Biden does not need an act of congress to not treat asylum-seekers like shit
In this case, he actually does.
Just like it was a deliberate choice to split up arms shipments to Israel into 100 seperate lots so he didn't have to report them to Congress.
Yeah, that one was some bullshit, 100% accurate.
And for the germans their leadership was summarily executed by paramilitary groups sent by the government.
(Assuming you meant in 1919)
Yeah, but wasn't that after the KPD did an uprising and was doing battle with the SDP?
I'm genuinely asking; I'm just not familiar with it. If you want me to read up and get back to you I can do that too.
I don't get it man.
The Republicans are calling for more and more cruelty (e.g. raising the bar for aslyum). Biden is trying to alleviate the exact conditions you're describing, in addition to compromising with them some of the cruelty you're asking for, and you're giving him shit for it.
What in your world should he do? Magic a bill into existence that will fix the conditions you're talking about, without getting it through congress or needing the support of the Republicans?
Why are you saying that weakening his position against the Republicans until things get better is the way for you to solve that problem? Are you happy with the babies waiting outside in the hot sun for months and months until your plan bears fruit, should he withdraw the current bill and go back to the drawing board and them just wait outside until your plan comes through?
I wasn't trying to put words in their mouth; just saying how it sounded to me if they were upset that when they took up arms against the SDP in 1919, what came back to them was violent and unfair. There's also the issue (which is maybe why I'm so unsympathetic in general) that it's silly to still be upset in 1932 about something that happened in 1919, when the way to stay alive and keep alive a whole bunch of people who had nothing to do with either SDP or KPD, would have been for both of them to let it go and start fighting the bigger enemy.
But yeah, maybe I picked an unkind / unfair way to make the point, you're right. And like I say, we're into the detail points that I really don't know about, so I am learning also from you about all of this for the first time.
I mean I probably will at some point; just based on that little snippet below the headline, maybe he is saying something general principle based and sensible. The both candidates are trash just got my hackles up 🙂
They reached out to her a couple days before they launched, and said hey do you want to maybe reconsider that thing where we asked you about this a couple times, and both times you told us to go fuck ourselves
And then they told the media that they were in discussions with her, when the discussions were her lawyer telling them to go fuck themselves
And then Altman tweeted "her"
And then when it launched, it was according to her so freakishly similar that her friends were weirded out by it
If it was some different actress saying hey this sounds a lot like me, that wasn't the one that they clearly had in mind when they were making their plans about it, then I could see a pretty strong argument to say hey relax buddy sometimes different people just sound similar
I don't really know; I'm not familiar enough with movie people to really listen to it and see what I think and I don't care enough to investigate. But just based on the above I feel like probably she has a fairly strong case.
Or, not inside the US
I think proactively committing to voting for a morally abhorrent candidate (a candidate promoting a morally abhorrent position, if you prefer) is less than submissive, it's actually giving up the only possible leverage you might have had in order to accept a reality that hasn't happened yet.
I talked about this - withholding your vote to put pressure on Biden and communicating to him effectively that that's what you're doing makes perfect sense to me. I linked to the Ralph Nader article where he talks about doing that.
If I thought Biden read Lemmy and would read my comments and react differently in Gaza, would I do my comments differently, so as to avoid taking the pressure off him that he's currently feeling? Yeah, maybe. Probably. I don't think that's the reality, but if I thought that, I probably would do my comments differently.
I'm just saying how I look at the election. Unless Biden had some sort of mental break that made him start acting worse than Trump in terms of what he'll do with power, I'm planning on voting for him. If I thought lying about that would create a positive impact in some way, then yeah, maybe I might. IDK. Maybe not. I definitely wouldn't be as vocal about how ok a job he's doing, yeah.
Proactively committing to not voting for preservation of American democracy and prevention of catastrophe around the world, because Netanyahu started a genocide and Biden hasn't caused a revolution in American statecraft by opposing it for the first time in history, doesn't make a ton of sense to me, though. Why is the genocide in Gaza a red line but preventing a genocide in Ukraine, or saving a million American lives from the next pandemic, or mitigating climate change (to whatever extent we even still can) moving the needle away from billions of lost lives in the not-too-distant future, why aren't those red lines?
It's absolutely a choice you are making, and even if you'd feel better if that didn't make you guilty of 'supporting' genocide, i think it's kind of self-evident.
It seems kind of weird to get all amped up about how great a job you're doing at not supporting genocide, by doing something that endangers Palestinians specifically but also apparently makes you feel better. I think I linked somewhere to a comment from someone who claimed to be Palestinian American who actually specifically asked Americans not to do this (use his dead relatives as justification for their political stance which was going to endanger him much more along with many of his still living relatives). It's on bestof if you didn't see it.
we need to go out and defend democracy
My man you need to be endorsing one of these candidates, then
I'm not tryin to start the same argument we always have, because we've had it before, so I'll simply say that the options are:
There is no third option that's within the bounds of objective reality, and the fact that that's not where our media is located doesn't change that.
Saying it has "nothing" to do with it is wrong; they're so deeply connected that you might as well use either or both, since racial disparity is fundamental enough to the American economy that they give the same answer.
But sure, it's fair to ask for something specifically about income level instead of by race; here's one by percentiles and here's the GINI coefficient over time.
Extra spicy context: The Ukrainians on the eastern front have figured out that it’s hugely important to the Russians to be able to plant Russian flags to show that they are taking territory and making progress. And so, the UA army has made a hobby of planting Ukrainian flags in inconvenient places with drones (in the middle of a huge open field with no cover, up on top of a water tower), and then inevitably comes a Russian operation to remove the flag even though it’s the world’s most obvious ambush (because removing the flag is a CRITICAL priority and the Russian commanders care more about the flags than the lives of their men.) And so, the Ukrainians get to do an ambush.
It’s working so well in the place that they invented it that the game of Water Tower Drone Flag is spreading to other areas and apparently working well there, too.
I think I got irritated and just abandoned the conversation, but we can continue.
What you just said actually made a lot of sense and as far as I know the history, I agree with it more or less completely (and would allocate blame for Trump at most of the Bill Clinton / Nancy Pelosi type Democrats in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason)
So if it sounded like I was exonerating them I was not. My point was, once Hitler comes around it doesn't matter; if you're still running a 13% spoiler candidate to weaken the alternative to Hitler, and then blaming the ones who won the election because they didn't do a good enough job of compromising with you... I mean, you may have a case, but you'll still be dead if Hitler wins. Surely that is relevant?
They sure didn't get the real material relief to the German people by not supporting Hindenburg; definitely not until 1945 and even then it came with some caveats.