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
If everything around you is always inspiring, it is an excellent sign someone is feeding you horse shit. Real life has difficult parts, that's all there is to it.
Genocide is one issue. That's it. It can be someone's primary issue, that's fine, but expecting it to be a primary issue of the party is silly. In case you've forgotten, we've committed more genocides than we've stopped. By far. Unfortunately, Americans just aren't that against it. And we get self-rule, you see, where we are not ruled by holy principles, but the will of the masses. If the masses are cool with genocide, guess what happens?
So what you really need to do, is grassroots engagement, getting out there and appealing to some suburban white folks. But door knocking is too much work I think.
If you don’t think genocide is a dealbreaker, then you lose all rights to criticize republicans for thinking racism and sexism and homophobia aren’t dealbreakers for their candidate.
Life is not a simple enough thing for absolutes, unfortunately, that just results in greater and greater failure. It's a luxury we cannot afford.
edit: You could look at it this way: If we vote in Trump instead, will there be less genocide or more genocide?
You’re trying to argue the Trolley Problem but missing the controversy of WHY the trolley problem is problematic in the first place. If I vote for an alternative to Trump, and she kills people in my community, then I have a share of their blood on my hands. “Less blood” is not a comfort or excuse.
I agree, it is not a comfort or an excuse, as is often the case in global politics. It's merely a necessity if we are to save any of the Palestinian people.
Fundamentally it is impossible to save them all without beginning hostile action against Israel, they are being starved after all. Yet if we withdrew completely, it would merely remove yet another roadblock standing in Netanyahu's path towards his goals.
History is littered with people who made that claim. There were Jews who thought that cooperating with Nazis would save some of their community. Black Americans who thought that working with Jim Crow politicians would make a net benefit. It’s wrong, you’re wrong, and Palestinians will tell you they’ve tried this and failed. Abbas offered to go to war against Hamas and did so, in the hopes that Israel would advance his two state solution. They abandoned him and all Palestinians are worse off for the attempt.
Would their fates have been any different if the PA and hamas were united in hamas' goals?
Would Jews that tried to fight back against Hitler have saved any Jewish lives?
In the Jim Crow example, at least the racist politicians had a significant opposition to their policies in the Reconstruction Era, leaving realistic alternative options. We cannot say the same with your other two examples.
The world is simply uglier than always being able to defeat bad things by outright fighting them. Sometimes you have to scheme and manipulate, the situation the Palestinians have been in. Sometimes you just have to flee and admit the battle is lost, so you survive to fight another day, the situation the Jews under Hitler were in.