politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Genocidal regimes can buy candidates in the US.
So, they can still, but the point of the article is that it's becoming less and less true over time. AIPAC seems to have picked on the weakest candidates and not made an attempt to challenge some of their most vocal critics.
The American electorate is still fine with genocide, but the minority that doesn't like it is steadily growing and has become bigger than I think a lot of old-school political people realize.
Sure, they're buying candidates in the open and lemmy's pro-genocide centrists gloat about it, but it's ok because they're picking their battles!
Got polling for that, or do you just like claiming that a majority of people agree with you?
Incrementalism is moral bankruptcy itself.
I have absolutely no idea why you keep insisting that I like genocide (or Israel buying candidates?). It makes it pointless to talk to you because you are attacking points of view that have nothing to do with what I think. I just don't want to have an extensive argument about what it is that I believe with someone telling me, no, you don't, you believe this other thing instead. That's the reason I have generally given up on talking to you; I'm not sure what I was thinking just now. Mostly I was just trying to help you understand this article.
You asked a perfectly fair question though which I will answer -- here's a poll about the Americans' feelings about the war. How you ask the questions and what questions you ask and how you tee them up make a pretty significant difference to what people say, but that one seems pretty honestly organized and comprehensive, and they're transparent about what exactly they asked. 34% say the way Israel is fighting the "war" is unacceptable, 38% say it's acceptable, 26% say they're not sure.
I think that attitude is because they're profoundly confused about what is happening in Gaza because of our atrocious media, not that 38% of Americans understand that it's a genocide and want Israel to be doing that. I only summarized as "fine with genocide" because I thought they were fine with aid to Israel (which a lot of them don't understand the implications of)... I have now learned from reading this that they don't. The little four-quadrants chart shows that if you limit it to people who say "yes" or "no" about military aid to Israel, you get 64% "no." Holy shit. That's way higher than I thought.
It's because, much like linkerbaan. They're here to virtue signal. They will reject obtainable but imperfect solutions and the groups involved. Harangue and attack anyone who supports it for any reason. They have no workable solutions, and won't help Palestinians in any meaningful way. But woe unto anyone who points it out.
It’s worse than that, with both users - they are literally making up nonsense so they can posture as the one who is pro-Palestinian to the point of getting hostile with someone else who is also pro-Palestinian. If they were criticizing my imperfect solution that would at least make some kind of sense.
With Linkerbaan I feel like I have a strong understanding of why they are doing it. With Ensign_Crab I am totally lost as to why. I genuinely have no kind of ill will towards them in any way and they’re convinced that I am some kind of vicious pro-Israel enemy, in a way that is totally confusing to me.
Ardent Biden defender claims he is supporting Palestinians
Yet you can't provided any proof of it. Childish name calling is all you've got.:-)
Conservatives whine about virtue signaling.
Other people do too. The term existed long before they incorrectly started using it. And the fact that this is your only rebuttal. Is pretty damning.
I mean, the only thing you want to hear is agreement with your position regarding genocide, so there is nothing I'm going to say that will satisfy you.
Not at all. Mozz and I often disagree. We did in a thread above this. Even though I disagreed with their position and posted a rebuttal. I still up voted them. Because they can express their views in a mature reasonable fashion. Without resorting to name calling, strawmen, and general BS rhetorical attacks. Disagreement and debate is natural and fine. People supposedly old enough to know better acting childish, not so much.
And the old "you don't agree with me so you're a child" boomer argument.
More name calling, seething and trying to cope. I'd ask if that was all you had. But I think that's rather obvious at this point.
Enjoy the candidates the genocidal regime bought you.
Maybe it's because you keep answering people being upset at the actions of a genocidal apartheid regime and its supporters by downplaying it and trying to spin it as acceptable or even good.
Oh, don't worry! They're totally drawing back! They only bought who they thought they could buy! They're spending their pro-genocide dollar wisely! Isn't that great? That's not a step in the right direction to anyone who doesn't support genocide.
That's naked brazen corruption in favor of genocide.
This is the exact opposite of what I generally am doing, including right now in this thread. Like I say, I have no idea what’s in your head when you create this imaginary conflict. Good luck though. I hope your issue gets better over time.
A genocidal apartheid regime bought candidates.
Keep ignoring this. Gaslight instead.