this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
544 points (97.1% liked)

World News

40512 readers
2907 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump stated that Palestinians displaced by Israel’s military actions would not have a right to return to Gaza under his plan.

Instead, he proposed resettling them in Egypt and Jordan, despite both nations rejecting the idea.

Trump suggested creating permanent refugee communities funded by the U.S., calling Gaza a "real estate development for the future."

His proposal has drawn condemnation from Arab nations and legal experts, with the UN warning it could constitute ethnic cleansing and violate international law.

Israel’s far-right settlers welcomed the plan.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works -4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I hope you look forward to voting for Ted Cruz, the Democratic candidate for president in 2028. After all, he'll in theory be a little better than Trump running for his third term, so logically it's our duty to support Mr. Cruz for president. The only criteria any Democrat is allowed to use is whether the Democratic candidate is a tiny bit better than the Republican.

If you refuse to vote for President Cruz, you will be fully morally responsible for any of Trump's actions in his third term. After all, there's no magical third candidate with a prospect of winning.

This is the moral hazard of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd. If the Democratic base is already locked in no matter what, then there's no need for the party to work to actually reflect Democratic values. The people running the party only care about winning for the sake of winning. They don't actually believe in anything; they're just shameless power chasers. And if the Dem base will vote for literally anyone the Dems nominate, then Dems might as well just nominate Ted Cruz, Liz Cheney, or some other Republican. What better way to appeal to suburban Republican voters than by nominating an actual Republican?

The truth is that in order for the Democratic Party to actually mean anything, there have to be some people on the left side of the spectrum willing to walk away if the party moves too far to the right. If there's no consequence to drifting to the right, the party will just become a duplicate of the Republican Party. Eventually we'll just end up with an election between the KKK candidate and the skinhead candidate. That would literally be the outcome if every Democratic voter blindly "voted blue no matter who."

Obviously, there's the argument of voting to defend democracy. But the sad truth is that centrist dems have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are actually incapable of defending democracy. You can't run on something that you've proven yourself utterly incapable of doing. The party that appointed Merrick Garland could not credibly argue that they were going to vigorously defend democracy. Even now, their pathetic response to Trump's lawlessness shows that they are incapable of fighting for democracy.

[–] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I mean I agree with some of your points I just would have waited until trump was dead of old age before trying to do a protest vote but hey different strokes for different folks I guess. at least we wont have to talk about gaza anymore since it will be fucking gone haha 👍

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You keep saying:

at least we wont have to talk about gaza anymore since it will be fucking gone haha 👍

Like Trumps plan is different from Bidens.

But it isn't. Biden literally tried to get Egypt to accept a giant tent city refuge camp in the Sinai desert. You know, like Gaza originally was in the first place?

So, laughing at the people you incorrectly blame for Trumps election and pointing at this as a consequence is just stupid. This was literally Bidens plan as well.

[–] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 6 points 13 hours ago

I don't blame y'all for shit dawg this is all on the fucking DNC, and I ain't laughing at you im laughing as cope.

But to act like it would have been exactly the same under Biden is a fucking joke, you know trump is gunna dial the spite and cruelty to 11.