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.
- 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.
- 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
Got it. You are okay with genocide as long as it gets to a electoral victory.
There ya go with those strawman fallacies, again!
Such a strong fighter for these 8 months. Yet don't seem to care whatsoever about the consequences for Palestinians (or Ukrainians for that matter) for the next 4 years. How curious.
I thought you hated strawman arguments?
And now we're too the any criticism of Biden means they're for Trump. Way to get 2 in one there.
Plus still haven't seen your source on how the entire Jewish population in the country are okay with Israels handling of Palestinians and the whole genocide they're doing.
Well then my mistake; for sure: Be critical of Biden all you want. I don't agree with you on what's strategically better for ensuring his reelection but so be it.
All I care is that you vote for Biden in November. Anything short of that is equivalent to being for Trump.
Also, my bad - it was from another comment chain here:
Is this even remotely supported by polling data?
The answer is no, it really is not
There are 172,000 Palestinian Americans.
There are 7.6 million Jewish Americans who still heavily lean in support of Israeli actions.
And progressives who, being the most informed part of the electorate, know damn well if Trump gets in then it's orders-of-magnitude worse for the Palestinians.
... But hey, just one legit (or illegitimate false-flag) terrorist attack post-revocation of aid to Israel — and tell me, what happens to Biden and Democrats' chances then...?
Got it you just don't like people pointing out Bidens flaws.
I mean yeah totally fair to use it as representative population but not like pew research is the best, or polls have been very accurate in the last few years.
And again you can't say
When thats more than the entire population in the states (and surprisingly more than the population of Israel)
https://www.jewishagency.org/jewish-population-rises-to-15-7-million-worldwide-in-2023/
Finally let's suppose all of the Jewish people are going to be mad at Biden for stopping support of Israel due to them committing genocide, who would they vote for? They'd have the same issue as everyone else and have to bite their tongue and vote for Biden.
At this point who cares about Israel? It's clear they aren't making Jewish people safer, and those who would participate in the election are Americans
Incorrect. I just don't like people shooting themselves in the foot or having tunnel-vision without seeing the bigger picture.
hahahah what the hell are you saying? You think PEW is flawed? Do tell how. Do you even understand how statistics work? I bet you didn't even look at their methodology let alone MoE.
Who cares? Whether it's 6.7 million "by some estimates," or 7.6 million "by some estimates." — that in no way changes my point, but good on you for digging in the weeds out of complete irrelevance.
Well now we've come full-circle. The same question can be posed to Biden by his staff by asking, "What will tankies and the left do, vote for Trump? Not vote? Vote 3rd party? See how that worked out for their agenda when literally every progressive advancement came on the backs of the Democratic party and every reversal thereof came from Republicans." So between the two groups, which will Biden choose to risk less, the bigger voting population, or the smaller voting population?
Unfortunately there are a lot of swing-voters out there, too, who haven't had their minds made up. Until they fall into a camp, the Biden administration is going to toe the line to ensure such voters are still reachable.
Not talking about Israel. I'm talking about the relentless propaganda campaign about, "How Biden is an antisemite and jeopardized the safety of Jewish people of Israel by taking away their self-defense." This would be repeated across all right-wing outlets, not to mention the massive amount of foreign interference that is already occurring by Israeli and Russian operatives.
hahahah what the hell are you saying? You think PEW is flawed? Do tell how. Do you even understand how statistics work? I bet you didn’t even look at their methodology let alone MoE.
appeal to ridicule
Blatant straw-men have already occurred with me; in my view the door is open. I have no problem dishing back what was already served. If they want to dial it down, then I shall treat them with the utmost respect but these, "Got it. You just don't x." responses are tiresome. Of all the things you could hit me for, I believe this is pretty light but I'll own it as a fallacy.
Are you okay?
another appeal to ridicule? can't you just accept that it takes two to tango, and you are actively making this place worse?
No seriously, are you okay? It does not, in fact, take two, lest you seek one person to run their mouths and the other to just take it. So unless you're suggesting we enable bullying without pushing the bully back or fallacies without objection, I'm not really sure what the point is that you're making.
So kindly explain your thought-process when you respond with simply re-quoting what I said and nothing more; for overall I think my comments remained largely neutral, barring the low-hanging fruit you identified and which I even acknowledged.
i was pointing out the hypocrisy
What's hypocritical about noting, "these, 'Got it. You just don’t x.' responses are tiresome"? Do you not recognize the obvious snarkiness and straw-man fallacy? Are you saying I'm not allowed to call this out?
And why are you replying multiple times to the same comment instead of just consolidating your response into one?
i don't like to have multiple ideas in one comment, and i have found it's an excellent tactic for breaking up a gish gallop. you can read more here:
https://lemmy.world/post/10922324
Hmm, that's really strange. I'll just report you for spam then. Thanks.
in the months that have followed, this has neverbeen an issue for me.
i'm saying you are doing teh same thing, and you're right that they are exhausting, so you should also knock it off.
i'm saying don't use dishonest rhetoric
I'm fine with that; just make sure you go to the other user in the thread and say the same thing.
Did you do that?
Did you tell them as well that, "it takes two to tango"?
Curiously you did not.
do you think they would be more willing than you to stop engaging dishonestly?
Who's engaging dishonestly? Citation needed. That has yet to be substantively evinced.
you admitted that you were using fallacious rhetoric already (thouh your admission is not necessary: it was prima facie). but you also (correctly) pointed out a strawman, which is also fallacious rhetoric.
i asked you to be the bigger person.
Double-standard.
Ask both. Go on... It "takes two to tango," after all.
you'll forgive me if this reads as though you are not only acting in bad faith, but know you are, and plan to continue.