DeltaSMC

I am downvoting you

Better than nothing. Water is a great solvent and will get rid of larger particles. Use hot water to dislodge more oily things.

The Expanse

That's what it says in the article.

"Moreover, one arm of the administration cannot sue another, so the military cannot sue the EPA, and the case would never end up in court where the Chevron decision would come into play, said Walter Mugdan, a former EPA Superfund director. Instead, it would be resolved internally by a presidential administration instead of the judiciary."

But fighting soldiers versus fighting civilians is completely different, isn't it? Isn't that why we're not really cool with the conflict in Gaza?

The current state of the fediverse. Sync is great!

I feel your pain. I also tried Instagram to satiate the mobile scrolling, but the comments there are just horrible and low-effort. The fediverse via Sync is okay, but there's still much to be desired.

The only reason we should we looking into other people's bowls is to make sure they have enough.

Okay, so maybe we're getting somewhere. I can see that you just described that the Dems can compromise (e.g. gay marriage), although you really want to frame it in the context of losing votes. Whatever, fine. I think we just agreed that Dems can compromise. That's big.

Second thing is that it sounds like you're a single issue voter. Or rather, this issue with Israel and Palestine, right now, is a roadblock.

Third thing is I want to set the stage and expectations first. You mentioned earlier about how Obama did not encode (I assume into law) RvW. Can we first agree that it's Congress, not the president that has that power? If so, let's move on.

Moving onto the Palestinian genocide, can we also agree that this is a complex foreign conflict? And that any actions, words, or even the wrong look our president gives will have serious, often unexpected consequences? If so, let's proceed.

There are 2 expectations you need to set for yourself: what would you be happy with and are those things realistic?

For the first: since this is another nation, would you be happy with him denouncing Israel's actions? How about invoking sanctions? Can you only be happy with things that he cannot directly control, for example, having Israel and Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire? Or Israel withdrawing?

The second part of this: if you want a specific outcome that is out of the president's direct control, we need to do a thought experiment. What, specifically, would you say would be the actions that Biden must take (BE SPECIFIC) and at what time and at what location and in what order to achieve your desired outcome?

I'll give you an example that you could mimic, if you want complete removal of Israeli troops from Gaza immediately, should Biden: 1) threaten Israel with reneging on military support, at 2) within 24 hours, and 3) at a press conference and live phone call? The consequences of this could be 1) Israel complies, 2) Israel is offended and ignores the demand, 3) Israel is offended and becomes an enemy. What are the chances that #1 is the outcome? And if it was, what are the global consequences of that? America just forced an ally under threat of not protecting them to do something it wasn't willing to do. This proposal is terrible, and I think my made up expectation of immediate removal of troops through threatening Israel is not a good expectation to have. Your turn.

I really want to see your proposal of what Biden should do, with specifics, that would satisfy your demands. Please don't cop out and just say "END GENOCIDE" without specifics. Global politics is hard.

I'm trying hard to find common ground here, but it seems like you haven't read my response at all.

Can you define the word anything? From my point of view, the Dems have compromised and shifted left on such things as legalization of same sex marriage, decriminalizing border crossings, higher taxes on the wealthy, access to cheaper/free higher education, reparations, trans rights, etc. Many of these were really not talked about in the 90s/00s or were actively disparaged back then.

In contrast, I've seen the overturn of RvW due directly from a Trump presidency, continual climate change denial, tax breaks for the wealthy, environmental protections abolished, etc. from the R side.

Therefore, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by making them work for the vote for once. Let's say we didn't vote D two decades ago, it would not have pushed into action many of the policies and rights that we enjoy right now. It seems more like, if we vote against the Dems, my interests will never come to fruition. Do you disagree? If so, why?

I agree with you - it would be great if we could vote on policy and not individuals. (I say that, but I also acknowledge that in the past, majority rule at times had been detrimental to minority rights. But I digress.)

Since the reality is that we vote for representatives, and in the case of the presidential election, should we not vote for the candidate that is most closely aligned with our own interests? I think we also largely agree on that.

The critical point that we may disagree on is this. I posit that: If we ignore the reality of how our political system works, we ultimately end up losing our leverage to even make a point. You talk about making the Dems compromise, but if the Reps get into power, they sure aren't going to compromise, but rather, actively work against our interests.

We should vote against our interest because if we don't, something worse will come along.