this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
197 points (84.1% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4527 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
 

Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because he’s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying they’re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet it’s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the “uncommitted” movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the president’s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.

The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Biden’s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 month ago (17 children)

I mean, yea. You think the world is some happy go lucky place where people don't fight each other?

The US dropped two nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan to end a war quickly, and despite the backlash they'd kill civilians again in a heartbeat if it was beneficial to America. The number of civilians that died from the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 shows that very clearly. The current Palestinian death toll is less than 10% of that 20 year conflict, and it was done by Americans directly.

Cuba is being used as a pawn by other countries to threaten the US, the same as it was during the cold war. Russia and China didn't write off $40 billion dollars for free over the last decade.

[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

I mean, yea. You think the world is some happy go lucky place where people don't fight each other?

Umm...lol no. I think the world is run by military forces and their obedient governments.

The US dropped two nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan to end a war quickly

Vaporize civilians for peace!

they'd kill civilians again in a heartbeat if it was beneficial to America

If by America you mean imperial warmaking and profits then yes, "they" have, would, and will continue.

The number of civilians that died from the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 shows that very clearly. The current Palestinian death toll is less than 10% of that 20 year conflict, and it was done by Americans directly

This point is really confusing but....yay America?

Cuba is being used as a pawn by other countries to threaten the US

Wow what a take. Other countries support Cuba, so the USA gets to perpetuate invasions, assassination attempts, terrorism and eternal economic warfare. The Cubans have no autonomy but also they brought this on themselves.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Vaporize civilians for peace!

What happened the next day?

[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There would certainly be peace the day after a nuclear apocalypse too

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oddly enough, there wasn't after the bombing of Pearl harbor.

Tit for tat. Sorry our tat was bigger.

[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ahh, of course, I forgot that might makes right

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't recall ever saying that.

I apologized our boom was bigger. It was genuine. Should never have happened.

I would, however, argue that a blow designed to end combat is more ethical than one intended to wound and mame.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)