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

politics

19002 readers
3766 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 47 points 4 months ago (25 children)

Not the first, and won't be the last.

Article mentions 5 other State Department employees have left over Biden's support of a genocide while pretending it's not a genocide.

It's not to late to ditch him for a candidate that represents the values of dem voters. And regardless of who it is, they probably have a better chance of stopping trump.

Sunk cost fallacy is a terrible way to run a political party, but especially when the stakes are this high.

Even if we win and get four more years of this, it's not winning, it's just losing less. Which is why Biden's numbers are so bad, he doesn't inspire voters due to his words and actions.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 25 points 4 months ago (93 children)

No, Biden has the brand recognition and is the party's best chance to win. His administration does do a terrible job of selling the good things he is doing and he is shooting himself in the foot by not following through on his 'red line' with Rafah, but that isn't enough of a negative to outweigh the lnown factor.

It sucks that winning a first past the post election based on the electoral college is how it works instead of something like ranked choice, but that is where we are at.

load more comments (93 replies)
[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Apparently what the Libertarians elected as their candidate is good for the Democrats

LOL it's hilarious once you find out who and what.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 5 points 4 months ago

Yeah, but if we do that, then in four years they won’t be able to say “trump” and get everyone on their knees

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago

Article mentions 5 other State Department employees have left over Biden’s support of a genocide while pretending it’s not a genocide.

It'd be nice if we could have a presidency where no one from the State or Justice Departments quits in disgust during their term. The last time was what? The first Bush?

load more comments (20 replies)