Kleinbonum

Supporting Israel is not the same as supporting Netanyahu.

Biden and Netanyahu have a decades-long relationship that has at times been strained. At the Monday evening reception, Biden said he once gifted Netanyahu a photo and wrote at the top: “I love you but I don’t agree with a damn thing you had to say.”

“It’s about the same today,” Biden said, adding he’d “had my differences with some Israeli leadership.”

Sounds like he's criticizing Netanyahu.

The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn't it?

it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

You know, that's exactly what people said about Roe v. Wade and about banning abortion.

Turns out that you can keep losing on an issue for 50 years, yet winning only once will drastically change the trajectory of the entire issue.

That's because they like the idea of a Trump dictatorship. They simply assume they'd be on the side that's going to do the dictating.

It's hardly possible to do worse

There are about a million ways to do worse.

For example, a U.S. president could send American ground troops into Gaza. Or recognize Gaza and the West Bank as Israeli territory. Or increase military aid to Israel tenfold. Or launch a preemptive military attack against Hezbollah. Or launch a ground attack against the Huthi rebels for firing rockets at Israel. Or increasing tensions with Iran for funding Hamas. Or round up suspected Hamas supporters in the U.S. and deport them. Or round up suspected Palestine supporters in the U.S. and hold them in indefinite detention. Or create a House Committee for Un-American Activities. Or bring back "enhanced interrogation" for questioning Americans suspected of un-American activities.

The possibilities are really unlimited.

This is like arguing that voting for Hitler as Reichskanzler wouldn't be so bad, because at worst he would be doing the exact same thing as Kurt von Schleicher.

But that's the thing: things can always get worse. And Trump has proven time and time again that he's willing to make things worse.

Which is why they released women for the other 7 days. Love how this article contradicts itself in the first sentence.

Here's the entire sentence:

Israeli official says Hamas doesn’t want to release remaining women because it doesn’t want them speaking publicly about what they endured on Oct. 7 and in their time in captivity

which clearly implies that Hamas was fine releasing female hostages that were treated okay, but is refusing to release the remaining female hostages that have possibly been abused, raped, sexually mistreated.

You obviously don't have to agree with that analysis, but where exactly do you see the contradiction?

Yeah, but see: she worked incredibly hard to

• defeat hate crimes prevention legislation
• prevent extending disaster aid to Kathrina victims
• prevent the expansion of the Voting Rights Act
• prevent the Armenian genocide from being declared a "genocide"

and she firmly stood her ground in telling everyone that Obamacare was a danger to the nation bigger than any terrorist attack on America ever could be.

That's a lot of hard work, you see?

That's because every single person who slights him even the tiniest bit was obviously always his enemy, and he obviously always knew this. Probably a RINO, a secret Democrat, a stealthy undercover deep state fake Republican. Very bad person, could not be trusted, in fact Trump barely knew them, they begged him for the job, but they simply weren't up to it.

Even if he praised that same person to high heaven just the day before.

Evidence: the 263 people he hired and fired in the last administration (with the firing usually done via Twitter, when they were far away from wherever he was tweeting from).

You'll never completely eliminate all possible bias from human beings serving on a nation's highest court, but out of the things that could be done, the United States is doing exactly nothing.

"Achso dieser Terroranschlag. Ja das waren natürlich wir"

"Die Terroristen sind natürlich Helden. Und übrigens rufen wir noch zu viel mehr Terroranschlägen auf Zivilisten auf!"

Why should Democrats want to permanently do away with the filibuster when they only ever had a razor thin majority and were facing an opposition hellbent on destroying the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and leaving 40 million Americans without health insurance?

Last time voters gave Democrats a significant enough majority, they got the Affordable Care Act. If voters want Democrats to act decisively, all they need to do is give them a decisive majority.

Voting for Republicans and then whining that Democrats get nothing done isn't going to achieve anything.

How many out of those years did Democrats have the White House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House?

If your answer is "zero," then you're just admitting that the last time Democrats had a viable majority, they actually got shit done.