1571

And that would depend on the transgression. If my friends are racist assholes in public; they’re going to be called on it publicly. If they don’t like that, the answer isn’t for me to not call them on it publicly, the answer is for them not to be racist assholes. They can also choose not to be my friend, or you know me choose not to be theirs.

1572

I believe I already laid out the punishment. If you don’t think shaming and legal precedent is punishment than I’m not sure what to say.

[quote=“Dan_Theman, post:1570, topic:126890”]
I suspect this is another definition issue (still waiting on your definition of ally, by the way)[/quote]

Well when you call someone an ally, and they call you an ally, I think it’s safe to say you are allies.

Of course not, I asked about your opinion on bias, not on whether it’s monolithic or not.

I just named the two ruling parties that govern the Palestinian people. They would be the one subject to international law.

1573

I don’t understand your metaphor. If Israel is a racist asshole why would we call them out in public while then publicly arming them. That would seem to send mixed messages to the public.

Not saying our military aid package is right or wrong, just don’t understand your metaphor in the broader context of our relationship with Israel.

1574

I’m responding to your example of a friend. You said friend not ally, and the fact is there are situations where it is appropriate to correct a friend, in public. Whether or not this is the case with Israel, I’m not sure, but the idea you can’t publicly chastise someone because they’re a friend is… ridiculous.

1575

Right so if you are the U.S. and Israel is your friend (at least I assume that’s the situation but honestly I can’t tell) you’d publicly denounce them while also publicly sell them arms? Doesn’t that raise some confusion?

1576

I believe the word you are looking for is complicated. Friendship is complicated. There is nothing straight forward about a relationship, so why would a relationship between nations be any different? And denouncing an action is not denouncing their existence or your support of them in general.

1577

Because nations aren’t people. To conflate the two and how ones treat the two is just wrong headed. You can simply disengage with a friend, international relations isn’t so easy.

[quote=“Nesrie, post:1576, topic:126890”] And denouncing an action is not denouncing their existence or your support of them in general.
[/quote]

Who brought up denouncing their existence?

1578

No. Relationships between nations is complicated. You can’t successfully argue otherwise. You think if you join a war with someone that means what, you support every policy the other nation is pursuing… of course it doesn’t mean that. You can do one thing for one reason and another for, well, another reason.

Dan probably has the right answer to this though. You were fishing from an answer from him, and didn’t get it. Now you’re doing the same thing with me.

it is ridiculous to suggest you can’t publicly denounce an action or an idea and still support an ally in general.

1579

Of course you can publicly denounce an action or an idea and still support an ally in general, we are doing it right now. But we’ve basically allowed a UN resolution to pass that directly contradicts promises we’ve made to our ally and friend. Obama himself said in 2008 that Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel, we’ve now allowed a resolution that says it’s illegal to hold that position because Jerusalem is divided. That’s not being a good ally or a good friend and is morally wrong.

If asking questions and furthering a metaphor is fishing than let me get my tackle box.

1580

You pretzel every metaphor presented until it’s clear it’s not going to get you what you want, and when that end result is inevitable make a claim it the metaphor doesn’t really work for the scenario. You were fishing for the answer you wanted, and didn’t get it in either case.

And unless Obama developed the ability to forecast the future, and if he had that I would hope a topic with this title wouldn’t even exist right now, what was said in 2008 doesn’t automatically mean a specific vote in 2017. There can certainly be an argument about the consequences for Israel in regard to our inaction, but I’d say we’re still a pretty good ally for them.

But who are we kidding, with Trump in power who the hell knows what will happen. That’s a notch in the optimism tapestry for you right, since you clearly dislike. The norm and him certainly don’t go hand and hand.

1581

I mean to be clear Obama said “remain” as in it was already the undivided capital, but wait according to the U.N resolution he allowed to pass that would be an illegal position to hold in 2008 as Jerusalem was and is divided.Obama campaigned on that promise whether you agree with or not, he used it to win votes and support, and then he abandoned it. Sure the U.S. is still the best ally Israel has, but the vote in the U.N. isn’t how allies treat each other.

Dan went along with it actually

He seemed pretty game.

1582

That last one is obviously fake, there’s not a single spelling error.

Also since this is the optimism thread:

Trump goes back on his promise to make Mexico pay for the wall. That’s not necessarily a good thing by itself but hopefully it’s the beginning of a lot of Trump promises that he fails to live up to.

1583

This guy is unreal.

blob.jpg721×253 46.6 KB

Who is going to continue to buy this shit?

1584

People without high education that already have a sympathy for the guy, people that believe the cuts to social protection can actually benefict them more than hurt them, victims of Dunning–Kruger, people that are easy to bias by the propaganda machine, people that live in highly conservative areas where people is not inclined to deviate from the narrative, desperate people that can see all the red flags but that have put all their hopes in this being real and for Trump to be a good men. More or less.

1585

I just worry about what important program they are going to pillage to build his stupid wall.

1586
1587

The same people who bought it thus far.
This is no more absurd than the line of bullshit he’s fed them up until now.

1588

I literally just saw Breitbart on my trending on Facebook.

Good job Facebook, you’re really knocking it out of the park with your whole change to combat fake news. Jesus Fuck.

1589

Not sure if you read the denouncement or not, but Palestinians, Iran and a few other states are also denounced in the same document. The U.S. would only agree to abstain if the other side of the coin’s bad actions were also condemned. This isn’t just a “bad Israel! Bad!” resolution. It condemns everyone involved. The reason Israel is pissed off is because up until this point, the U.S. would only point the blame at the Muslims. Now it’s saying “You know, you are both to blame for this situation. Play nice”.

1590

I did read it. I don’t remember any mention of Iran or “a few other states” and the only mentions of the Palestinian Authority is rather boiler plate. It’s actually pretty clearly a “bad Israel! Bad!” resolution and Sec. State Kerry has defended it as such.

The resolution I read: https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf