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
Wrote this before and I'll write it again. People need to understand the broader context here:
Tough for Biden to balance between:
Leaning too heavily into Israel and siding with genocide.
Leaning too heavily against, and being accused of being pro-Hamas.
Worse, if Biden withdraws all aid to Israel and then Israel is hit with another terrorist attack, manufactured or not, that's the end of Biden. I think we can all agree that right-wing media propaganda is very effective and the ads would write themselves.
Within the electorate resides Jewish Americans who still largely support Israel by the polling, and the progressives and Palestinian Americans (a far smaller voting bloc).
The best Biden is going to manage in toeing the line is singling out Netanyahu (who himself is unpopular in Israel) instead of Israel itself and actions like this.
The risk obviously being that if Biden loses this election, the guy who wouldn't just indirectly but likely directly commit genocide against Palestinians would come in and you certainly wouldn't hear the words, "indiscriminate bombing" from Trump's facial sphincter.
Oh no, he will be accused of being pro-Hamas. Just like when you criritize him you are accused of being pro-Trump, or if you critize evil NATO countries are doing, you are called pro-Russian. If people are that stupid to not see this clear tactic that everyone who critiques me must support my enemies, then you should maybe they shouldn't use the same tactic when it suits them.
It's a waste of time — Especially in an election year with so much on the line and post-primaries — to criticize Biden and instead better to criticize the groups who continue to support Israel. When the polls shift, the administration will shift... As has already occurred.
I don't give a fuck if you do, so long as you vote and support Biden in November. Palestinians and Ukrainians are counting on us, and the guaranteed-alternative is significantly-worse. I just had some other fool tell me they're voting 3rd-party, so they are clearly supporting the enemies. I hope you're smarter.
Trump is a candidate that was placed there by the democrats so they can have a better chance in the elections.
Ladies and gentlemen, a wedge-driving operative seeking to undermine Democrats and get Trump into office. There is literally zero evidence that "Trump is a candidate that was placed there by Democrats". There is zero historical evidence voting third party does anything more than get the worse of two evils in office — and Ukrainians and Palestinians would much prefer Biden over Trump any day.
This is the rhetoric of someone either not either not familiar with the political system, or intentionally trying to undermine the left by opening the door for conservatives.
no such evidence is possible: you can't prove a counterfactual. you can't know who the worse evil would be. further it's not clear that so-called "third party" voters actually impact elections at all unless their candidate wins.
No, we can. 3rd parties have been around for decades and won nothing and only exacerbated the goals of said parties by undermining the only party that has tangible results.
You prove my point.
it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. you are either unfamiliar with the scientific method or you are deliberately lying.
this simply isn't true and reflects a myopic view of history. so-called third parties have been with us almost since the inception of the us, and have accomplished things inconceivable to modern politicians.
no, i don't.
false dichotomy. they may be familiar with the political system (even more than you or i), and not believe the same things you do. they may be a leftist. you are making up attacks on their person instead of dealing with the substance of their claims.
No, commie (username), I'm simply grounded in reality.
that's a thought-terminating cliche like saying it's common sense. if you can't support your position, that's no reason to go off attacking other people as malevolent or incompetent.
My original statements remain largely untouched; it's not my issue you deflected the aforementioned points. Why proceed further?
this is ambiguous. what do you mean?
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Nobody in the entire country would've disagreed with that strategy at the time, for quite literally everyone including Republicans thought Trump would doom the party. Hindsight is 20/20
That, however isn't the same as saying Trump is a Democratic plant colluding in disguise lol.
no one said that.
you are now shifting the goalposts from "it didn't happen" to "it was a good idea".