this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
604 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2999 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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChillPenguin@lemmy.world 94 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Biden, what the fuck are you doing!? Can you do the right thing when it comes to genocide, please? Just hand the election over to trump on a silver platter. How hard is it to... not support genocide? Wtf

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 33 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The Democrat's strategy to appeal to their base really seems to be, "Look, we're not as bad at the other guys." And they really aren't realizing that that isn't enough, because it's not just about Israel/Palestine anymore. I really don't think the people who are also repeating this party line (including the ones on Lemmy) are realizing how out of touch this sentiment is especially the younger Millennials/Gen Z.

I've seen my friends get attacked, arrested, and get criminal records from the university encampments and protests, and nothing was done to protect them. In their eyes, Trump would never protect them, but neither did Biden or any other Democrat in power. How can they be trusted to protect the people in the future? Seen from this lens, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there might be people out there who find voting for Biden unpalatable.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I've been saying for a long time that Democrats basically sell themselves on the idea that you should be afraid that the Republican might win, and vote for them to prevent that. Sometimes they get something done, often only after compromising heavily, but for the most part that's not the message they're selling on.

To put it another way, if someone asks you why they should vote Dem instead of third party, the answer isn't about how great the Dems are and why they deserve your vote it's about why you should be scared that the GOP might win. It didn't work in 2016 because most didn't actually think Trump might win and it did in 2020 because they knew he could.

It might work this time (I'd give it better than even odds, even given the Israel/Gaza stuff is going to hurt Biden some), but eventually it won't and when it fails and we get another GOP president the Dems won't win another election for a while - either we immediately fall into Christo-fascist super-Nazism and there are no more elections where we could vote for Dems or we don't and Dems are at a loss on what to do for votes.

[–] Marleyinoc@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Our current political structure and the two party system makes even the best politician look feeble.
I'm not sure how to do it but represent.us proposes to fix it in the near future (if we all bought in, I suppose).

One thing that sticks out on that sit is that whether all of voters agree or very few of us agree on a policy there's about a 30% chance of the policy becoming law.

It goes without saying that the rich and corporations benefit from the current system. It will be tough to change. And makes our system pretty pathetic in practice.

[–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's one of the first modern democracies and as a result, I think needs a major update. It's way too hard to get things done, filibustering is too easy, money has an outsized influence on politicians and elections due to lobbying, there's no real way to recall certain powerful leaders (from the President to Congressmen to judges), lifetime appointments were an interesting idea but terrible in practice, and all the compromises made for slave states, including the Senate and electoral college, need to go. When are the devs going to put out a new patch?

Oh, and gerrymandering needs to be stopped. Almost forgot that one.

[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Democrats basically sell themselves on the idea that you should be afraid that the Republican might win, and vote for them to prevent that.

Pathetically, that’s what Republicans said for the 4 years Trump was in office. “Please overlook his faults, a Democrat would be worse!”

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 11 points 5 months ago

Mother should I trust the government?

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 5 months ago

If nobody is going to protect you, maybe pick the one who's not promising to deport you.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You know when the ML’s say “scratch a liberal and …,” it’s that. That’s what you are seeing. Liberals will always defer to fascism in support of corporate interests.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

What do ML's say about Khmer Rouge and Xinjiang?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Here’s some cream for that itch.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What do ML's say about the Khmer Rouge? Haven't seen discussion of it myself, maybe you can provide me with a link?

[–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 3 points 5 months ago

Generally they say that it was Vietnam, a socialist/communist country, that went in to stop the Khmer Rouge, which is true.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago
[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you pressure them long enough they admit they consider them justified genocides

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Wow, really? I certainly wouldn't want to hang around people who consider the Khmer Rouge's genocide to be justified, maybe I made an account on the wrong instance. I mean, assuming that actually happened.

In fact, I promise I will not only delete my account right now, but also never post on the fediverse again if you can provide a link to what you just claimed regarding the Khmer Rouge. Should be easy, right?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Providing a link is easy. Providing something you'd yourself strictly agree with is harder. Providing a link that the opponent won't discard if they want to discard it is possible, but unlikely. I've reached that last point with ML's for a few times.

I mean, assuming that actually happened.

That's just what fascists say.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Providing something you’d yourself strictly agree with is harder. Providing a link that the opponent won’t discard if they want to discard it is possible, but unlikely

No idea what you're talking about. Have you, or have you not, seen an ML call the Cambodian genocide "justified?" There's nothing for me to "strictly agree with" or "discard," if you've seen someone say that, then all you have to do is show me, and there's no room for disagreement.

I’ve reached that last point with ML’s for a few times.

Great, where's the link?

That’s just what fascists say.

Fascists question whether ML's call the Cambodian genocide justified? Wtf are you talking about?

Oh, I get it. Now that you've been caught in a lie, you're trying to pretend that I was asking for proof of the genocide itself, as opposed to what I actually asked for, which is proof of an ML calling it "justified." Nice bit of weaseling.

Let's be absolutely clear - the Cambodian genocide happened and was not justified, and @nonailsleft@lemm.ee and @rottingleaf@lemmy.zip are blatantly lying and making things up by claiming to have seen MLs call it justified.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Have you, or have you not, seen an ML call the Cambodian genocide “justified?”

Yes, after calling it "putting unfavorable elements\burgeoisie\vermin to the wall" or something like that.

Just like I have seen the same with Stalin's repressions in USSR.

Great, where’s the link?

I don't keep links for things I don't need.

Do you keep links of your conversations on the Web?

Oh, I get it. Now that you’ve been caught in a lie, you’re trying to pretend that I was asking for proof of the genocide itself, as opposed to what I actually asked for, which is proof of an ML calling it “justified.” Nice bit of weaseling.

Weaseling is what you are doing in this quote. I openly say that I don't respect you and thus don't bother following your turns.

are blatantly lying and making things up by claiming to have seen MLs call it justified.

Almost everybody has seen MLs call it justified, it takes only one case. Maybe you are bad with math and probabilities.

You could argue about this being commonplace or not, but since you are accusing others of lying in the same comment you are asking for proof in, I think everybody reading this has a measure of you.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t keep links for things I don’t need.

This website has a search function. Searching "Khmer Rouge Justified" returns precisely 5 comments, none of which were claiming it was justified or responding to someone claiming it was justified. "Khmer Rouge Wall" likewise turned up nothing of note. Liar.

Almost everybody has seen MLs call it justified, it takes only one case.

Great! Anyone is welcome to chime in and provide evidence. Where is it? Liar.

accusing others of lying in the same comment you are asking for proof in,

That... that's not at all contradictory lmao. Liar.

I think everybody reading this has a measure of you.

Given your comments about how drowning puppies is justified, which everyone's definitely seen but which I have precisely zero evidence of, I think you're the one everyone has a measure of.

How could you say that?

Puppies? Really? Wow.

Ofc, I won't provide evidence, because as you're a puppy murderer, I don't respect you and won't play by your terms. Liar.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This website has a search function.

Now think further. You are so fucking close to the answer. This website.

Also why waste time looking for something? I'll still be right, it'll only affect what you think.

Ofc, I won’t provide evidence, because as you’re a puppy murderer, I don’t respect you and won’t play by your terms.

Well, because I don't respect you, I don't care. So dunno what was this supposed to tell me. That you are running around asking from people evidence of what they've seen a few months ago and they won't? That's expected.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Something a liar always says first

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago
[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I don't want to be responsible for you leaving the Fediverse

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

Liberals and making shit up to punch left, name a more iconic duo.

Y'all never have the receipts for anything you say. Bunch of messy little drama queens.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Wtf did you think Biden is? Dark Brandon?

It's his job to do US policy - ie, enabling Israel's genocide, just like all the other mass-murder US policy is responsible for.

He is facing a lot of resistance amongst his electorate for doing his job - therefore he will be handing over to a regime that can perform this sacrosanct aspect of US policy without meeting any resistance from it's electorate.

It's "liberal democracy" working the way it's supposed to in all it's pseudo-democratic glory.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Historically he never does the right thing when it comes to religious motivations.

[–] match@pawb.social 5 points 5 months ago

At least take some kind of useful stance on fucking anything.