this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1199 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2193 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
[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Most of Israel's weapons come from the US. It's very well possible for the US congress/government to say "no more weapons if you use them for agression".

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Biden tried just slowing weapon shipments earlier on and Rs and some Ds rammed a bill through saying nope, no slowdowns on these shipments allowed.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

The Joe Biden administration also stated that Israel would receive "whatever it needs". Which is pretty much what has happened so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Biden tried just slowing weapon shipments earlier on and Rs and some Ds rammed a bill through saying nope, no slowdowns on these shipments allowed.

When you have a racist right-wing party, and a right-wing party that supports killing innocents, I am not as enthused to vote as I would be if there were a clear choice between them.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Wow, stoned people really do say ridiculous things.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You said there is no clear choice between. A party that supports killing innocents and racism. And a party that supports killing innocents. It’s not hard math.

[–] RatzChatsubo@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there more dead on the Gaza side? What's the math of that?

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I mean, if both are killing innocents, but one is killing innocents on top of being racist, it's pretty obvious that the racist one is worse. A kindergartener could check that math.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's interesting how you have to resort to being dismissive when I say that I don't like seeing innocents killed.

You say you're voting for 'harm reduction'. But, factually, supporting Israel is increasing harm, not reducing it. You might be upset with me because you're rationalising painful reality.

I have no choice, due to autism, but to accept reality for what it is. And it's not nice, because living in a world where it is politically expedient to support killing innocent people sucks. I want nothing to do with it, and I would swap with someone in Palestine so that I could die, instead.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They are both shit. Don't support or vote criminals.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

That’s what this entire post is about. You’re accomplishing jack shit by not voting.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wrong, supporting criminals with blood on their hands is evil and make things worst. If the red and blue party start to lose votes they have to go in damage mode and actually change their policies to get their votes back. As long as people support and vote for them they don't really have to change anything, they cycle in power.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is WHAT THE POST IS ABOUT. Putting Trump in office to try to influence the Dems is incredibly stupid and we’ve been responding to this tripe ALL YEAR already. Trump will be worse on Palestine, Ukraine, actively seek to harm LGBT people as well as Central/Southern American immigrants, and be much worse on tons of issues like labor laws, financial regulations, the environment, on and on. So, no. What you’re proposing is a naive and clueless idea.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The only naive and clueless idea is supporting your government while its fueling a genocide where kids are being murdered daily

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you read, at all? What you’re saying is the precise stupid shit that this post is about and I’ve already pointed out that almost always, people sharing that viewpoint simply say something stupid and insulting about genocide and miss the entire point. So good job. I’m not going to bother to repeat it, but I’ll point out that claiming people are “supporting their government” by voting is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard lately.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

By voting a party you are supporting them. By advocating others to vote for it you are supporting them even more. If a party is already in charge as the government and you vote for them or encourage others to do so you are supporting the government.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I really don’t get why some people have a hard time understanding how this all works. For an office like President, you don’t get your favorite choice. Period. You have to vote for the candidate who can actually win and best reflects your views and values. Jesus Christ. I can’t possibly be fucked to explain this again.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

For an office like President, you don’t get your favorite choice. Period.

Don't spread propaganda. You can vote for anyone you want who is in the ballots.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s more like a racist right-wing party that supports killing innocents, and a right-wing party that supports killing innocents.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

You're right, I just thought "racist" implied "supports killing", as I am aware of the history and practice of racism.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

wow you just ignore that biden wanted to give them the weapons anyways. you see its a little thing called providing cover. Biden didn't fight against it because he wanted to give isreal the weapons.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That bill went through with a veto-proof majority of all Rs and enough Dems.

Biden is a zionist, however, he's also a politician who understands that the genocide was not and is not super favorable domestically. It's also not a good look for the ceasefire negotiations to be as unsuccessful as they've been. If the opposition wasnt the orange turd this election could have easily gone R just like Reagan v Carter with Iranian hostage crisis.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago

oh wow! a veto proof majority! its too bad biden controls the military and can just know you. not ship them. invoke leahy. etc.

biden has no one to blame but himself for gaza. go read the article of the israel/gaza timelines. there was no need for whats happening to happen. biden just had to... not ship weapons. he had all the legal cover he could have possibly wanted if his goal was to end the genocide.

It’s also not a good look for the ceasefire negotiations to be as unsuccessful as they’ve been

lol. they have not even happened. bibi has 0 interest in a ceasefire. the biden admin knows this. if they don't then we definitely need to get rid of them all.