World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
You take the big seat and you have to play cards with the hand you are dealt. The buck stops there.
Biden is the president. Not the House, not the Senate, not Trump. What you are saying when you make your point is that the Republicans are actually in control of the presidency and that Biden doesn't bear responsibility for the outcomes of his leadership (or lack there of).
Either the buck stops with the President or it doesn't. Excusing Biden's inability to lead isn't an acceptable answer. That's the job of leadership. To change minds, especially those who don't agree with them. Blaming Republicans gives Biden cover for his lack of leadership, and the material fact that he isn't able to drive a narrative, or to whip congress or the American people or international leadership towards an end. That's the job of the president, and the buck stops with them. It doesn't pass to any one else. The buck stops at the desk in the oval office.
So the question I would put back to you, is does the buck stop with the President or not?
For reference, here is the wiki on the phrase. You might read it for some consideration and context.
Yes, I know what the phrase means and the history of it.
That doesn't mean that Biden is a dictator. He can't just say, "fuck you, congress. We're sending aid to Ukraine."
That's simply not how things work in the U.S. government.
Just because a racist, genocidal shitbag like Harry S. Truman said a phrase doesn't make it true.
You know what buck didn't stop with Truman? Acknowledging the lack of civil rights of millions of American citizens and acknowledging his culpability in the nuclear annihilation of two Japanese cities, beginning a nuclear arms race that has put humanity at the risk of destruction multiple times since.
So maybe he was a hypocritical asshole and you shouldn't look to him for things presidents should be able to do.
I don't think you actually understand the phrase or appreciate its significance in terms of what it means for leadership. Why don't you actually address the primacy of the point that I made?
Do you consider the President responsible for the outcomes of their tenure or not?
You seem insistent in an interpretation that doesn't leave Biden culpable for the outcomes of his time as President. But that's not how leadership works. The buck stops with you when you are in the big seat. Whether you are passing the buck in terms of the outcomes of this four years from Biden to congress, or Biden to the Supreme Court, or Biden to the American people, or Biden to Russia, that's just not how the world works. A Republican congress wont be voted out of office because they stymied Biden's efforts: they'll be rewarded for it. Its Biden's job to break through these kinds of issues; that's the role of a President.
Making excuses for Biden, repeatedly, incessantly, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately this election coming up is a referendum on his time in leadership and what he has to show for it. Biden understand what the phrase means when he said "The Buck stops with me on Afghanistan", maybe you should take the time to develop that understanding as well.
If the buck stops with Biden on Afghanistan (his words, not ours), does it not also stop with him on Ukraine?
When congress and the judiciary is working against them? Not.
Are you going to blame Biden for the conservative majority on the Supreme court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson as well?
So the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution is not a thing and Biden has the unilateral power to do whatever he likes. Gotcha.
Do me a favor and google "Anita Hill". Then google what the chair of the senate judiciary does
So Biden confirmed Clarence Thomas because he knew that decades later, he would be president and the president before him would confirm three ultra-conservative justices so that he could avoid culpability when they overthrew Roe v. Wade? Is that what you're claiming?
Im claiming that Biden spent decades in the senate enabling the radical right's rise to power. Some of that was from incompetence, some was from anti-Black and anti-arab racism. Some of it was because the neoliberal policies he supports aren't that different from what 'fiscal conservatives' want.
Biden has had a hand in most of the disastrous policies of the last 30 years - from putting sexist pieces of shit in SCOTUS and drastically expanding the prison population, to invading Iraq and drastically expanding the surveillance state.
Weird that you're blaming Biden for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and not the presidents who appointed the justices who overturned it...
Of course Reagan and the Bushes deserve a lot the blame. But none of them are currently president, and Biden built his career on bipartisanship - even more than his democratic peers. He was there at every step that set the stage for Trump's appointments that were the final nails in the coffin
And now I know you're dishonest by taking that quote out of context:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/11/joe-biden-profile
A simple Google search showed me the context. If you're going to be dishonest, do it better.
The context does not make it any better. He is stating his sincerely held belief as a conservative Catholic. He is stating his belief that had guided his policymaking for decades. It's why he was blindsided by the Dobbs decision. Yes, he supports access to abortion, but as the quote shows, it's always been more about realpolitik than a sincere belief in the right to abortion
Sure, it doesn't make it any better... if you ignore the “Pass Roe v. Wade as the law of the land" part. He's saying that abortion should be legal even if he personally isn't in favor of it.
Why does he personally have to be in favor of it? Why do his personal feelings matter more than what he thinks should be legal?
His personal feelings help explain the decisions he made over the years, such as deciding that Anita Hill was a liar
What part of him saying abortion needs to be legal are you missing here?
Also, what do his personal feelings on abortion have to do with Anita Hill?
You're not making any sense.
I get that you don't like Biden. That's fine. I don't like him much either. But that's not a reason to be irrational and take quotes out of context.
All that's clear from your response is that you don't appreciate the role of leadership and how it works.
Leadership doesn't get to pass on responsibility. It doesn't matter if its a conservative SC or you don't have congress in your favor. The deck being stacked against you doesn't mean you get a pass. What it means is you have to come up with a different way of getting the job done. You have to be clever and strategic and get around obstacles. Every leader has to deal with these things, the job of leadership is to figure out ways to overcome these things. A leader who passes the buck on the responsibility for the outcomes of their tenure is no leader at all. By deferring responsibility, you are making the point that Biden is a weak leader incapable of overcoming adversity. If that's the case, why should any one vote for them?
You should meditate on that phrase and look at it in historical context. Your desire that Biden not be considered responsible for his tenure is just.. its not how the world works. Defending Biden's weakness isn't having the effect you think it should, rather, it highlights how ineffectual he's been as President and that he may not really be qualified for the role.
An edit because I did want to respond to this:
Yes absolutely. We should blame Biden, and the Democrats writ large for both the conservative Supreme court and the fact that Dobbs v. Jackson was even allowed to be on the table. I don't know if you remember, but Biden was vice president in recent history. That's an incredibly powerful position. He was also a Senator, and the Democrats held a majority in congress for enough time to get a national right to an abortion into congress, but they decided it wasn't a priority. Democrats are as to blame for the erosion of abortion rights in this country as the conservatives advocating for a christian theocracy. These guys aren't marvel heroes or sports stars. You don't need to cheer them on, you need to hold them responsible. They're employees who've failed to take their jobs seriously and get the priorities of their voters into law. If anything, Democrats are more responsible for the current state of abortion rights in this country because they chose to not make them a priority.
People want the government to operate without opposition. Almost like in a... one-party state?
Like Russia, with its de-facto one-party state.
At what point did pro-choice Democrats hold that majority?
At what point could any of the previous Democratic presidents in the last 30 years have gotten a Supreme Court majority?
I gave you the context. The context was that it was said by a president who committed genocide and sat on his ass when it came to most civil rights issues.
Weird that I brought those two things up and you don't seem to believe the buck stopped with him on them.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Like it or not, Biden is going to be held accountable for the outcomes of his time in office. You don't seem to think they should be held accountable to that standard, but your opinion on this is basically irrelevant, because they will be. Its why they are losing this election and defending them in the way that you are is setting them up for failure. You seem to view the Democrats as victims of circumstance, but that if that's the case, then why should any one vote for them?
When you are a leader the buck stops with you. The phrase is over 200 years old and has been used in many contexts to describe the finality of responsibility, and how it inevitably lands on the shoulders of a figurehead like a President. You obviously have no appreciation for its significance or how leadership is ultimately responsible for the outcomes of their tenure. Your defense of the indefensible highlights how weak Joe Biden has been as a leader and ultimately weakens any argument for why he should be President again. Blaming Republicans or the SC or anything but Joe Biden for the outcomes of Joe Biden's presidency is passing the on responsibility of leadership, and in spite of your desire that it be some other way, it just isn't so.
What he will be held accountable for and what he is able to achieve are two different things.
And I notice you didn't answer my question of when the Democrats had a pro-choice majority.
Hes not going to be President is whats going to happen.
Okay, that still doesn't change the fact that he can't achieve what he can't achieve. He isn't a dictator and he doesn't have magic powers. If that will cost him the election, that really can't be helped. You might as well blame his inability to time travel.
Why are you evading my question?
You are obtuse and not worth the time of answering. You fail to understand real politic and misunderstand the functional role of a president. You live in a fantasy of how you wish things were instead of how they are. I'm ignoring the attempts you make to sideline the primary thrust of this conversation, which is : Is the President responsible for the outcomes of their tenure? I'm not interested in some non-sequitur sidebar conversation you seem interested in having, because you are barely worth my time as it is. We're going to stay focused.
Biden is responsible for his failures and he'll be held accountable for them. Pretending that the buck doesn't stop with the president doesn't change the fact that ultimately, a president is responsible for the outcomes of government during their tenure. That's how the world works, in-spite of your desire to live in a fantasy that is otherwise. Because of this, defending Biden's poor record on outcomes becomes an unconvincing argument on why to support him, and highlights his weakness, broadly, as a leader. Engaging in apologetics does more to damage Biden's chances than it does to support them. We need Biden to win or we're beyond fucked, but he has to actually do better. It can't be in the form of soundbytes or apologetics from the media or his online sycophants.
Again, not always.
I have answered your question twice. I have asked you twice to answer mine. Will you?
And you are 100% delusional about that answer. You are simply wrong.
A president or any other leader is always responsible for the outcomes of their tenure. Always and immutably. It doesn't matter why the failure happened. It doesn't matter if they were stymied or an asteroid hits or a pandemic occurs. The buck stops there.
You can feign ignorance of that or pretend its some other way, but it doesn't change anything.
The pandemic happened under Trump and he was ultimately held accountable for that. In spite of his shockingly poor ability to mange the state through the pandemic he still barely lost. If not for the randomness of a global pandemic, and his utterly bungled response, he'd probably still be President now.
Biden is accountable for the US's failure to support Ukraine. Biden is responsible for the US enabling of a genocide in Israel. Biden is also responsible for how peoples lives have improved or failed to improve post covid. If he can get some loan forgiveness to people on student loans, he'll be responsible for that too.
Deferring responsibility isn't just a bad look, its a direct example of one being disqualified for the role they are seeking. When you argue that someone else is responsible for Biden failure to get things done, you are arguing that Biden is not qualified for the office.
Why do you keep evading my question? Are you unable to answer?
I'm not interested in a sidebar. I'm only interested in discussing the main point of this conversation.
You aren't interested in discussing something you brought up? That sounds like you know the answer is inconvenient.
You sound like a genocidal apologist whose arguments are weakening Biden's chances of winning the general election, who also has no conception of leadership or responsibility, stuck in a boot-loop unable to understand why they keep voting correctly but the world continues to fall apart around them, unable to understand how their apologetic's are actually an argument in favor of the other guy.
I think you can do better, and I hope you choose to.
Insulting me will not answer the inconvenient question.
There is no inconvenient question. Just an apologist spinning in circles wondering why their candidate is losing the general election.
This is the second time you have insulted me. I don't think I should have to remind you of the civility rule in the sidebar. I do moderate discussions I am involved in, but I would remind you to be civil.
If you consider being an apologist insulting, you should maybe reconsider your approach to rhetoric, since this is the rhetorical approach you are using. Its a rhetorical approach that goes back to Socrates. I'm sorry for your ignorance but I can't help that beyond providing you with resources, as I've tried to do in this conversation. Only you can help your own ignorance. Since you don't understand apologetics or what it means to be an apologist, here is a primer. You should read it. It can help you improve your approach to rhetoric.
Please do describe a scenario where being called a genocide apologist is not an insult.
I also sincerely doubt you would say that so someone you were in the same room with.
The entire structure of your argument(s) around why we have to support Biden in-spite of his flaws is series of apologist arguments. The principal of supporting something in-spite of its flaws is the fundamental basis of apologetics. Its the basis of your entire argument, that Biden is a flawed candidate, but in-spite of this we need to support him, because the alternative is far worse. And in principal I agree with the sentiment, however, the actual act of engaging in apologetic has the opposite effect. The apologetics being used to argue in favor of Biden have made him a weaker candidate, not a stronger one. Defending the indefensible just makes you look like a cheerleader for something deeply wrong, which is what I'm calling you out for. Continuing to engage in apologetics on behalf of Biden is weakening him as a candidate, and I don't want him to lose this election. Biden is accountable for his shoddy record over the previous four years. The buck stops with him.
Holding him accountable in media and conversation forces him to respond and thereby makes him a stronger candidate, because instead of obscuring your weakness, you have to address them. Hiding weakness doesn't stop it from existing. Blaming congress or the SC while Biden sits at the helm just makes him look less qualified to do the job. Alternatively, we can be critical of Biden and force him to move on policy positions, to stronger, more defensible positions. In this way we can force him to be a better candidate going into the general election.
Oh I have, and I assure you, its insufferable (if you couldn't figure that out). I'll call you out as coward, or a apologist, or racist, whatever I need to say. I have little interest in the polities of society if they are used to defend the indefensible. The buck stops with me, and I am accountable for the way I conduct myself, for better or for worse. There are tables I'm not invited back to because of this, and I do not mind. Its a badge of honor to not be invited back (imo) to a polite table with fascists and their apologists. I do not give apologists a pass, be them racist, bigots, fascists, or otherwise.
Please tell me about the time you called someone a genocide apologist to their face, because I don't believe you.
In fact, I don't believe you've called people any of the other things to their face either, unless you don't have any teeth left.
It's not about politeness, it's about not being stupid enough to provoke someone into physically assaulting you. And I don't believe you're that stupid.
But please, prove me wrong. Tell me about the time you called me a genocide apologist to their face.
I'm going to make a prediction: Like everything else I've asked of you, you'll ignore my request and give me a rude and insulting lecture instead.
(Don't forget to downtvote this post so I'll learn my lesson.)
It was at a pau hana a couple weeks ago. I called out a neighbor on this. I also called them a coward when the didn't want to share some of their more 'problematic' opinions on immigrants, gay and trans rights, and abortion. Beyond the scope of this conversation, but if you have an opinion you aren't willing to share publicly because its that 'problematic', then you are a coward. You don't get to hide behind civility to shroud your racism or bigotry, at least not around me.
And I'm not at all afraid of physical confrontation. I've stood face to face against proud boys and white nationalists from Portland to dc. I've taken the punches and drank the tear gas. No mind. We have to stand up against bigotry and hatred where ever we find it, and with physical confrontation if need be.
A couple of weeks ago. Convenient.
Sure. You travel the country from Oregon to the nation's capital fighting fascists wherever you go, and now you're in Hawaii, the center of the fascist machine, fighting the good fight by supposedly insulting your neighbor.
Definitely very believable. You're super tough.
By the way, you forgot to downvote my previous post. How will I know I'm a bad person if you don't downvote me?
You asked a question and I answered you. Not sure what else you want. Its not clear any answer would be acceptable to you but there it is.
You done?
Weird that the one question you answered was the one where you could brag about how big and tough you were and not the one which would have clearly shown that a president is not all-powerful based on your own example.
Its weird that you don't really have an answer for your approach on apologetics or its consequences.
I might have an answer for my approach on apologetics or its consequences, but you'd have to answer my question about congress and you refuse to do that.
I don't think you do. I think you just talk and spin wheels. I don't think you've done the introspection necessary to have an answer.
There's an easy way for you to find out.
I mean is there? You haven't been arguing in good faith, so I don't have confidence in your ability to deliver.
Yep. There is. I told you exactly what too. I guess you didn't read that post (weird since it was very short), so I'll paste it again: