Current Events > If you want to check where your Democratic congressperson stands on Palestine...

(+) Yeah! (+)

asdf8562 posted...

"I approve of this websites rating system, you should too!"

This has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm sure you prefer I said something this basic so that you could respond with this quip, but I didn't. Respond to what I actually say or don't respond at all.

Yawn.

Pro Trump TC gives us "but democrats!" the topic.

legendary_zell posted...

This has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm sure you prefer I said something this basic so that you could respond with this quip, but I didn't. Respond to what I actually say or don't respond at all.

I did. You are literally dissatisfied people aren't agreeing with a site you apparently approve of.

legendary_zell posted...

Are the people who have an issue with this site unfamiliar with the concept of political rating organizations? They're all biased by definition, because bias often comes with interest and expertise or a stake in a specific issue. I doubt you'd categorically reject a NARAL or EFF or Planned Parenthood or Center for American Progress rating.

All Republicans obviously get an F and can't be pressured. Democrats can get anything from an F to an A, which makes rating them worthwhile, and they can improve or get worse.

This stuff is obvious, you are choosing to pretend not to understand it to deflect from criticism concerning the Israel Palestine conflict.

Oh, I'm familiar. Being familiar with the concept does not mean taking it seriously.

And yes, I would categorically reject ratings from NARAL, EFF, and Planned Parenthood for the same reason.

Taking ratings from a biased organization is worthless.

streamofthesky posted...

The Venn Diagram of leftist tankies shilling for Russia and progressives posting rabidly anti-Israel shit incessantly is a god damned circle.
I had a lot of them tagged from the Ukraine topics before Oct. 7th, and it's pretty fucking uncanny.
Makes me wonder what % of them are genuinely psychotic "true believers" (ie, tankies) vs. insincere Russian trolls spreading propaganda

Considering that you're one of the biggest apologists here for Israel who just got out of a suspension, you're the one to talk.

Plenty of people here condemn both wars. But it's very telling that the most aggressively anti-Russian people in the Ukraine topics, who advocate for the West to bring the war to Russia like Anarchy and Tony Kojima, are also ardent Zionists who makes excuses for every one of Israel's wrongdoings.

Ninjaluver posted...

That's wild that you were so quickly able to determine something that the International Court of Justice (which is known for being very anti-Israel by the way) wasn't able to determine despite their months of time and thousands of pages of documents.

LMAO the US was never tried for any of its wars of aggression from Vietnam to Iraq, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And may I remind you that the USA has a law banning that forbids even its allies from cooperating with the ICC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

Dancedreamer posted...

Why is it considered a negative to affirm Israel's right to exist...? I get that it's mostly performative, but Israel has a right to exist. And pointing it out as a negative only goes to bolster the viewpoint of people who think pro-palestine means wanting to eradicate Israel.

Because "Israel's right to exist" is a dogwhistle rather than a phrase that is ever used for its literal meaning. No one who uses it is doing so in response to an actual claim that Israel shouldn't exist; it's always in response to very valid criticisms of Israel's actions.

Fenriswolf posted...

Considering that you're one of the biggest apologists here for Israel who just got out of a suspension, you're the one to talk.

Plenty of people here condemn both wars. But it's very telling that the most aggressively anti-Russian people in the Ukraine topics, who advocate for the West to bring the war to Russia like Anarchy, are also ardent Zionists who makes excuses for every one of Israel's wrongdoings.

LMAO the US was never tried for any of its wars of aggression from Vietnam to Iraq, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And may I remind you that the USA has a law banning that forbids even its allies from cooperating with the ICC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

Yes, there's a lot you could criticize about the US's position towards the ICJ/ICC. That doesn't invalidate the ICJ/ICC. In fact, those criticisms do the opposite.

The US has never been held accountable for its actions (and likely never will be) because it's the greatest superpower. England got away with much of the same for centuries for the same reasons. That doesn't mean international law doesn't make sense.

The truth is that anybody claiming that they know Israel has committed or is committing genocide is talking out of their ass because such a conclusion could not be reached on the information available to the public at this point in time, which is why not even the ICJ was able to reach that conclusion at this point.

I've wasted hundreds of hours reading into the Israel-Palestine conflict, and by reading, I don't mean Twitter threads. The more I read, the more I realize how little I and almost everyone else knows. There are no clear answers here. Both sides have been the "bad guys" and the "good guys" many times. This is probably the most complicated geopolitical situation in well-documented history. Anybody who strongly feels that there is a good guy and a bad guy here simply doesn't know what they don't know.

What I do know is the people from both sides got royally fucked over by the mistakes of several world powers multiple times. Israel has a right to exist, and the people who now identify as Palestinians did not deserve their current situation. Both sides have terrible governing powers, both sides have unhinged sections of their population that support those corrupt powers. A one-state solution would be the dream in an ideal world but is totally unrealistic in the world we actually live in, and too many on both sides are at this point not willing to accept a two-state solution despite that being the only realistic solution.

Ninjaluver posted...

The truth is that anybody claiming that they know Israel has committed or is committing genocide is talking out of their ass because such a conclusion could not be reached on the information available to the public at this point in time, which is why not even the ICJ was able to reach that conclusion at this point.

You do know lots of genocides in history were never found guilty in courts of law and the victims were never compensated, like those ones against Native Americans? That doesn't mean it's not genocide.

I've wasted hundreds of hours reading into the Israel-Palestine conflict, and by reading, I don't mean Twitter threads. The more I read, the more I realize how little I and almost everyone else knows. There are no clear answers here. Both sides have been the "bad guys" and the "good guys" many times. This is probably the most complicated geopolitical situation in well-documented history. Anybody who strongly feels that there is a good guy and a bad guy here simply doesn't know what they don't know.

What I do know is the people from both sides got royally fucked over by the mistakes of several world powers multiple times. Israel has a right to exist, and the people who now identify as Palestinians did not deserve their current situation. Both sides have terrible governing powers, both sides have unhinged sections of their population that support those corrupt powers. A one-state solution would be the dream in an ideal world but is totally unrealistic in the world we actually live in, and too many on both sides are at this point not willing to accept a two-state solution despite that being the only realistic solution.

You know what else is complicated? Pretty much every other geopolitical conflict including Russia-Ukraine, so quit using the "both sides" argument. The fact that Ukraine has extremist groups like Azov does not absolve Russia of condemnation, and the existence of terrorist groups like Hamas doesn't absolve Israel of condemnation either.

Are you saying that you know more than ICC judges and even human rights organizations like Amnesty International, who you falsely accused of "anti-Israel bias" even though they criticize countries the West dislike like China and Russia far more?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/2/9/israels-war-on-gaza-live-fear-in-rafah-as-israel-prepares-ground-attack?update=2695243

Are you also denying the fact that Israeli politicians have consistently dehumanized Palestinians, like Yoav Gallant calling Palestinians "human animals" and they will "eliminate everything", Avi Dichter and Ariel Kallner calling for another Nakba, Amihai Eliyahu and Tally Gotliv calling for Gaza to be nuked, and general Giora Eiland calling for Gaza to be razed to the ground? Even Bibi himself compared Gaza to the Amaleks, a frequent dogwhistle by extreme Zionists to justify Palestinian genocide.

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/13/23954731/genocide-israel-gaza-palestine

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-nakba-israels-far-right-palestinian-fears-hamas-war-rcna123909

Israel has been committing genocide for years because they hate Palestinians and want to remove them from the land.

asdf8562 posted...

I did. You are literally dissatisfied people aren't agreeing with a site you apparently approve of.

I never said I approved of this site. I've never even heard of it, and have based zero of my opinions on its ratings. I'm simply explaining a concept people were willfully misunderstanding. I don't even necessarily want people to agree, I just want them to stop playing dumb.

Ninjaluver posted...

Oh, I'm familiar. Being familiar with the concept does not mean taking it seriously.

And yes, I would categorically reject ratings from NARAL, EFF, and Planned Parenthood for the same reason.

Taking ratings from a biased organization is worthless.

That's fine, but your position is less common than you'd think. Many people take ratings from orgs like these as a valuable service or something to be wary of. People win and lose elections based on ratings like this. They're not targeted towards bastions of objectivity like yourself, they're targeted at activists, particularly motivated voters, and the lawmakers who are rated. They're far from worthless for those purposes.

aarrgus posted...

While we are at it.. why is Sanders a B while Warren a C when they have identical records?

Seems to me that there is an arbitrary component to this....

Someone probably already addressed this, but I'm not reading through 7 pages lol.

Warren is sponsoring that shit fucking KOSA bill so that may be in some small part, I don't think Sanders is

legendary_zell posted...

I never said I approved of this site. I've never even heard of it, and have based zero of my opinions on its ratings. I'm simply explaining a concept people were willfully misunderstanding. I don't even necessarily want people to agree, I just want them to stop playing dumb.

At this point you are playing dumb.

This isn't about being unaware of the concept you speak of. The concept is irrelevant to not everyone agrees on said concept. For reasons others in this topic have already explained.

So going around proudly displaying some website that you think has a solid rating system that others should admire and respect is only valuable to those who value andor approve said rating system. That includes as you pointed out, a website geared towards specific activists who you believe should all agree with the website..., but in actuality not even all activists for a specific cause are a monolith. Especially on something as complex as the issue between Israel and Palestine.

So when you come here questioning why everyone here isn't gushing support over that websites rating system, that is exactly what I'm talking about with your post translating to, "I value this websites rating system, you should too."

You place this website on a pedestal because for one reason or another you approve of it, and question why does anyone reject the website you approve of.

asdf8562 posted...

At this point you are playing dumb.

This isn't about being unaware of the concept you speak of. The concept is irrelevant to not everyone agrees on said concept. For reasons others in this topic have already explained.

So going around proudly displaying some website that you think has a solid rating system that others should admire and respect is only valuable to those who value andor approve said rating system. That includes as you pointed out, a website geared towards specific activists who you believe should all agree with the website..., but in actuality not even all activists for a specific cause are a monolith. Especially on something as complex as the issue between Israel and Palestine.

So when you come here questioning why everyone here isn't gushing support over that websites rating system, that is exactly what I'm talking about with your post translating to, "I value this websites rating system, you should too."

You place this website on a pedestal because for one reason or another you approve of it, and question why does anyone reject the website you approve of.

I never at any point gushed about, praised, or even displayed the website. You're going off on some alternate reality version of my posts in this topic. It's really weird.

I simply explained why it exists, what it's for, and why it focuses on Democrats. Everything else is something you made up so you could have something to say. It's impossible to have a conversation when you substitute what I actually say with some fanciful version. You think you understand my position and that it's unreasonable so you just imagine I said something unreasonable so you can avoid engaging on the substance.

legendary_zell posted...

I never at any point gushed about, praised, or even displayed the website. You're going off on some alternate reality version of my posts in this topic. It's really weird.

I simply explained why it exists,

No one here questioned why the website exists. You aren't explaining something nobody didn't know. Biased websites giving biased rating systems exist to no one's surprise.

It's existence doesn't change not everyone agrees with its rating system, including the people who want a ceasefire.

You just don't like people rejecting the website as you literally questioned how could anyone possibly have an issue with the website.

All 5 CT Democrats got an F.

Justified or not, they're using a very tough standard. Even some people supporting a ceasefire are getting D or F.

"Bias"

Some of you need to understand that having an opinion is not inherently illogical

The website's bias is that they're against genocide

asdf8562 posted...

No one here questioned why the website exists. You aren't explaining something nobody didn't know. Biased websites giving biased rating systems exist to no one's surprise.

It's existence doesn't change not everyone agrees with its rating system, including the people who want a ceasefire.

You just don't like people rejecting the website as you literally questioned how could anyone possibly have an issue with the website

You're either being intentionally disingenuous or you can't read if that's how you're interpreting my very clear posts in this topic. Either way, you're not worth responding to on this.

Anyway, all political organizations are biased by definition, accusations of bias alone are pointless then. As always, it comes down to the substance of what the organization is about and whether that makes sense or not. Let's all talk about what the proper response to the crisis in Gaza is for lawmakers rather than the vague concept of bias.

legendary_zell posted...

Let's all talk about what the proper response to the crisis in Gaza is for lawmakers rather than the vague concept of bias.

What's disingenuous is pretending to not understand what issue people have with the website. This all started because you are confused why anyone has an issue with the website, and apparently think no one should have an issue with the website and it's rating system.

As it's been explained by multiple people in this topic that being in support of a ceasefire doesn't mean one shouldn't have an issue with the website and its rating system that you are trying to defend.

You can't have it both ways that you aren't saying you approve of the website while at the same time defending as much as you can that people shouldn't have an issue with the website and it's rating system.

legendary_zell posted...

Let's all talk about what the proper response to the crisis in Gaza is for lawmakers rather than the vague concept of bias.

Then actually argue that instead of desperately trying to defend a websites rating system that even the people who support a ceasefire doesn't agree with. Feigning ignorance to why anyone could have an issue with the website and its rating system.

Justin2Krelian posted...

All 5 CT Democrats got an F.

Justified or not, they're using a very tough standard. Even some people supporting a ceasefire are getting D or F.

Rashida Tlaib's the only congressperson in my state that has anything above a D, but that's to be expected. I do like that if the legislator does support a ceasefire you can click on "YES", and see either a statement or a bill addressing it.

Keep in mind that just because someone supports a ceasefire now doesn't mean that the rest of their record has been great so it shouldn't be an automatic pass.

There was a lot more public support for Israel compared to Palestine in October than there is now. I'm not saying they aren't sincere, but these senators and representatives are also feeling the pressure from their constituents.

Sonixs posted...

Okay. So if Joe Biden doesn't give that to you, who are you going to vote for?

Still waiting for an answer to this.