A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.
Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.
The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel’s assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.
The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons “inconsistent” with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.
Nice rage quit kiddo.
Like I said, you are more than welcome to come up with alternatives. You can come back when you’ve reconsidered your position. Enjoy the ride home.
Rage quit? Dude… you’re the one refusing to answer a simple question. And then trying to pretend you’re on some more high ground?
You’re not.
If you don’t have an answer, then you have no reason to be telling people who to vote for, or not to vote at all. Simple as that. Well, you do have that right-
But no one in their right mind should take you seriously.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Oh I am fully aware. I’m pretty sure I’m familiar with their sock puppet accounts as well. And if not, they’re so interchangeable that they may as well be the same person.
But where you see trolls being fed, I see it as them being called out. And the more it happens, the more we can keep them from spreading their misinformation.
Since I guess you missed your bus, here is a little light reading for you:
https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=64978
My argument: President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He’s unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.
In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden’s campaign performance and polling.
By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden’s campaign effectiveness and polling issues.
You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.
The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.
Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.
So after that wall of nonsense, you STILL refuse to answer the question.
Who would you suggest instead of Biden? I will keep asking you this until you provide a name, or admit you have no answer.
Oh, and while you’re answering things, how about you explain to me what bus you think I missed?
How about Gretchen Whitmer?
Try again with someone currently running. And no, she still stands no chance.
… says the guy that’s famous for moving goalposts.
Ad hominem. The question has been answered.
This would be funny if you weren’t so obtuse.
And its sad, because like, its clear you are very scared. But insisting on a failed strategy is actually making things worse. You aren’t helping the cause of defeating Trump by trying to collapse criticism of Biden. We need to be clear eyed about Biden’s prospects, which aren’t great. Instead you are just jerking off to your own denialism and engaging in what-about-ism.
Biden can’t win, not with the current trends we’re seeing in polling.
So now I’m obtuse and scared and… jerking off? Why the vulgarities?
You still haven’t answered the questions:
Who would you suggest instead of Biden? And what bus did I miss?
Come on man. You can accuse me of being scared when you can’t answer a simple question? Seems it would be an easy task for someone as brave as you.
Explained: https://lemmy.world/comment/10340530
Still no answer? And now some Hexbear style edgelord memes from you and your sockpuppet?
How fun!
President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He’s unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.
In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden’s campaign performance and polling.
By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden’s campaign effectiveness and polling issues.
You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.
The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.
Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.