What part of anything other than the last sentence is false? And don’t bring up Trump. We’re talking about Biden, not Trump. Some of us aren’t so blind to think that any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump. Biden’s term ended with the US overseeing a brutal war in Gaza and a historic cost of living crisis. You don’t even have to speculate about what Biden would have done, you just have to look at what he actually did.
Why do you think any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump? You’re trapped in prison of “my team” political thinking. And this thinking is exactly what lead us to Trump in the first place.
Biden’s term ended with the US overseeing a brutal war in Gaza and a historic cost of living crisis.
Yes, I too remember the US invading Palestine to kidnap their leader. I too remember Biden saying they should turn Gaza into a giant casino and beach resort. I definitely remember Biden threatening to invade denmark if sweden won’t give him a medal.
Why do you think any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump?
Well, you see, if there are two candidates, and you say “don’t vote for that one” it’s a defacto endorsement of the other.
Are you fucking kidding me? That’s literally the exact thing that you’re saying.
Them: Here are Biden’s stances, and I consider them inexcusable"
You: Actually, they are excusable because lists a bunch of stuff Trump did
If that’s not what you’re saying, then go ahead and explain how Biden’s actions are excusable, why supporting him is defensible, without doing a whataboutism by bringing up Trump doing the same thing. As the other commenter requested.
I swear, whataboutism is just something y’all made up where the only rule is “I’m always right.” What a load of bull.
Whataboutism would be if I said “Biden’s support for the Gaza genocide is acceptable because Trump rapes little girls”. What I actually said was “Biden’s warmongering is nowhere near as severe as Trump’s warmongering”.
And the difference matters, because the context was a tweet that says “If you vote for Biden, you will be at war, so you should vote for Trump”.
Whataboutism would be if I said “Biden’s support for the Gaza genocide is acceptable because Trump rapes little girls”. What I actually said was “Biden’s warmongering is nowhere near as severe as Trump’s warmongering”.
That’s complete bullshit. There’s no requirement that you change the topic of the thing in question, that’s 100% arbitrary.
If someone criticized China for saber-rattling with Taiwan, and in response I brought up that the US had not only saber-rattled but actually conducted full scale invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, would that be a whataboutism? Because I would certainly expect to see people lob the accusation at me.
because the context was a tweet that says “If you vote for Biden, you will be at war, so you should vote for Trump”.
The context is a comment thread where someone said that the first parts of the tweet were correct, but not the line endorsing Trump. You’re being very dishonest by ignoring that. If you want to make a comment about the tweet in full, then make a top-level comment.
Here’s the thing though - US voters went into an election with a binary winner-takes-all choice for the head of their executive branch in a country where the executive branch wields an immense amount of power. Some chose to not take part because neither candidate appealed to them. Many made that choice due to a candidate’s foreign policy positions. It is very reasonable to assume that those are votes that would have not gone to the more conservative/regressive side.
Result: popular vote went to the regressives. And since foreign policy issues could very well have been a cause in this (i.e. people basing their choice to not vote on a candidate’s impacts on foreign populations), the end result is kind of ironic… The death and misery that will result from funding changes in things like PEPFAR, USAID, US funding contributions to various UN programs, refugee programs, etc. will far surpass anything happening in Gaza. Nevermind the incredible economic impacts (and very real resulting human consequences) of tariffs on people in so-called “shithole countries” - like me.
And that’s not even mentioning the totally foreseeable domestic consequences that US voters are now seeing.
So tell me again how choosing not to vote in the US presidential election was a morally sound choice?
lol you for real?
Yeah, this fool is always happy to ignore reality, loudly.
What part of anything other than the last sentence is false? And don’t bring up Trump. We’re talking about Biden, not Trump. Some of us aren’t so blind to think that any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump. Biden’s term ended with the US overseeing a brutal war in Gaza and a historic cost of living crisis. You don’t even have to speculate about what Biden would have done, you just have to look at what he actually did.
Why do you think any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump? You’re trapped in prison of “my team” political thinking. And this thinking is exactly what lead us to Trump in the first place.
Yes, but in context that was the only alternative at the time. Right?
Tearing down Biden benefitted Trump.
At this point, I have to assume this was the goal.
Tankies don’t want to stop fascism. They want purity tests.
Yes, I too remember the US invading Palestine to kidnap their leader. I too remember Biden saying they should turn Gaza into a giant casino and beach resort. I definitely remember Biden threatening to invade denmark if sweden won’t give him a medal.
Well, you see, if there are two candidates, and you say “don’t vote for that one” it’s a defacto endorsement of the other.
Whataboutism. Two things can be true at once.
Whataboutism would be saying “what Biden does is excusable because Trump does it too”.
So no, it’s not whataboutism.
Are you fucking kidding me? That’s literally the exact thing that you’re saying.
Them: Here are Biden’s stances, and I consider them inexcusable"
You: Actually, they are excusable because lists a bunch of stuff Trump did
If that’s not what you’re saying, then go ahead and explain how Biden’s actions are excusable, why supporting him is defensible, without doing a whataboutism by bringing up Trump doing the same thing. As the other commenter requested.
I swear, whataboutism is just something y’all made up where the only rule is “I’m always right.” What a load of bull.
Whataboutism would be if I said “Biden’s support for the Gaza genocide is acceptable because Trump rapes little girls”. What I actually said was “Biden’s warmongering is nowhere near as severe as Trump’s warmongering”.
And the difference matters, because the context was a tweet that says “If you vote for Biden, you will be at war, so you should vote for Trump”.
That’s complete bullshit. There’s no requirement that you change the topic of the thing in question, that’s 100% arbitrary.
If someone criticized China for saber-rattling with Taiwan, and in response I brought up that the US had not only saber-rattled but actually conducted full scale invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, would that be a whataboutism? Because I would certainly expect to see people lob the accusation at me.
The context is a comment thread where someone said that the first parts of the tweet were correct, but not the line endorsing Trump. You’re being very dishonest by ignoring that. If you want to make a comment about the tweet in full, then make a top-level comment.
Talkies really need to get with the program.
It’s a two party system. I’d love it if there was a magical third option but that’s not how the electoral college works
Here’s the thing though - US voters went into an election with a binary winner-takes-all choice for the head of their executive branch in a country where the executive branch wields an immense amount of power. Some chose to not take part because neither candidate appealed to them. Many made that choice due to a candidate’s foreign policy positions. It is very reasonable to assume that those are votes that would have not gone to the more conservative/regressive side.
Result: popular vote went to the regressives. And since foreign policy issues could very well have been a cause in this (i.e. people basing their choice to not vote on a candidate’s impacts on foreign populations), the end result is kind of ironic… The death and misery that will result from funding changes in things like PEPFAR, USAID, US funding contributions to various UN programs, refugee programs, etc. will far surpass anything happening in Gaza. Nevermind the incredible economic impacts (and very real resulting human consequences) of tariffs on people in so-called “shithole countries” - like me.
And that’s not even mentioning the totally foreseeable domestic consequences that US voters are now seeing.
So tell me again how choosing not to vote in the US presidential election was a morally sound choice?