Like… Those panarab trash countries attacked Israel and lost back in 1947

When Israel was founded…

The weat didn’t magically create that land, it existed and people had lived there for thousands of years …

The UN said it was now Israel and everyone who wasn’t Jewish had to leave…

And you want to start the clock immediately after that?!

How does that make any sense?

The West did not create Israel

They did…

In 1947 the UN voted to partition the region into separate Jewish and Arab states.

https://www.britannica.com/summary/Israel

as it is that was mostly all Russia from actions in the 80s, Russian immigrants started the first major settlement where thousands from Yemen and eastern Europe immigrated to in 1882.

Everyone that moved there prior to the creation of Israel was moving to Palestine…

Did any of that help you understand?

I could.copy/paste what I said, but by now I’d hope you scrolled down and saw it by now.

But I dont know, maybe you stopped here and area till waiting on a reply to scroll down.

Almost everyone agrees there should be more compromises in politics

Bullshit.

Republicans want to “compromise” by getting everything they want.

Moderates politicians want “compromise” by giving them half and telling progressives to be happy Republicans only get half.

So most politicians say they want compromise, but I’d have to see a source for “almost everyone” saying it. Most voters don’t want compromise.

When the US backs Israel no matter what. The countries Israel keeps starting shit with don’t have many other options besides Russia or China

If America stayed out of it, Israel wouldn’t be as aggressive, and their neighbors wouldn’t have to run to Russia and China.

Like…

Has no one explained to you that one of the big factors the West had in creating Israel was to create a volatile area for proxy wars instead of another war in Europe?

If you don’t know that, hardly anything else is going to make sense …

Another cost of blindly supporting Israel no matter what.

Israel causes more drama then they’re worth as an ally, they’re a bully and have acted like it for decades.

50 is not good enough to do everything, only as progressive as the least progressive “democract” (which at the time were Manchin and Sinema

Party leadership said it was enough for the Dem party platform…

That’s why the GA runoffs got an insane amount of donations from the entire country, hell I gave.

It’s not that I’m arguing against you. I’m pointing out voters were lied to and that causes turnout depression for a significant amount of time, and for that reason alone the party needs to stop lying.

It may help short term, but it hurts more long term

There’s no difference with a broken court and we can’t fix that with our current Congress

We dont need congress to expand the SC court…

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

Just like Obama didn’t need Congress to approve his last pick, they have to give Congress a chance to vote, but there’s nothing saying they have to.

So the absence of their decision should have resulted in Obama sitting someone anyways during his last year.

Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.

Because explaining the same thing over and over gets frustrating…

Which is why I’m probably going to give up on explaining this in a way you can understand pretty soon.

If you want ignore that link from Harvard and just keep arguing…

I view slapfights as a waste of time, but feel free to keep trying. What’s weird is after I block one of them, it’s common to get accounts with almost no activity immediately taking up the arguement, even in day old threads that aren’t getting any other new replies.

Could it be a giant coincidence?

Sure but I just don’t think it’s likely.

So …

During the GA runoffs when Biden told us 50 senators with a D by their name was enough to pass party platform:

That was a ______

Because Manchin was already in office, everyone knew what he was and what he would do. Except the Dem party leaders.

Just not sure why you won’t answer if they were lying or ignorant of what the Senators in their party was like.

Keep in mind, Biden got the nomination because he said he was a “senate whisperer” and never expected to actually get 50/50 till he won the election.

Either Biden didn’t know what he was talking about. Or he lied.

You seem to be saying Biden was ignorant of who Manchin is

Don’t worry about it

Something I’ve explained multiple times…

What I could use help understanding is why you dropped your comment chain to comment here asking questions I’ve already attempted to explain.

Seems like something people do when they’re just looking to argue and not trying to learn anything.

If that’s what’s going on. It’s an easy fix on my end

So when Biden and the party said 50 was enough to pass the party platform…

That was a __________

And Kamala voted to expand domestic fracking because_____

Also, 50 was enough for Kamala to cast the tiebreaking vote to expand domestic fracking…

Why is 50 enough to do what republicans want. But not enough to do what Dems want?

Are you going to double down and say that’s what Dem voters want? More fracking?

50 is enough for republicans to get what they want, just not enough for Dem voters to get what they want

but take 51 and then subtract 2 from it (for Manchin and Sinema who won’t vote with dems on these issues) - is that 50?

If you just forget that Biden and the party said 50 was enough when we knew two of them was Manchin and Sinema.

So again:

Are you saying they were lying, or that you know more about it than Biden and his admin and they were just ignorant?

And for this:

Besides that dems also don’t control the house.

We’re just ignoring the two years we also had the House?

Is any of this getting thru to you? Because honestly you’re not the only one here about to write off any chances of you understanding this…

Dems do actually stand on tradition (which is why they haven’t eliminated the filibuster even though it would greatly benefit them)

Really?

Everyone else always say it’s just Manchin and maybe Sinema that won’t, and that Biden and the rest want to…

To be honest I think you’re right and there’s a hell of a lot more moderates that would refuse even if we had 60 D senators, and Schumer refusing to hold a vote is to block for them so people don’t replace them in their next primary.

That’s pretty much the whole point of my original comment…

Before I keep going (because honestly I’m losing faith I can explain this in a way you’ll understand) do you agree that you were wrong?

If you can’t do that, then there’s no point in me putting more effort into helping.

To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment

And on 1/5/20, to my knowledge no sitting president had organized a coup to keep power…

The difference is this would be legal.

it’s not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it’s up to the “supreme” Court.

Add 6 justices, that goes to SC and they rule expanding the SC is fine and has happened before.

Kick out the lower judges, if it goes to the SC, that’s fine. Because we’ve already taken back the majority.

I know you’re arguing against fixing stuff, but your arguent basically boils down to:

If we just try to fix part of the problem, it won’t fix everything

I agree.

Where we disagree is I want to fix everything, so it’s all fixed.

And you think we should fix…

Nothing?

So when Biden and the party said 50 was enough to do stuff…

Are you saying they were lying, or that you know more about it than Biden and his admin and they were just ignorant?

And did you really just call AOC a moderate?

I’m just not logically following what you’re saying. Like, I understand what you’re trying to say. It’s just not logically sound.

Quick edit:

Also, 50 was enough for Kamala to cast the tiebreaking vote to expand domestic fracking…

Why is 50 enough to do what republicans want. But not enough to do what Dems want?

Are you going to double down and say that’s what Dem voters want? More fracking?

Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives

You obviously have no problem insisting you know more than me, but are you going to say you know more about it than Yale?

Well, . . . no. Contrary to the orthodoxy, nothing in the Constitution mandates that impeachment be the exclusive method for removing misbehaving judges.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment

Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean no one else does.

So your plan is ignore all of the corrupt appointments?

Until when exactly? Just let them die on the bench in a couple decades?

That’s not fixing anything, it’s ignoring the problem.

Exactly what I’m complaining about. I’m just not sure why I had to say the same thing twice. Is it still not making sense to you that fixing a problem works better than ignoring it?

I mean. Biden “prepared” for the last one so hard he could barely fit a sentence together…

trump is the same way. He’s too old to handle even preparing for a debate, they’re better off just letting him treat it like any other rally.

I can’t even imagine trying to keep him at a table more than 5 minutes to prepare for this

“Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement.

Moderate Dems don’t want to actually fix the SC.

They love complaining about it. And saying that’s why they can’t fix anything.

But they refuse to even bring up that we can fix it by impeaching the problematic ones or just expanding the court.

People say “if we do it, trump will do it” which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?