this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
573 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1917 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)
  • Leaning too heavily into Israel and siding with genocide.

  • Leaning too heavily against, and being accused of being pro-Hamas.

So the choices are siding with genocide, and merely being accused of being pro-Hamas?

Seems like a clear choice, since accusations of being pro-Hamas get flung around for merely wanting to genocide Palestinians just more slowly.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The caveat being missed here is that aid to Israel is also contingent on their defense. If the long-time precedent for aid to Israel is withdrawn and more Jews die, how do you think that is going to bode for the votes of — let me check — 7.6 million Jewish Americans? Trump gets in, and then what? Biden fails the purity test and everyone critical of Biden pats themselves on the backs as Trump steamrolls Palestinians not just indirectly but directly?

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Vote for genocide, because if you don’t there’s gonna be more genocide. Y’all doing backflips to cover your violent beliefs.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, that's a completely accurate and fair description of the choice at hand and totally 100% not an obvious straw-man fallacy, leaving aside the cute little purity pyrrhic victory you're setting yourself up for.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s very easy for me to be against genocide. Seems hard for you. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm completely for being against genocide!

I'm just forward-thinking and very much against it for the next 4 years, let alone next 8 months. Some people see a few more chess-moves ahead than others, I guess. Seems hard for you.

[–] frostmore@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago

actually,there wouldn't be anymore genocide had the 2 state solution been accepted.

i mean to hamas, peace is shit but death is an honor.