politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, lefties just hate how Shapiro called Netanyahu “a dangerous and destructive force” and “one of the worst leaders of all time.”
This is all just attacks from the people who can't attack Biden anymore but know they'd look bad saying Kamala isn't left enough. They prop us Walz because they know he won't get picked, even though he's been just as bad as Shapiro on Gaza. Shapiro has been explicit when he's said Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace, something Walz has not said afaik.
Make no mistake: there's a reason the person who posted this is known for spamming anti-Biden content.
No other potential nominee has been as bad as Shapiro on Gaza. There's a specific complaint about how he's worse right there in the article.
When Biden dropped out, I asked r2o in a number of their threads if they were going to cool it with the source-agnostic concern troll spamming. Never got an answer. It was pretty obvious where this was going.
"anything critical of Democrats is trolling!"
Yeah, no. I even said I'd still post critical news articles as well as positive news about Biden/Harris/Dems.
They're lost.
You were fine until the end, Biden is not an active participant in Genocide. Removed for misinformation.
You're wrong. He's been providing weapons and funding used to commit the genocide, sometimes even doing so without Congress.
To claim that providing such invaluable resources via his own decisions isn't participation is naive at best, disingenously excusing the crucial US role as inconsequential at worst.
No, he's providing weapons and funding for the defense of Israel.
Israel is misappropriating that support for the Genocide.
Biden is not directly doing anything related to the Genocide, that's all on Bibi.
If I give someone $20 for lunch and they blow it on drugs instead, I'm not actively supporting their drug habit.
Disingenuous it is.
At this point, he can't have a shadow of a doubt what they're using it for.
If you're giving some $20 knowing full well that they're going to use them for drugs, you're not giving them lunch money. You're giving them drug money.
Biden is providing weapons that he KNOWS are going to be used to commit genocide (which is in itself illegal according to US and international law btw), including weapons with no defensive purposes such as bombs.
Your "he's just innocently providing for their self defense" excuse is absolutely ridiculous and I very much doubt that you even believe it yourself.
It's not being disingenuous.
Biden has repeatedly stated, correctly, that Israel has the right to defend itself, as any other nation does:
https://youtu.be/Oz1BAOjaTqs
The funding is intended for that defense.
Now, what Israel does with that support after we give it to them? That's on them. We made the good faith donation, they're the one abusing it.
That does not make Biden complicit in Israel's crimes.
when someone deliberately does something violent to innocent people, attacking them *first * and you respond that they have the right to "defend themselves", yes you are complicit.
Israel isn't and has never "defended" itself. It is the instigator of this conflict.
Not on October 7th they weren't. Nobody at that music festival was actively attacking Palestinians. Get that bullshit out of your head right now.
Yes, but that's demonstrably NOT what they're doing and he knows it for a fact.
That's the official Hasbara gaslighting, sure, but it's obviously not the truth.
Not when it's known beforehand. Again: providing weapons that you have reason to suspect MIGHT be used to commit war crimes is illegal according to both US and international law.
In the case of Israel, it's far beyond a reasonable suspicion, it's an absolute CERTAINTY.
No. If it had been in good faith, it would have stopped the moment there was evidence that it was being used for anything else than the stated purpose. That point was DECADES ago and the weapons are still coming.
Again: Biden KNOWS without a shadow of a doubt what they're using them for. He would have to be sundowning as badly as the worst Republican conspiracy theories claim he is to not know. And he isn't.
Yeah, it ABSOLUTELY does. He KNOWS what those weapons are used for and still he keeps sending them. That he's unconvincingly pretending not to isn't a valid excuse and thus doesn't absolve him of his complicity.
What Biden knows is irrelevant. He's providing the support in good faith, Israel is abusing it. Specifically Bibi is abusing it. That is not Biden's fault.
That's not how good faith works. Good faith is when you do something benevolent thinking that your actions aren't going to have negative repercussions.
The fact that he KNOWS that to not be the case means that he is NOT acting in good faith.
Putting a "for self defense only, not genocide" sticker on a bomb that you KNOW without a shadow of a doubt is going to be used to commit genocide does NOT absolve you of your responsibility to not knowingly contribute to the genocide.
Right about the first part, wrong about the second.
While it's of course PRIMARILY the fault of Netanyahu, the fact that Biden knows and still keeps the weapons coming makes him an indispensable accessory to Netanyahu's crimes against humanity.
Without weapons there is no genocide. Most of the weapons come from the US. Ergo, without the US there is at WORST a genocide of a much smaller scale.
noun: good faith
honesty or sincerity of intention.
"the details contained in this brochure have been published in good faith"
Biden believes, legitimately believes, Israel has the right to defend itself and provided honest and sincere support with that intent.
That is NOT the same as actively engaging in genocide.
That's all well and good, but when he knows that they're being used for genocide and STILL sends them, his stated intent doesn't matter since he KNOWS that it's not going to be fulfilled.
To go back to your own analogy about lunch/drug money:
If you give a guy $20 a day for lunch every day and every day you see him spending that money on drugs, how long can you keep watching the originally unintended consequence of your generosity before putting two and two together and realizing that what you're doing is paying for drugs, no matter how much either of you pretends that you're just giving him lunch money?
And this should be the point to end the argument. Well said.
Wrong on both accounts, since the entire world including Biden KNOWS what those weapons are going to be used for beforehand.
He's not sending bombs and missile guiding systems for self defense. He's sending them to be used to commit genocide and he knows it.
This is a clear illustration of how you don’t understand how things work in politics and diplomacy. I suggest you brush up before engaging in discussions where the topic addresses these things.
I understand just fine that the US diplomatic and political stance is that Israel is exempt from all rules.
That doesn't erase the genocide or the US complicity in It though, and if you think it does, YOU are the one who needs to reacquaint yourself with reality outside of the Zionist kayfabe before "engaging in discussions where the topic addresses these things“.
Also, could you possibly be any more arrogantly condescending? Please cut that shit out, lest you appear to suffer from a bad case of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Again, I’m going to ask you to read up on how politics work before engaging any further. I truly believe it is in both of our best interest that you do this.
I know full well how politics work.
Dissent is not ignorance and you're not smart for pretending you know better for credulously believing the deceptive establishment narrative.
Please stop pretending that your "that's just how it is" attitude is anything but defeatism if not outright bootlicking.
To accept the toxic status quo as inevitable does not make you more knowledgeable and trying to gatekeep those who disagree makes you look foolish to put it mildly.
No, you don’t. And that is evident in every one of your arguments on the subject. And not only do you lack the understanding it takes to discuss the topic, you’re seemingly incapable of doing it without insulting people.
This is the last time I will request that you further your education on politics- specifically, the trade agreements and relations between the US, and Israel- and why it would be illegal to completely cut them off.
Please don’t respond before you have educated yourself on these matters.
I’d suggest you start here.
Patently false. Not to mention EXTREMELY condescending.
Says the person falsely accusing me of profound ignorance. If that's not insulting, nothing is.
And this is possibly the last time I reiterate the fact that being ideologically opposed to the corrupt status quo and the jingoistic laws that protect it does NOT equal ignorance about any of it.
Please don't continue being an arrogant blowhard who can't tell the difference between disagreement and ignorance.
I know you think (or pretend to think) that trying to silence me would heighten the discourse, but in reality it's blatant attempted censorship based in authoritarian gaslighting and only serves to narrow the conversation to one where no opinion other than your own is allowed.
With all due respect, which is none, FUCK that!
As for the link you added after I replied, that's straight up apologia from the slavishly pro-establishment and pro-Biden outlet Politico and as such not a good source of information.
Also, it's a "what's happening right now" article that's several months out of date.
Do better or stop trying.
Since you have made it very clear that you have no intention to take this discussion or my advice seriously, I’m going to go ahead and end this here as I’ve no intention to exercise futility with disrespectful people who have no intention to even try to understand things they clearly don’t.
Additionally, I don’t engage in political discussions with people that are easily upset by facts. Especially when they respond with made up bullshit.
Lastly, the link I added was done before you responded, as it was done for your benefit. I tried educating you. You’re FAR too influenced by your own belief that seeing what you want and not what is there is easier than facing the truth.
Do better. Be better.
I take the discussion seriously, but you're not offering advice. You're unjustly accusing me of profound ignorance because I don't agree with your pro-establishment bias.
Damn, are you going for some kind of hypocrisy merit badge? Because repeatedly and falsely accusing me of knowing nothing about something I in fact know intimately and have for decades and then accusing ME of being disrespectful should earn you that badge for sure!
Again with the unearned condescension 🙄
Well MOST people don't engage in political discussion with themselves so..
No, you tried to convert me to your pro-establishment way of thinking against my will. That's not education, it's attempted indoctrination.
You've already earned your merit badge, you can stop with the glaring hypocrisy and projection.
Right back at you. You FEEL that blindly believing the establishment kayfabe makes you more knowledgeable and overall superior.
It actually makes you gullible, narrow minded and, in your case, more condescending than Jeremy Clarkson explaining the importance of torque in racing cars to a woman.
I’m guessing the “I’m going to end this here” part didn’t really make much sense to you. Now I think I understand why you didn’t want to read up on everything you have wrong.
Either way, I’m sure you had a lot of fun writing all that out- but I didn’t read anything it. You’ve proven yourself…. Unnecessary.
Best of luck to ya.
Yeah, I'm not very good at letting others have the last word in general and when they're blatantly lying, I find it much more difficult than otherwise.
I read the article. It was about Biden temporarily pausing part of one weapon shipment several months ago without halting any other before or since. All of which I knew already. None of which I "had wrong".
REALLY laying it on thick there, pal. You sure you're not overcompensating for something?
Like the fact that you're incapable of forming an independent opinion to the point where you have to pretend that it's impossible?
I'd say the same, but that would be disingenuous and unlike you, I don't lie to make myself look better.
I hope your day is as pleasant as your conduct in this conversation has been.
Okay.
Not that I'm agreeing with OP or the "lefties", but if that's why you think they're talking about it you're missing a lot. It's just not that simple, and putting it into terms like that certainly isn't going to get people to think the same way as you.
Again, not trying to start a shit slinging match. I honestly will vote for Kamala either way, because that's who my vote is for.
Preemptively labeling him "Genocide Josh" is no less reductive or divisive. Them putting it in terms like that isn't going to get people to think the same way as them. Yet here we are, with them being given a giant megaphone and the party having to cater to their self-defeating absolutism.
I agree. Which is why Jeff said what they said. But doing what they're doing because they did it first probably won't help either side.
Once again, I am not taking a side or trying to sling shit. It's not going to matter for me either way. I'm still voting for blue no matter who.
I don't love that he volunteered for the IDF, but I can also acknowledge that I'm a different person than I was 20+ years ago.
I'd prefer Kelly, personally.
I have the luxury of not growing up influenced by shitty adults, so maybe it's easy to cast judgement, but his college statement was pretty seriously racist. And it wasn't just quietly racist, but actively sending it in to the opinion section to have it broadcast to everyone at his school. I'm willing to accept that people can grow out of racism, but I'd find it pretty reasonable for the targets of that racism to strongly object to someone who went out of their way to write a racist opinion piece in college. And like, we could just choose someone without that stain.
Whose?
??
Whose college statement are you referring to? Shapiro's, or Kelly's?
Shapiro's.
He did a school project on a Kibutz doing something there. It happened to be facilitated by the IDF but I believe was arranged through his synagogue
Kelly is no better on Gaza policy
I didn't say why I'd prefer Kelly.
Reportedly Kelly is out at this point and it's down to Walz and Shapiro. Source: AP, CBS within the past hour.
And yet......
And yet.
Who was wrong about Walz.
Why do you think you were wrong?
What was I wrong about? Shapiro was the frontrunner.