" as is happening or will happen. I think this leads you to misinterpret me as saying you will get Trump elected, because of the things you say.

That is not at all what I've been saying. I've only expressed that I'm concerned that some of the things you keep tenaciously saying about Biden, might be one of the millions of straws that helps break the camel's back, or more on point, our democracy's back. It's not just what you say that concerns me. You're just part of the chorus of individuals that concern me.

I 100% am sincere in everything I say here, unless I explicitly say I'm joking or being sarcastic.

I think I can see and understand both perspectives here. I can see how the comment could make someone defensive, especially when taken in the context of the broader conversation where he's feeling a bit cornered by the criticism, even if it's justified.

But I also can understand the sentiment where the criticism of Biden could give people the idea that a given person should not vote for him in November. That isn't the intent, but that could leave a mark.

I do think there's room for both views here.