Biden Announces Reelection Campaign

[PseudoStupidity]

to be clear: "personal relationship with X" has exactly one meaning in actual use, people might at most say "personal relationship to X" using personal as a synonym for individual, you can't change my mind, I'm not interested in this discussion except insofar as it facilitated a "when did you stop beating your wife?" style allegation framed as a legitimate inquiry.

I can't change your mind, only you can do that, but you are incorrect again. "personal relationship with" and "personal relationship to" are slightly different, but in a way that most people don't draw a distinction between and they are used interchangeably for good reason. "With" is a more general request for information, if you asked a fan of the MCU what their personal relationship with the MCU was you might get a response like "I saw Iron Man back in 2008 and then watched every movie since then! I love Marvel movies and always watch them as soon as I can." "To" is asking what the state of your relationship is from that your point of view, so asking someone what their personal relationship to the MCU the expected response would be "I am a fan of the MCU," but you could also get the same exact response as if you had asked using "with" instead because that still tells you what their relationship to the MCU is (just not explicitly).

On the ADA stuff, it looks to me like the person who brought the suits against the hotels dropped them after some stuff happened with one of their lawyers and the court is running with this case anyways just to kill the ADA. I didn't know you could do that, but I guess the SCOTUS gets to do whatever the fuck it wants.

[Omegonthesane]

Just because you've invented some way that a string of words together can mean a concept that nobody ever actually uses it to mean doesn't make that valid linguistics - because, again, valid linguistics are observed from how people actually use words and cannot be derived from some rulebook.

Back on topic...

CNN claims that multiple SCOTUS judges are iffy about providing a ruling since, well, the case that made it to them has been dropped for unrelated reasons anyway; but yes, the Biden administration wants to basically kill the ADA while the Chamber of Commerce wants to explicitly kill the ADA as Kaelik described.

[Sashi]

Just because you've invented some way that a string of words together can mean a concept that nobody ever actually uses it to mean doesn't make that valid linguistics - because, again, valid linguistics are observed from how people actually use words and cannot be derived from some rulebook.

While I fall firmly on the descriptive interpretation of linguistics you're still wrong. Both because "a random person stringing together words in a way nobody has ever used them before" is how new language is created through descriptivism, and because the way people actually use the words I am arguing about do not match what you are arguing.

One of the things that I find exasperating about this conversation is the constant interchange between "relationship" and "personal relationship" when they aren't strictly interchangeable. Neither are "relationship with" and "relationship to" interchangeable. It's just true that "Godzilla is a friend with all children" has a different meaning than "Godzilla is a friend to all children" in common speech. Similarly, "You have a relationship with the government" and "You have a relationship to the government" are also very different statements. I have already done my mea culpa and thousand lashes about accidentally using "personal relationsip with" and "relationship to" interchangeably, but so did Mguy:

That's not a relationship to political entities.

So yeah, it irks me that this entire digression has hinged on this one terminology mistake being made in both directions and yet Mguy will still pearl clutch about me not giving the benefit of the doubt while continuing continuing to think "actually you do have a relationship to political entities" means I want to hug an anthropomorphized representation of the government.

I'm not interested in this discussion except insofar as it facilitated a "when did you stop beating your wife?" style allegation framed as a legitimate inquiry.

This is also exasperating because I feel like I have explained this adequately and yet my explanations continue to be discarded based on this false "relationship with"/"relationship to" interchangeability. My question was not an unprompted "when did you stop beating your wife" style gotcha but more like this:

Bob: "You have a relationship to the government."
Steve: "I have a relationship with my wife but not the government because I can't beat the government."
Bob: "Yes you do, wait, do you think it's okay to beat your wife?"
Steve: "I don't comment on marriage matters with someone who thinks they're married to the government"
Bob: "I don't think that, also the only reason I asked is because you brought it up and your phrasing seemed to imply that you beat your wife. Was that just a joke, what's going on?"
Steve: "Look, just drop it sicko."
Bob: "Okay, now I'm concerned about a lot of things..."

[MGuy]

I mean I didn't pearl clutch. I literally said it doesn't matter that you have this delusion and that you keep from adding me into your fetish posting. I asked you specific straightforward questions you haven't answered. The problem with you and PS is that you can't let shit go. I mean the Bob/Steve interaction here has Steve presenting a strawman. Anyone who read what I actually said would note that 'beating' the government not only never came up but was never a factor in my summation of what the government is.

The thing that should irk you is that you were given another thing to talk about and you have continued to belabor this particular thing that isn't even key to anything else.

[Kaelik]

Joe biden admin has weighed in on cop city:

Cop city asked for his opinion and the white house told them that the thing public safety training is commendable and they look forward to it being emulated nationwide.

[Sashi]

I literally said it doesn't matter that you have this delusion and that you keep from adding me into your fetish posting.

I cede the point, mea culpa, Joe Biden is not my daddy and I do not have a personal relationship with the government. I will write "I will not anthropomorphize organizations" fifty times. After this post anyone who insists I think otherwise is arguing in bad faith.

Couldn't even go a page. You still will not admit that I do not have a delusion or fetish even after I specifically said I don't. The reason I won't move on is because you continue to not actually respond to this issue. I literally cannot move on to explaining why I think Joe Biden has a responsibility to protect labor rights as long as you believe the reason I think that is because I have a delusional fetish for Joe Biden! It's impossible to move on and answer your question because you are refusing to listen!

[Omegonthesane]

Literally two people ever in the history of the human species have used "personal relationship with the government" in the way Sashi and PS are describing and they're both in this thread.

Pretty sure that's the second time the both of you have responded to "this is an explicit brick wall, you may 1) change subject entirely or 2) fuck off" by attempting to pick 3), so time to spell out some terms.

The next time I get quoted trying to dispute the meaning of a personal relationship I'm fucking blocking you. The next time I get responded to without the literal quote function on the topic of a personal relationship, I'm also fucking blocking you. Because that whole bulshit distraction is an attempt to avoid explaining why you expect government to be something other than a tool for the class it serves.

[MGuy]

Considering I've said I don't care about your government daddy issues and that I just want you to stop including me in your fetish posting I think it would be very easy to move on to something else. Perhaps the things I asked you earlier that don't have to do with either of those things. Your continued obsession with the government = daddy thing is something you are deciding to do on your own.

[Sashi]

Considering I've said I don't care about your government daddy issues and that I just want you to stop including me in your fetish posting I think it would be very easy to move on to something else.

The reason I have not moved on is because even after I literally said I don't have government daddy issues and apologized for what I think my mistake was that led to that misunderstanding you continue to insist I have them. At this point I don't know if you are trolling me or still think I have government daddy issues because of something else I said because instead of telling me I have government daddy issues for some other reason than the thing I have apologized about you just keep ignoring my apology or telling me that my apology was wrong and that bothers me a lot more than it probably should, but it does bother me.

Because that whole bullshit distraction is an attempt to avoid explaining why you expect government to be something other than a tool for the class it serves.

I don't want you to block me and I am trying to answer this question. Do you mean I want government to serve the working class by being a tool for labor? Or do you mean how can I not see that the government as it is right now is a tool for the 1% to serve the 1%?

Because I agree with both of those things! To reference Kaelik's sig I am not a rube. I understand that the US is not a democracy and is a tool for the 1% powered by oppression, manufactured consent, minoritarianism, etc, and that every good thing it does right now may as well be by accident.

I also don't think it should work that way. I think it works that way because the people with power and privilege have implemented systems and structures that make it work that way, and that every time people without power and privilege figure out how exert a little bit of power those methods are made illegal. To that end I think we should always be striving to change systems and structures of government so that, whenever possible, they actively counteract the natural tendency of power and resources to concentrate in the hands of the already powerful. I think that we should judge the government by how well it serves the poorest and most marginalized members of society because those people, by definition, are the ones who are least served and I think that those who have the most should be judged by how much they sacrifice for the good of others because they, by definition, are benefiting the most from the current system. That means if a union strikes and our leaders break the strike in favor of capitol instead of supporting labor we should all agree those leaders have done something bad.

You can say that unions should support the social safety net because the threat of homelessness is one of capitol's most powerful negotiating tools and it improves labor's ability to negotiate or you can say it's because "solving" tent cities by sending cops to round up the unhoused and bus them somewhere else is cruel and callous. I say both.

So are we discussing how the government works or how it should work?

Political entities and actions are tools to me and that's it. I want material benefits for myself and others like me. When I interact with these entities it is with that understanding, along with the understanding that others are also pushing and pulling at the same levers I am with goals, ideas, and biases that may or may not coincide with mine. I want more people who don't already want to do what I want then to do to align with me enough to push more levers than the people who don't want what I want. When I advocate for my positions I do so explicitly understanding this is the case and that is my goal So when a political act is undertaken I do not view it as an individual who 'should' feel any responsibility for me. I view it as an institution taking an action for any number of reasons.

Because this is a fairly accurate description of how the government currently does work. But I strongly disagree with it being how things should work. I think if you read someone's idea of how the government should work and can't tell if it's written by someone who supports unions or a white supremacist, then it's not a good way for government to work (to clarify: I am not accusing Mguy of being a white supremacist, I am just saying that it could work either way depending on who is meant by "others like me.")

I square that easily. I, personally, want people, all people, not to be poor. I've been poor all my life and it is not fun. I genuinely hate that we have a system that produces these outcomes. I also have no designs about being personally wealthy. I just don't want to be poor anymore. So for me, I think it's better that we all get paid.

However, I don't extend that same confidence to almost anyone else. Some people might be righteous sure. Others, I'd argue most, are not. Most people aren't outright malicious mind you but I do think people are mostly apathetic to the imagined suffering of others. So someone else, anyone else, might take that bribe. It is, then, very important to build a culture that convinces as many people as possible, in whatever ways that appeal to them, that we are better off, or that it is more moral, to keep acting in each other's mutual interest instead of falling to the exploitative squares in the prisoner's dilemma.

I'm choosing to interpret this as essential agreement with what I said before re: valuing the least powerful and most marginalized. Mguy simply considers themselves to be amongst that group. The problem is once you get enough poor people to agree they've got more in common with the homeless than they do with billionaires (already a big ask) then what? What change to the system will you make other than asking everyone to be nicer to each other?

[Sashi]

Constantly bouncing between controlling someone and giving them gifts is literally an abuse cycle! It's not that event A contradicts event B, it's that the context of event A alters the meaning of event B. If your partner buys you an expensive gift that's nice! If they cheat on you and buy you an expensive gift that's not so nice. If they constantly cheat on you and buy you expensive gifts to "make up" for it that's definitely abuse!

The government is ever present and all reaching in everyone's lives for better or worse. It is constantly doing bad shit that I don't like. Want and every thing they do that isn't bad that gets praise or even that doesn't is coming with the background radiation of 100000000000 atrocities that are always being done. So likening that, in any way, to an interpersonal relationship is ridiculous.

Do you know what an analogy is? Because everything has gotten so messed up that I'm still not sure if you're dismissing my analogy as ridiculous because it's not possible for a system of seemingly unrelated rules and actions administered by seemingly impartial adjudicators can be abusive (which I totally disagree with, they definitely can, anyone who's interacted with the parole system even a tiny bit can attest to the Kafkaesque interaction of seemingly "reasonable" actors and rules that make it almost impossible for poor people to comply) or is ridiculous because you think I actually think the government is literally the union's boyfriend (which, again, I don't)?

If your goal has been to amuse yourself by trolling me check that goddamn box.

[MGuy]

You apologized because you thought that I was thinking of body pillows of daddy Biden. That's after I asked you unrelated questions to that topic. Something no one asked you to type. I made a post asking you direct questions with no mention of the government fetish shit sand you openly and intentionally decided to ignore it. That is on you.

Now that you have decided to get over it and actually engage with shit I said you don't have any real objections. So the whole fit you threw about how I'm too dumb to understand political theory, despite what I said being accurate, was just you being performative. I on the otherhand understood before this latest trying you've said that we're basically are aligned. I said as much. You rejected that for no reason.

We could've gotten to having a friendly talk about how exactly we think things "should" work many many posts before now if you had decided that's what you wanted to talk about. You only deciding to do it now because omegon pushed it. This is why I am relieved that I don't have to like the people that I need to sign with because if you test giving politics this frivolously on a daily basis I would hate you. It might be a simple game for other posters to signal their virtues but when I'm talking about it I am very serious.

Edit: nevermind. You're back on the daddy government thing.

[Sashi]

Edit: nevermind. You're back on the daddy government thing.

This is exactly what I mean. Since that's all you said about the issue I have no idea whether you mean I'm back on treating government like daddy or back on complaining about being misunderstood.

Its just sitting there and I have no idea if you don't agree an interlocking series of rules administered by impartial adjudictors can be abusive or if you're just tired of my complaining (I know you're tired of my complaining, I just don't know if that's the only thing)

[MGuy]

I am tired of the analogy. I explained to you how it doesn't fit. If you keep bringing it up I will keep pointing it out.

The big brain thing you started combating me on is the idea that any interaction with the government where that government did a bad thing at all, then does a good thing is tantamount to abuse. The government has done, is going, and will do bad shit in the future. That is just going to happen. It is a government. It is an institution doing 1000000000 bad things and not bad things all the time. Bad things do happen but when better things happen that's good. Good at least in the sense that I prefer it over bad things.

Now some might say, well of course good things are better than bad things. Good things are even better than neutral things. Duhhh. But then go and not apply that to different events happening at different times.

I gave you a clear example of this. Prisoners released from jail due to the relaxing of non violent drug charges is good (in that I want less unnecessary jailing instead of the current amount or more) even though it was the government that effectively created and enforced the laws that led to this shit in the first place. This is not an abusive relationship. It is a set of things that happened where one was the government being used to do something I don't like and then being used to do something I do like.

I think there are people who want to use the government to do bad shit. That does not change the nature of what a government, a political group, etc is.

[Sashi]

The big brain thing you started combating me on is the idea that any interaction with the government where that government did a bad thing at all, then does a good thing is tantamount to abuse.

Do you think I am saying that doing any bad thing followed by any good thing is always abuse? Like you forget to feed the cat (hungry! Bad!) then you send your mom a birthday card (thoughtful! Good!) and now I think you're an abuser?

Do you understand that has to be something I believe for the argument you have attributed to me to be the argument I am actually making?

[Omegonthesane]

Constantly bouncing between controlling someone and giving them gifts is literally an abuse cycle! It's not that event A contradicts event B, it's that the context of event A alters the meaning of event B. If your partner buys you an expensive gift that's nice! If they cheat on you and buy you an expensive gift that's not so nice. If they constantly cheat on you and buy you expensive gifts to "make up" for it that's definitely abuse!

The government is ever present and all reaching in everyone's lives for better or worse. It is constantly doing bad shit that I don't like. Want and every thing they do that isn't bad that gets praise or even that doesn't is coming with the background radiation of 100000000000 atrocities that are always being done. So likening that, in any way, to an interpersonal relationship is ridiculous.

Do you know what an analogy is? Because everything has gotten so messed up that I'm still not sure if you're dismissing my analogy as ridiculous because it's not possible for a system of seemingly unrelated rules and actions administered by seemingly impartial adjudicators can be abusive (which I totally disagree with, they definitely can, anyone who's interacted with the parole system even a tiny bit can attest to the Kafkaesque interaction of seemingly "reasonable" actors and rules that make it almost impossible for poor people to comply) or is ridiculous because you think I actually think the government is literally the union's boyfriend (which, again, I don't)?

If your goal has been to amuse yourself by trolling me check that goddamn box.

Like mguy said, an abusive interpersonal relationship is not a good analogy for the government doing bad things on one day and doing good things on a different day. There isn't the same throughline in which every concession is somehow a calculated move to make you unable to commit to a plan of escape or retaliation. There isn't the same context where you're meant to think the government cares about you, wishes anything for you except to maximally exploit your labour for the ruling capitalist class, or will ever do anything nice without the understanding that that's the cheapest way to keep you in line.

FDR's new deal wasn't an expression of a pro-(white, male) labour government; it was an expression that that's how far the administration thought they had to go to prevent the USA going the way of Tsarist Russia.

Which, to bring it back to the original point. The reason it's a good sign that Biden felt it necessary to virtue signal at a picket line is not that Biden is anything other than an attack dog for the rich. The reason is that it reflects a Machiavellian calculation that the union movement is too powerful for the government to directly oppose.

The big brain thing you started combating me on is the idea that any interaction with the government where that government did a bad thing at all, then does a good thing is tantamount to abuse.

Do you think I am saying that doing any bad thing followed by any good thing is always abuse? Like you forget to feed the cat (hungry! Bad!) then you send your mom a birthday card (thoughtful! Good!) and now I think you're an abuser?

Do you understand that has to be something I believe for the argument you have attributed to me to be the argument I am actually making?

So that's a dead end thing you're presenting here and I encourage you to reread the post where I told you I don't know why you think an article about event A is a contradiction to event B occurring. You clearly understand these are two separate events given the intimate partner dynamic you keep bringing up. All that means is you don't care that B happened because of A and that's fine but didn't contradict a thing I've said.

Constantly bouncing between controlling someone and giving them gifts is literally an abuse cycle! It's not that event A contradicts event B, it's that the context of event A alters the meaning of event B. If your partner buys you an expensive gift that's nice! If they cheat on you and buy you an expensive gift that's not so nice. If they constantly cheat on you and buy you expensive gifts to "make up" for it that's definitely abuse!

That's before pointing out that you still haven't engaged with the point I made about how it's a good sign that politicians show even faux support for unions.

Everything has been an engagement with that. It's like saying we have to admit that an ex-boyfriend showing up at a woman's workplace with an edible arrangement is nice. No we don't have to admit that, the cycle of abuse means those strawberries are a threat and you're like the judge saying "Why do you want a restraining order after you said 'thank you' for the gift?"
Marginalized groups are literally in an abusive relationship with the Democratic party, it's not actually inconsistent to criticize politicians giving lip service to Union organizing as being the "love bombing" part of an abuse cycle.

Can't imagine why anyone might have that impression given the kinds of things you've analogised to "this one time Biden crushed a rail workers strike but also felt it necessary to see a few of their demands met anyway".

[MGuy]

The big brain thing you started combating me on is the idea that any interaction with the government where that government did a bad thing at all, then does a good thing is tantamount to abuse.

Do you think I am saying that doing any bad thing followed by any good thing is always abuse? Like you forget to feed the cat (hungry! Bad!) then you send your mom a birthday card (thoughtful! Good!) and now I think you're an abuser?

Do you understand that has to be something I believe for the argument you have attributed to me to be the argument I am actually making?

Honestly I think you're delusional. I am not surprised that you are behaving this way because you started out thinking that PS was being anything other than dumb and that I was wrong. Then when you have to start wrestling with the points I was actually making and reading what premise I was working from you have 'surprisingly' little to contest. Just numerous posts trying to reframe what you 'really' wanted to say. If you just drop the analogy we would never need to talk about it. I don't care that you goofed up. You are free to leave all that in the past and maybe come to a new understanding of how governments actually interact with citizens/political groups and grow your understanding of politics from there. Or you can stay stuck trying to edit the past to save an image of yourself I simply do not have and have no reason to care about.

[Sashi]

There isn't the same throughline in which every concession is somehow a calculated move to make you unable to commit to a plan of escape or retaliation.

FDR's new deal ... was an expression that that's how far the administration thought they had to go to prevent the USA going the way of Tsarist Russia.

I just want you to read this again and think about how you have refuted yourself. The New Deal wasn't a calculated move to stop the labor movement from making larger gains so the government had time to limit their ability to organize, it was just how far the administration decided it had to go to prevent a communist revolution. One is a calculated move to protect against retaliation and the other is an expression of thought to prevent revolution, completely different!

[MGuy]

That's an impressive display of mental gymnastics.

[Sashi]

Honestly I think you're delusional.

And now we've looped right right back around to to the whole "what do you think abuse is?" question.

There's this right wing argument that every action has to be treated as atomized, explicit, and intentional. Bribery is exclusively "Hey there here is a fat stack of cash to betray your friends" and not "individual tenants maybe only hire arbitration once in their lives while landlords do it every other week, oh also arbitration firms seem to constantly rule in favor of landlords" that's just independent actions in their best interests, what else do you want from them? Ban binding arbitration clauses from from rental agreements? If the tenants wanted that they really should start a billion dollar dollar tenant's rights superpac.

Similarly they will claim that racism/sexism/etc is only expressed through overt intentional acts by one individual against another, like unless someone puts on their racism hat and says "Oh boy! Now I'm off to do a racism to that guy over there!" that their actions can't possibly be racist. The cop who killed Philando Castille was just scared! Police trainings that emphasize shooting first and asking questions later are important safety programs and crime statistics about the relationship between black people and crime are just facts, you want to argue about statistics? So what if those things combine to teach "If any black person is remotely threatening you should immediately shoot them"? Have black people tried being less threatening? That is a racist system/organization/leadership/etc and unless we agree that it's racist and that the people in charge of that system have a responsibility to make it less racist we are not allies.

Only very rarely is intimate partner violence actually just someone putting on their abuser hat and taking actions with the express purpose of abusing their partner. They like to drink, they're tired and hungry when they get home, if you would just have dinner ready when you get home they wouldn't have to hit you. Also talk is cheap but actions are hard, so it's actually easy for someone to say "with your help I know I can change" and mean it while also not taking any steps to change, then when they don't change they blame their partner for not helping enough. That's abuse! But sure, DNC representatives never blame their political losses on progressives failing to support "just a republican with a pride pin" Democrats after actively sabotaging the primary runs of progressive candidates with actual popular support. That's not a thing that happens.

And that's before we get to the fact that Biden probably does have regular meetings with "labor advisors" where they literally put on their strikebreaker hats and have discussions about the minimum amount of support they need to give while actually cutting labor off at the knees. "I'm sorry sir, but it might take two tweets and some fist bumps the UAW picket line before CNN can start calling you the most progressive labor president in modern history."

[MGuy]

You keep looping to this. I've explained it to you multiple times now. Read one of those.

[deaddmwalking]

Like mguy said, an abusive interpersonal relationship is not a good analogy for the government doing bad things on one day and doing good things on a different day. There isn't the same throughline in which every concession is somehow a calculated move to make you unable to commit to a plan of escape or retaliation.

This is basically 100% false. The government is absolutely providing benefits that are designed to encourage you not to upend the system of existing rule through violent revolution or complete non-participation (or fleeing to a different country!).

With so many competing interests, it can seem a little haphazard - maybe even schizophrenic!

The 'throughline' is that a whole bunch of marginalized groups threatened to burn the whole thing down and concessions were granted to keep that from happening. That starts with extending the vote to non-propertied men, women, the Civil Rights movement, etc. It's not just voting, either. Rules that enforced economic disenfranchisement based on discrimination have been systematically dismantled. It's not a completed project by any means, but if each group sees enough progress to commit to working WITHIN the system rather than open revolt, that's basically what you describe as an abusive relationship.

What makes comparing to a lover a bad idea is that you were literally born into the system. In that fathers are often abusive figures with outsized power in a familial relationship, comparing the government to an abusive father isn't a complete stretch...

Now, even abusive parents often want (at least on some level) for their children to succeed and/or be happy - they just are often bad at consistently working toward that end. Lots of abuse victims talk about 'the good dad' and 'the bad dad' - the abuser might come out after too many drinks, and they often blame themselves - they LIKE the 'good version' and feel like it's their fault that the 'bad version' comes out, but that's related to the victim mentality. The government is going to do what the government is going to do, and sometimes that's from a real concern for the welfare of the people (idealistic) and sometimes that's entirely for motivated-self-interest-personal-gain. And sometimes it's to take a little pressure out of the system so the 1% don't get eaten.

[Kaelik]

Cool how one random propaganda rag made up a lie about beheaded babies and then the President of United States lied on National TV about how he totally saw the beheaded babies and it definitely happened.

[MGuy]

dead DM unironically still on that dead topic basically describing all governments as inherently abusive. All governments need to make concessions to their populous. The through line for those decisions are not the same. It is a de facto function of the government. Please stop being stupid.

Anti-Palestinian propaganda seems to be running rampant. I heard about the baby beheading thing only after the walk back started (I've been trying to avoid most of the inevitable dumb pro genocide propaganda that's been filling my media feeds). The fact that I heard of that specifically being walked back I'm guessing means that it spread like wildfire. Even without that though Biden is still going with the whole "Israel has a right to defend itself" thing even though that would beg the question of if Palestine (the one currently being occupied by Israel) has that same right. "Nothing", he says, excuses the barbaric acts of Hamas while Israel is doing its best to kill as many civilians as it can and has been since before I was born.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Mad crackdowns on pro palastinian protests in the west are being pretty damn extra right now.

Our media have been increasingly hawkish and imperliast since the post iraq crackdowns on dissent but that even our ostensibly left of center governments here in Australia are trying to criminilize these protests is entirely shocking considering actual australian community opinions on israel past and still present.

It is not however sadly shocking to see our highest level of crumbling ostensibly center right party calling for protesters to be deported. It IS a bit weird for our media to quote suport from the president of the zionist council for that position as if that was somehow a respectable title to consult on the issue.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Considering what israel is gearing up to do next and how unpopular they already are with the voters i cant imagine what the political class thinks they are going to be looking like in about a week and how they plan to distance themselves when it turns out theyve been openly giving unconditional support for what is likely going to be a pretty obvious historic attrocity