Personally, I hate when people say X should do something. What’s the something? If you don’t know, maybe there isn’t anything that can be done. If you don’t like the options, then why do you want him to act. Politicians aren’t magic, they can’t divine a mystical solution, choices are tough and every option has its drawbacks.

If he’s that dissatisfied with Blinken he can fire him. But if that’s not palatable then he has to stick with him. I assume they talk and Biden has given him direction, so that’s what’s left.

Typically, Parliamentary systems employ a prime minister as the chief executive, so tend to be fundamentally different from the American system.

Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the parliament and secretary of state are being bitches…

He has sufficient authority to curtail aid to Israel. He can also fire the secretary of state. Congress, not Parliament. He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.

… but we shouldn’t act like there aren’t groups of people who might think we all deserve whatever we get, regardless of it affecting them as well.

Either Harris or Trump is going to be president come 2025, so pick the better candidate, or the lesser evil, however you want to look at it. Anyone who casts a protest vote or withholds support because of a single issue, is an idiot and I’m not going to handle them with kid gloves.

I’m not shocked Biden isn’t doing anything, and I’m not shocked Harris isn’t outspoken about it. I’m hopeful she takes action when sworn in. But people need to care about politics everyday, not just once every four years.

What’s the dilemma? Elect a candidate who isn’t great on the issue of Palestine, or the candidate who would be apocalyptic? Hmmm… decisions… decisions.

Additionally, there is nothing Harris can say on Palestine that would benefit her candidacy, either way she loses voters. I’m hopeful that she’ll be better in office, but even if not, I know Trump would be worse.

Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

Google:

noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Me:

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.

Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist. Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief, which is why you can have an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground. I can correct you, but I can’t make you understand it.

What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.

That very well may be part of it, but I was commenting on what I believe to be the very real situation of a plurality of union members supporting Trump.

Is there any chance that a second Trump administration wouldn’t be markedly worse for organized labor? This is a textbook example of not voting for your own interests.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

The protests should be louder, more numerous, and more in their face.

What’s the goal of the protests? For fewer people to vote for Harris or for Harris to change her position? Coming out against Israel, even if it’s the proper position, is going to turn off a lot of voters. It seems these protests will, if they have any effect at all, cause fewer people to vote for Harris. A Trump reelection is a fundamental threat to every issue I care about. These protests are flawed at every level. Perfect should not be the enemy of good, and Harris is, unequivocally, a positive for Palestinians.

Where’s Joe Biden now?

I’m going to guess the White House, but I’m not sure, it wasn’t my turn to watch him.

I assume you’re alluding to Harris replacing Biden, which doesn’t address my point. Dem and Rep running, one of them will be president.

The United States has a FPTP system, you’re never going to get a third party candidate to win the presidency. You would need to reform the system.

Do NOT say fundamental change can’t be made or started in the middle of a general election. Protest works and that scares some of you

You legally cannot change the election process two months before an election.

Protest is fine, but you should ask what your goal is. Trump is worse than Harris on Gaza, Palestine, and Israel. Frankly, it’s not even close. So if your protest would cause people to not vote for Harris, then you’re helping to elect Trump. Actions have consequences, just be sure you understand what they are.

For the record I’m for a Palestinian state and against genocide, but there are actions that further those causes and actions that don’t.

or choose neither and take a goddamn stand for once and show these puppets of the elites it is all or nothing

There is no “neither” option. One of them WILL be president. Let me save you time and there’s never going to be a candidate but you agree with on every issue.

If you want to make a fundamental change in the electoral process, the middle of a general election isn’t the time. You literally cannot change the process at this point.

The name of the game this November is turnout. There are undoubtedly more people who support Harris than Trump, but will they vote? Touching the Israel issue is guaranteed to turn off a large block of voters, no matter which side you support. There’s no winning this issue politically.

Either Harris or Trump will be president in 2025, choose which one more closely aligns to your values and policy goals. If you care about Gaza and Palestinians, I don’t know how that choice isn’t Harris.

Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.

What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.

When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post

It’s not though. The question makes the assumption that he would have been handed over for the Nuremberg trials.

It absolutely misses the point, and so have you. It is a hypothetical whereby he was captured, turned over to the Nuremberg trials, and found guilty. That’s the basis of the hypothetical. Saying that wouldn’t have happened absolutely misses the point of the hypothetical.

Interesting how the reaction is split so far. It occurs to me that lots of celebrities have sold sketchy shit, but female celebrities get grief over it.

Dr. Oz seems like a great example in line with her. They both made bogus claims about snake oil products that don’t provide the benefits claimed.

Did Matt Damon get cancelled over his crypto Superbowl ad? Food for thought, guys.

Damon did an ad as a spokesperson. Crypto is inherently risky; it’s a currency based on nothing that people just made up. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t even know how they’re comparable.

Was the George Foreman grill a high quality product?

Yes. It was a grill. When you plugged it in it heated up and cooked food, exactly what they claimed. Unlike her “snake oil”.

Capitalism is self regulating

It most certainly is not. The bargaining power of a corporation and individual worker are not the same. It’s why labor unions exist. Additionally governments should regulate commerce for the benefit of everyone.

Lastly, please review and understand the differences between your and you’re, as well as their, there, and they’re. Absolutely frustrating trying to read what you wrote.