No, but what it also doesn't sound like is an escalation, it's a continuation. And saying that is apparently hugely controversial to some.
Spite? As far as I heard from them, they saw Biden as genocidal (true) and Trump as being as safer pick
That may have been the case for those who voted Trump specifically. But there were also a lot of people who just didn't vote for either in Dearborn. Jill Stein won 18% of the Dearborn vote; Arab Americans are a little less than 30% of Dearborn residents. Anyway, why are we talking about this again?
No, this is you not understanding what the term is being applied to describe, and still not grasping the argument being made.
Horseshit. You can't comprehend disagreement on any aspect of the discussion, even when the other person categorically condemns the same players as you, so you resort to shit-slinging smears.
Cool. I don't see how this is relevant to any discussion going on.
You wanna break out a calculator real quick and do some math? 365 days in a year times 3 years, times 2000 people a day.
No, you're sitting here trying to deny how close we came to a complete ethnic cleansing so you can try to claim there's an escalation. It only exists if you downplay what the former guy did.
This is yet again not addressing the argument I'm making. I've already told you it's not about whether or not it is technically numerically possible. Why would they plan for something to last for 3 years (and you and I both know it would drag into double or triple that at least) when they have all the resources needed for it to take a tiny fraction of that time? Why bottleneck themselves so drastically? Why then immediately give up?
Lie.
It's impossible to do so since your argument keeps changing. That is not a difference in scope, that is how you would ethnically cleanse the area in 3 years. Your whole argument is self contradictory, because now I have to ask you, what do you think Trump is going to do? He's said that he's going to relocate them. So that'll take 10 years or more, right?
Quit being contradictory.
My argument has been the same from the start, but you've consistently either misrepresented or misunderstood it. To answer: Trump has said he'll relocate them all. It would only take 10+ years if he chose to pointlessly bottleneck it, despite having the ability to open dozens of routes and tens of thousands a day. He won't. There's no reason someone planning what he's planning would bottleneck it so drastically.
2000 a day isn't a 10 year bottleneck. It's a 3 year bottleneck. If there are other bottlenecks, name them. And then say how they would affect Biden and not Trump.
Quick question: have you ever worked in a field dealing with travel or logistics etc? I have. And if I suggested that because the capacity for something is 2k, therefore we can expect 2k every day consistently for 3 years, people would look at me like I'd lost my mind.
They'd affect anyone who implemented a route of that size. Trump's plan will not be centred on a route of that size. If it ever gets off the ground-- which is a big 'if', and I pray to Bast it won't-- it will be magnitudes larger.
If you're not getting 2000 a day, then it's not the bottleneck. Mister logistics should know this. Where's the bottleneck?
(only because Palestinians don't want to leave, which is not a condition that has changed because of Trump)
I would disagree with their assessment of Trump
The bottleneck effect is not solely a result of the optimum maximum capacity at any given time. You been on an escalator before?
Maybe it says they like pancakes. That's an equally useful statement to this argument. If you're looking at me to say they voted for a genocidal candidate, yes. That's why I said it was counterproductive before.
I note you keep using voluntary actions and transactions in a discussion about forced movement. A government can be very adept at operating at capacity when it wants, especially with a gleeful helper. You can't just say arbitrarily that Biden's target can't be met with nothing even remotely approaching logic backing you up. "Trust me bro" doesn't fly here.
Well people got mad when I said he was being disingenuous, so here we are at "trust me bro" vs a calculator.
Yes, because no national evacuations have ever been implemented with infrastructure so small. It's not really my fault that the only examples of comparable scale are small visitor attractions-- you're the one claiming that the US government wouldn't build anything bigger.
And yet would choose to operate at a tiny fraction of its actual operating capacity, for no reason whatsoever?
It could probably be met on the occasional day. No capacity for passage has ever been met every day for 3 years, regardless of demand. A capacity is not a forecast of consistent expectation; it is a maximum that can be accommodated. Even if weekly demand is 7x100, and daily capacity is 100, you will not get 700 through. That's simply not how travel logistics work.
Going back to your escalator example. If you rounded up an entire city, put guns to their backs, and told them to ride the escalator, do you think it'd operate at capacity for an extended time? Because you keep using voluntary examples and citing "consistent expectations". The expectation is that 2.2 million people will use it, and they're all there right at the gateway to use it for the whole 3 years. You can't use nonsense unrelated examples for this. A much more salient example to compare to are concentration camps, which kept operating at capacity so much that they kept building more of them. Absent being able to build more, they'd just have to operate the ones they had constantly, at capacity.
If it's all they thought Egypt would allow, it's what they would do. So the capacity would have been 2000 a day. Not whatever number you arbitrarily pick to be a threat.
