Biden Announces Reelection Campaign

[Kaelik]

It's very funny that you felt like including an unrelated quote just because you wanted to insert a lie that Biden said about how Israel is beloved around the world.

Yes, when the president of the United States repeatedly says American Jews are not safe if Israel doesn't exist that's a threat. Apparently according to Joe Biden we are going to be clearing them out of america soon, and they will need to go somewhere that's a threat. Many jewish people have commented about how much this statement is a threat, both the last time he said it on TV a few months ago, and also this time.

Like this isn't fucking hard. If Donald Trump went on TV and said "American Jews will not be safe in America" you would not find it hard to figure this shit out. It's a bad things when the ruler in power in the country with the most jewish people in the world keeps saying that jewish people will not be safe in the country he rules.

Again, I'm not saying he definitely specifically is intentionally threatening to murder all the jews himself. I leave open the option that he's repeating the threat as a talking point he heard from Jeff Goldberg without realizing it's a threat, but yeah! It's a fucking threat! American Jewish people keep saying they hear this as a threat.

[deaddmwalking]

I didn't mean to suggest that the quote I provided was the quote you claim to be responding to. I'm ASKING you to provide the quote that you've claimed is indicative of Joe Biden's 'going to gencocide them (like the last time he said this a couple months ago).' I don't watch Seth Meyers so the only thing I saw that seemed like if I squinted at it weirdly might be interpreted that was was the quote I provided. Link to full article. If I included an unrelated quote, it's only because ABC did. Now I'm not saying you're wrong, but ABC is a respected news agency and you're 'some guy on the internet', so to avoid looking crazy it would be a generally good idea to at least clarify what you're responding to and address why you think it means what it means.

As for America, if ANYONE went on TV and said 'Jews are not safe in this country', I personally would assume it had something to do with record Anti-semitic attacks.

Each link above is a different article, by the way.

Now, I'm not sure it's clear to anyone how the existence of Israel protects Jews in America from gun violence and hate-crimes, but recognizing that Jews are less safe in this country than many other religious/ethnic/racial groups isn't exactly a call for violence/genocide.

[Kaelik]

I don't watch Seth Meyers so the only thing I saw that seemed like if I squinted at it weirdly might be interpreted that was was the quote I provided.

You thought "Israel has had the overwhelming support of the vast majority of nations. If it keeps this up without this incredibly conservative government they have ... they're going to lose support from around the world," he said. "And that is not in Israel's interest." might be what I was responding to?

Now, I'm not sure it's clear to anyone how the existence of Israel protects Jews in America from gun violence and hate-crimes, but recognizing that Jews are less safe in this country than many other religious/ethnic/racial groups isn't exactly a call for violence/genocide.

It's clear to Joe Biden, because Israel is where the Jews belong and he's saying the American Jews should go to Israel. You can tell because this is literally what EVERYONE who ever says that Israel makes jews safe means.

Which you can also read about.

[PseudoStupidity]

"If not for X you wouldn't be safe" is a threat. The person saying that is making it clear that without X you are going to be attacked. They aren't personally committing themselves to attacking you, but they are saying somebody will. Somebody could include the person making the threat. Either way, Joe Biden threatened American Jews again.

[deaddmwalking]

"If not for X you wouldn't be safe" is a threat. The person saying that is making it clear that without X you are going to be attacked. They aren't personally committing themselves to attacking you, but they are saying somebody will. Somebody could include the person making the threat. Either way, Joe Biden threatened American Jews again.

As an example, 'if not for the U.S. Military you wouldn't be safe' doesn't sound like MAKING a threat to me. Rather it's a recognition that not everyone in the world is committed to your safety but that the x (in this case the military) is protecting you from whoever actually did make that threat.

If not for the EPA, you wouldn't be safe from lead poisoning also doesn't sound like a threat to me. Again, it seems like a recognition that there was a problem, an agency was created to solve the problem, and if the agency went away the problem would probably come back. I mean, I'm not convinced that big corporations actually care about not poisoning people with lead or other heavy metals beyond the amount that they are specifically required to by law. But an attack? I don't think so.

Regarding the safety and security of the Jewish people, the 'Western World' hasn't done a very good job of protecting that security from a historical perspective. Recognizing that countries keep expelling Jews and having a country that's set up to specifically prevent that possibility kinda makes sense from that perspective. I mean, I'd like to argue that the Western World is now fully committed to progressive ideals, but Fascism appears to be on the rise everywhere, so I could see how a reasonable person might think that having a Jewish state makes the Jewish people more safe. But I don't see how a reasonable person takes the quote I pulled from a news article (without modification, truncation, or incorporation of disparate elements) and comes to the conclusion that Joe Biden is going to genocide the Jewish people because he loves genocide just oh so much.

[Kaelik]

As an example, 'if not for the U.S. Military you wouldn't be safe' doesn't sound like MAKING a threat to me.

LMAO, that's definitely a threat.

Rather it's a recognition that not everyone in the world is committed to your safety but that the x (in this case the military) is protecting you from whoever actually did make that threat.

Imagine being stupid enough to believe this.

If not for the EPA, you wouldn't be safe from lead poisoning also doesn't sound like a threat to me.

Even this is a threat. If someone wanted to say the EPA is good, they could just do that. The only reason for the "if not for X" framing is if, for example, the EPA raised the permissable lead threshhold, and then a whiny liberal wanted to yell at leftists who said it was bad, in which case it's clearly saying "you better not criticize my EPA or else" which is of course, exactly what Joe Biden was doing when he responded to criticism of an ongoing genocide he is helping perpetuate by saying "you better get on board with the genocide or else."

Regarding the safety and security of the Jewish people, the 'Western World' hasn't done a very good job of protecting that security from a historical perspective. Recognizing that countries keep expelling Jews and having a country that's set up to specifically prevent that possibility kinda makes sense from that perspective.

So when you said you didn't know what Joe Biden meant, you were lying, and you knew exactly what he meant, that American Jews will be exported to Israel where they belong, but you were pretending not to as part of your defense in depth strategy where first you say Joe Biden didn't say it, and then once people establish he did, you pretend it's good and correct.

"Americans haven't historically done a very good job protecting black people, so when JFK says that no black people would be safe without Liberia, he's just acknowledging that fact that Liberia is a safe country for black people where they can all go when they get tired of being lynched!" I wonder if any of the links I posted included jewish people explicitly demanding an apology from Biden for exactly this sentiment because it's so obviously grounded on treating Jews as foreign other who don't belong in America.

But I don't see how a reasonable person takes the quote I pulled from a news article (without modification, truncation, or incorporation of disparate elements) and comes to the conclusion that Joe Biden is going to genocide the Jewish people because he loves genocide just oh so much.

One option always available to you is to not make up lies.

[Thaluikhain]

Admittedly, that doesn't sound like a threat to me, but if the Jewish people of America keep saying it sounds like a threat to them, and they are the people in question...

[MGuy]

I'll diverge slightly from kaelik and say that just the words 'without x, y isn't safe' isn't inherently a threat because in some cases it could be true and people say things in ways that don't take into consideration the greater implications of all the time. It might be my bias as a poor man who works with other poor people who do it all the time but I don't think that matters here. In this case? What else would you interpret it as? A certain subsection people aren't safe if this entirely separate nation doesn't exist? Meaning that if that place doesn't exist/we don't export those people there they aren't safe here? That certainly sounds like a threat and not an idle one since it's coming from the president. Someone who's job it is to protect the people here.

But let's take a step back. Why would you be ok with your president saying and believing something like that? That rhetoric and your defense of it is not only pro ethnostate, but also is a commitment to saying that both the president and apparently you don't believe that anything to improve things here can be done.

Second where is this desire for an ethno state for every other ethnic group that isn't treated well in this country? One has to wonder if dead believes there needs to be an African American ethnostate that he can ship African-Americans off to because well things just aren't working out well enough for them here.

[Kaelik]

I'll diverge slightly from kaelik and say that just the words 'without x, y isn't safe' isn't inherently a threat

That was actually Pseudo. My claim is simply that this example is a threat, because of the context, which is that it's specifically a thing Joe Biden says in response to criticism of his ongoing genocide, specifically to Jews. The first time he said it was when he was at the White House Hannukah celebration, and a bunch of Jewish protestors protested at the event in support of Palestine and against the genocide and that was Biden's response to that protest, and again in this case, he said it in response to a questioning of his support of the ongoing genocide.

[MGuy]

I stand corrected but all the rest of the stuff I said I stand behind.

[Kaelik]

Second where is this desire for an ethno state for every other ethnic group that isn't treated well in this country? One has to wonder if dead believes there needs to be an African American ethnostate that he can ship African-Americans off to because well things just aren't working out well enough for them here.

Famously the 20th century has been very kind to Arabs, since there are some Arab ethnostates. Ethnostates are just so good at protecting the ethnicities that people in America think are evil others that belong in some other country besides America.

Why don't the silly jews just accept that going to live in an ethnostate for their kind is safer and they belong there and not new york!?

[PseudoStupidity]

To clear things up, I never said "without x, y isn't safe" is always a threat. I said that "without x, you aren't safe" is a threat. To clarify further, the truth value of a statement does not alter whether or not it's threatening. If you tell somebody "without looking both ways before crossing the street you aren't safe" you are threatening that person with the very real danger of getting hit by a car if they don't look both ways prior to crossing the street. I know people associate threats with harmful intent, but threats are not inherently bad and there are many situations where you might threaten someone benevolently such as my street example. Not that Joe Biden's example is what I'd call a benevolent threat.

I am also using language in a pretty technical way here, I know lots of people would be shocked at hearing their warnings to children are technically threats. It's just that a warning is typically a true and benevolent threat ("don't touch the hot stove or you'll get burned" is linguistically no different from "don't talk back to me or you'll get slapped."). Biden probably thought he was warning Jewish people, but because it's a fucking stupid warning (as Israel does not make Jewish people safer) it is interpreted as a threat (and not a warning, which it also technically is!) by most people even if Biden didn't mean it that way.

[Foxwarrior]

Ah, but there's a different way that an ethnostate halfway across the world could be making people in America safer: what if the existence of an ethnostate commiting atrocities in your name makes people less likely to do hate crimes to you here?

[Omegonthesane]

Regarding the safety and security of the Jewish people, the 'Western World' hasn't done a very good job of protecting that security from a historical perspective. Recognizing that countries keep expelling Jews and having a country that's set up to specifically prevent that possibility kinda makes sense from that perspective. I mean, I'd like to argue that the Western World is now fully committed to progressive ideals, but Fascism appears to be on the rise everywhere, so I could see how a reasonable person might think that having a Jewish state makes the Jewish people more safe. But I don't see how a reasonable person takes the quote I pulled from a news article (without modification, truncation, or incorporation of disparate elements) and comes to the conclusion that Joe Biden is going to genocide the Jewish people because he loves genocide just oh so much.

Point of fact: "Israel" was not set up to deter the expulsion of Jews, but to facilitate the expulsion of Jews, by providing a place they could be expelled to (like Liberia with freed Black people in the USA, actually). The earliest proto-Zionists were antisemitic Europeans who dreamed of a place to ethnically cleanse the Jews to, and only in the late 19th century did a subfaction of Jews - a right wing nationalist minority - decide to seriously get on board. The Balfour declaration that put the British Empire firmly behind the eventual settler colonial occupation of the Palestine region by invading Jews was made by one Arthur Balfour, an antisemite who wanted to more or less purge Jews from British society. Even the literal, actual, Swastika-appropriating Nazis got in on the act, collaborating directly with the Zionists to expel 60,000 wealthy Jews over 8 years specifically to Palestine instead of having them spend their wealth to run to anywhere else (so likely not saving even a single Jewish life, and saving the Nazi economy from the deleterious effects of a global Jewish boycott). Obviously that wrapped up when the Nazis committed to the Final Solution, but they didn't try to divert resources to destroy the Zionist project afterwards, and the splinter group Lehi kept trying to make diplomatic ties with the Nazis to unite against the British Empire who they saw as a greater obstacle to Zionist occupation because apparently the British were not allowing the occupation to progress fast enough.

To clear things up, I never said "without x, y isn't safe" is always a threat. I said that "without x, you aren't safe" is a threat. To clarify further, the truth value of a statement does not alter whether or not it's threatening. If you tell somebody "without looking both ways before crossing the street you aren't safe" you are threatening that person with the very real danger of getting hit by a car if they don't look both ways prior to crossing the street. I know people associate threats with harmful intent, but threats are not inherently bad and there are many situations where you might threaten someone benevolently such as my street example. Not that Joe Biden's example is what I'd call a benevolent threat.

I am also using language in a pretty technical way here, I know lots of people would be shocked at hearing their warnings to children are technically threats. It's just that a warning is typically a true and benevolent threat ("don't touch the hot stove or you'll get burned" is linguistically no different from "don't talk back to me or you'll get slapped."). Biden probably thought he was warning Jewish people, but because it's a fucking stupid warning (as Israel does not make Jewish people safer) it is interpreted as a threat (and not a warning, which it also technically is!) by most people even if Biden didn't mean it that way.

There is a signfiicant technical difference between threatening someone with an action you or your mates will perform if they don't stay in line VS "threatening" someone with the natural consequences of their actions, in the knowledge that you have no agency to prevent those consequences if your warnings are not heeded. But there's also a significant similarity, hence that bit in After Sundown where you explicitly use Intimitade for true benevolent warnings as well as malevolent threats, because either way it's an appeal to fear.

[PseudoStupidity]

The IDF gunned down people who were trying to receive food, killed over 100 people and wounded more than 700. IDF claims the deaths were caused by a stampede, but witnesses and doctors are all saying the deaths were caused by bullets. Obviously the IDF is lying and have no evidence for their claims, this was a massacre committed by the IDF.

What did Biden say in response to this? That this will complicate a ceasefire agreement! Fuck that old man, what the fuck else needs to happen to convince that genocidal geezer that he needs to do something? He couldn't even condemn the slaughter of more than 100 people.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

It's also going on the pile of not very urgent investigations because they insist there have been some reports that maybe other people fired guns so perhaps Hamas did it so um get back to you about consequences for actions in um... no timetable that would be irresponsible. Yeah that always works should be fine this time too.

[Kaelik]

Just like how when Israel bombed a hospital and we had to do a 2 month investigation to determine that in fact it was Israel, but by then they had bombed 50 other hospitals o no one cared, presumably the plan here is to shoot people queuing for food 50 more times so that it just becomes another cool genocidal thing yo do that democratic politicians spend all their time saying is good.

[Thaluikhain]

The IDF gunned down people who were trying to receive food, killed over 100 people and wounded more than 700. IDF claims the deaths were caused by a stampede, but witnesses and doctors are all saying the deaths were caused by bullets.

I'd not be surprised if many of the deaths and injuries were caused by a stampede, those can be really nasty. And being attacked by the IDF is the sort of thing which would cause a crowd to stampede. Either way, pretty sure whose fault it is.

[MGuy]

It should be understood that even if one person were killed due to a stampede that wasn't provoked by people trying to actively kill them it would be the fault of the IDF. They are there because of the IDF. They are starving because of the IDF. The international groups can't properly set up distribution centers that would keep things more orderly because of the IDF. Many professionals who were already in Gaza who have experience in doing that were killed by the IDF.

And make no mistake that every place where I say 'because of the IDF' you can insert America because the US is actively aiding and abetting every crime the IDF devices to perform.

[Kaelik]

[Thaluikhain]

It should be understood that even if one person were killed due to a stampede that wasn't provoked by people trying to actively kill them it would be the fault of the IDF. They are there because of the IDF. They are starving because of the IDF. The international groups can't properly set up distribution centers that would keep things more orderly because of the IDF. Many professionals who were already in Gaza who have experience in doing that were killed by the IDF.

And make no mistake that every place where I say 'because of the IDF' you can insert America because the US is actively aiding and abetting every crime the IDF devices to perform.

True, that shouldn't be overlooked

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

That one state department guy whose demeanor in press conferences gives the impression any second his voice is going to break and he is going to run away screaming.

Explained. You see. If there was a stampede it was because of a break down in public order. Because there are no police. Because the police were technically Hamas what with being a branch of the local government. And while that doesn't make them soldiers, the IDF insists on treating them as Hamas soldiers and killing them on sight. So. The whole thing is the fault of and there are are no police because of....

...Hamas, the conclusion of that chain of reasoning was of course that it was Hamas at fault for the whole thing, because of course the IDF must be allowed to kill civilian police because Hamas. They just cannot and should not stop themselves.

Also history still began at October 7 and any dead Israeli justifies limitless revenge killings but no number of dead Palestinians ever justifies even a lesser limited number of revenge killings. Though that routine doesn't even seem to be playing as well to even the press ghoul crowd its been so heavily repeated.

[Kaelik]

Adam Schiff's PAC has been promoting a republican with their money in the California senate because they want to avoid Katie Porter or Barbara Lee from being in the top 2.

Democrats hate democracy so much that if a system prevents them from using lesser evil arguments by presenting two democrats and giving you a choice between which one is better, they actively conspire with republicans to make sure that the system doesn't produce that outcome, so they can avoid having to make a positive case.

Anyway, the republican is now polling in first. There's a lot of evidence, and if the senate election is between two democrats, it results in fewer GOP voters showing up at the polls for all the NON senate elections. So the Schiff campaign is going to lose democrats like 2-5 seats in congress from California to avoid having to actually argue they are good.

[PseudoStupidity]

Biden said he'll build a pier for the US to send humanitarian aid to Gaza and did not call for a ceasefire during his State of the Union address. Also he called someone an illegal.

On the pier thing, it'll take at least a month to build (I saw a projection of 30-60 days) and seems like an incredibly stupid idea. Why not just make Israel let aid through? Why not force Israel to stop their genocide? This is such a non-solution I genuinely have no idea who the Democrats think it will sway. What fucking idiot would hear about the pier and respond "oh they're building a pier, finally the US is doing something about the genocide!" Such a gaggle of murderous dipshits, what is this three-stooges-meets-Hitler fuckery?

On the illegal thing, well...yeah looks like Biden is all-in on making the Democrats more racist. That is very bad. I guess he's getting some criticism for it, but it's bad that our two candidates for President are both racists who want you to be scared of immigrants. The gap narrows even further!

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Some African lady on some African panel somewhere in Africa had a proposal for getting aid in.

Get the American army to truck it in ignoring the Israeli border check just DARE them to open fire on US forces. (to be fair she actual extended that advice to several powerful western nations)

But that could never work because she is a foolish kept out of the loop 3rd worlder. She couldn't propose a quick and easy workable solution just about anyone can see that would also make Biden and America look good.

edit: Personally though I think the USA has to have considered this before air drops and ports. The fact they haven't done it speaks volumes of exactly how much respect for the US that the US itself believes the IDF has. They must genuinely believe the IDF WOULD actually open fire on US troops transporting aid to Gazan civilians.