I said this a week ago and got downvoted to hell, but I'll say it again: this issue will fuck him next November
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
-7 points (11.1% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3800 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If so, that’s fucking ridiculous. Jesus fucking Christ democracy will die because Joe Biden didn’t force Israel to stop their genocide and only told them to stop instead????
Fuck this goddamn retarded existence just fucking kill me already Jesus fucking Christ
FUCK THIS GODDAMN PLANET
Tankies aren't humans. They hated voting for Biden the first time but did so because Trump was the literal devil. Now Hassan Piker has riled up his masses of dumbasses to completely turn on what is the best president we had since Obama (I'm only speaking economically, so shut up).
Please vote. No matter what anyone tells you, vote. Get your idiot friends to vote. Remind them of what's at stake.
Tankies aren’t humans.
What a strange moment to make this statement.
Meh I use Tankies as a term for the "far right" of the left.
Might not be the most accurate term but these Israel hating leftists are almost always Tankies. But the rest of the comment is pretty clear and I'm glad you were able to focus on something benign. Typical tankie.
Benign, maybe in an irrelevant way? But certainly not benign by its content though, right?
I just found it to be a strange usage because presumably the criticism being cast against Israel is for their judicious use of force against unarmed civilians, and as far as I know 'tankie' was originally used to describe people in support of the state's judicious use of force against unarmed civilians.
I would have thought the word would have been more appropriately used to describe Zionists in this situation, but I wouldn't pretend to know.
Hamas attacked innocent civilians on the 7th. Didn't see any lefties coming out to denounce any of it
I have a very strong don't blow up kids policy, that doesn't care what religion or political party you subscribe to or even race. If you do blow up kids, we feel strongly that you should just fuck right off and we should do whatever we can to stop those killing kids.
So what did you do to stop the US killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan?
An estimated civilian death toll in the hundreds of thousands, and millions displaced.
What are your plans to prevent or oppose the mass deportation of millions of those Afghan refugees as just announced by Pakistan?
There's just a bit of morbid irony in anyone from the US acting like they are on a high moral horse here when their own country has exported an order of magnitude more harm around the world largely to crickets within the country, particularly in comparison to the opposition to something like the Vietnam war.
The US is still currently active in its bombing and involvement in Syria. Thousands of civilians killed by coalition forces, hundreds of thousands fled the country as a result of the conflict. Have you even done anything about that one?
It's just wild when civilians in the US get riled up by the foreign policy conflict of the week, take their sides typically along partisan lines, and pat themselves on the back for taking their stand. "We'll hold our politicians accountable." Meanwhile the actual joint military and intelligence branches have their hands in a half dozen conflicts around the world and are directly responsible for much greater harm that's just far less publicized in Western media because of press relations forged in the wake of Vietnam, and stories like this don't get picked up past the investigative groups researching them.
The US routinely blows up kids and has a long history of refusing to submit itself to international courts.
But no, Americans don't focus on changing the policy and scope of their own government's actions (the thing they in theory have greater influence over). They just get worked up over the actions of other governments allied with the US - and then either are upset about funding Ukraine if Republican or upset about funding Israel if Democrat. At least this week. I'm sure in a few months we'll have moved on to a new Kony 2012 people are "very upset about and not going to forget about until something is done."
(Seriously, the idea the current events will have any real impact on an election a year from now is laughable.)
I'd even be willing to bet at least 95% of all the Americans complaining about foreign governments bombing things couldn't even point on a map to all the places that their own government has bombed children in just the past decade.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]
The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified.
So you are qualified to discount anyone related to a subject, that you don't have any access to their research or the education to know about it? I certainly don't, so I just listen to what they say and not attack them or who they are related to.
"The terrorists are using schools as shields though!"
Guess you shouldn't use artillery strikes and bombing runs then.
"The terrorists are using schools as shields though!"
"Oh damn that's a genius strategy. Better just give up every military advantage I have and send in my soldiers to be ambushed."
Is it still called an ambush if you know they are there?
Nope, by definition isn't.
Still more dangerous for the IDF and less vengeance-effective than just raining death on thousands of civilians on the off-chance that you might also kill a handful of terrorists that Hamas can easily replace.
Yes, and that touches on the core problem, unequal regard for human lives.
Yeah, to quote Rashida Tlaib from right before they censured her for speaking truth to power:
I can't believe we have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable. We are human beings just like anyone else. Speaking up to save lives no matter faith, no matter ethnicity should not be controversial. The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don't understand is why the cries of Palestinian children sound different to you all.
I love how the headline sounds so negative, and yet looking at the Numbers they could have easily just said "more Democrats approve of his handling of the crisis".
I mean, almost half the members of his own party disagree with him, not the nation as a whole. If this doesn’t go away, it is not good news.
The old adage come to mind that, “The left fall in love, and the right fall in line.” The right will more reliably vote for “their guy”, but I’ve seen so many losses on the left because of disenchantment.
That's part of the problem, though: the left never fell in love with him. He got elected by a small margin in a few key states similar to that of Trump 2016 mainly due to not being Trump rather than any merit of his own.
It might not work a second time since voters have ridiculously short memories and "not the other one" tactics are much less effective for incumbents.
Or they could have been brutally honest and said "more than half of democrats approve of enabling genocide".
And before you say "but Trump and the Republicans are much worse", yes that's obviously true but that's besides the point.
Or they could have been brutally honest and said “more than half of democrats approve of enabling genocide”.
Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like "more than half of democrats think Biden's making the best choice in an all-round shitty situation". None of us approve of enabling genocide.
Some people actually think "pushing Israel to set rules of engagement" is some of the best we're going to get if we can't get the entire world on-board. Nobody wants to invade Israel to stop this (do they), and Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not "destroying Palastine" might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.
I'm a fence-sitter on this issue, but I think the majority that supports Biden's plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with "enabling genocide".
I get that you want us to condemn Israel. And I'm sure it's been considered. I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it won't necessarily save a single Palestinian life.
Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like "more than half of democrats think Biden's making the best choice in an all-round shitty situation". None of us approve of enabling genocide.
That's a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the "best choice" is objectively enabling genocide by unquestioningly supporting the government committing it while punishing those that speak up against it.
Some people actually think "pushing Israel to set rules of engagement" is some of the best we're going to get
It isn't, though. Israel has been setting their own rules the whole time and that's the majority of what caused the whole thing.
Nobody wants to invade Israel
Of course not.
Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not "destroying Palastine" might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.
That's not being done, though. Unless there's consequences such as withholding military (but not humanitarian) aid and possibly targeted sanctions, the apartheid regime is going to continue committing atrocities.
I think the majority that supports Biden's plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with "enabling genocide".
Yes and no: I believe that most of the people who supports his genocide-enabling are under- or misinformed enough to not know that they're indirectly supporting genocide.
I get that you want us to condemn Israel.
Of course. Anything else is being complicit.
And I'm sure it's been considered.
Probably not seriously, no. The neoliberal Dem leadership depend too much on bribes from AIPAC and others like them.
I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it won't necessarily save a single Palestinian life
I guarantee you that no longer getting the financial and political support of the US would force them to be less aggressive, which would save thousands of lives.
That’s a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the “best choice” is objectively enabling genocide
I think objectively doesn't mean what you think it means. But more importantly, even if you're right about there being a better response than Biden's (and you might be; it's a complicated issue), that doesn't mean people who support Biden's position agree that you're right. Which means, NO, objectively, they do not "approve of enabling genocide". Just look at literally the other reply to me that agreed with me at length. And if there are at least two people who support Biden's decisions in this thread alone that do not "approve of enabling genocide", then I bet you any money there's at least 2 more out in the US. "Perhaps more than that!"
I called you on your bad-faith accusation that Democratic voters "approve of enabling genocide", and nothing in your reply to me reduces the accuracy of what I called you on. You're just getting into the weeds arguing politics now.
If you want, I'd be happy to join that conversation as well. As soon as you concede that the "approve of enabling genocide" thing was excessive and bad faith.
It's a fact that the tack Biden is taking amounts to enabling genocide. Whether you know that or not, saying you approve of his handling of the situation is saying that you approve of enabling genocide no matter if you know it or not.
In other words:
-
Biden's plan is objectively enabling genocide
-
Some people who don't consider themselves in favor of enabling genocide support Biden
-
The thing that those people say they support is enabling genocide, no matter how ignorant of reality or in denial they are.
Curious who made Viking Hippie the sole arbiter of truth. How many experts disagreeing with you makes it less "we're all objectively enabling genocide"?
What if I think Viking Hippie is "objectively enabling genocide"? It's a fact (ok, it's just a thought experiment). That means I get to say anyone that agrees with you is "objectively enabling genocide", right?
3 days to come back with "you're wrong because it's arrogant to be confident that you're you're right when people are paid to be wrong"? Damn, you're really bad at this! 😂
With all due respect, when your opinion is "your argument AND the supermajority is wrong because I said so", you don't leave an opening for anything more constructive.
I don't make a good Soyjak
What supermajority would that be? Only Republicans surpass the 60% threshold and surely you don't consider them arbiters of truth.
As for what I'm basing my argument on, it's the Geneva Convention and countless UN motions defeated by ridiculous vetoes from a partisan US delegation.
What the Israeli government is doing is by definition several kinds of war crimes, including genocide and ethnic cleansing.
That's what Biden is supporting by supporting the Israeli government so, whether you're aware of it and generally ok with genocide or not, supporting what Biden is doing is by definition supporting the enabling of genocide.
Do you get it now or are your partisan blinders so thick as to make you ideologically incapable of understanding that those you support can sometimes do indefensible things?
Less than half? That's depressing, given that he's pretty much all in on the genocide enabling and other whitewashing of the apartheid regime 😮💨
view more: next ›