It's partly a coping mechanism. I agree its no longer politically advantageous, but in the free world people can say what is on their mind, and this is apparently it. If consequences stem from that, then that is also part of freedom.
Is what it is.
Carrolade
joined 8 months ago
They believed some of Trump's bullshit. I suspect this was because they were exposed to more of that bullshit than any counter-messaging. This could be due to isolation from traditional sources of information.
Ultimately, I have to pin that on the Harris campaign. I wanted the prosecutor to prosecute the case against the criminal. But to do that you have to show up to the courtroom. Where is the courtroom these days? It's not on CNN or 60 Minutes, it's wherever the jury is hanging out. That's online. Trump showed up there a lot more than she did.
I'm ultimately glad, he was giving democrats a bad name. We could afford that a decade ago, but we no longer can.
There's a mild reshuffling of the parties happening, with the Tulsi Gabbards switching to red and the Adam Kinzingers switching to blue, and I'm fine with it. It's about priorities. Which parts of your platform and beliefs are more important than the other parts?
There's around 2 million Gazans still alive. That's a lot of ethnicity still to be cleansed if cleansing is the goal.
Fine, technically true I suppose. But when you gut something that comprehensively and change its thrust, I think it's a little disingenuous to call it the same thing. It had all the workers rights stuff stripped out of it.
edit: Disingenuous on the bill author's part, not yours. Though tbf, they did rename it.
On the arms shipments, we may try lawsuits via the Leahy Law if the ethnic cleansing ramps up. The way the law is written, it actually looks at arms shipments all the way down to the granular level of individual military units. It does not say arms cannot be exported to countries engaging in war crimes, it specifically says individual military units that commit war crimes cannot receive arms. If they choose to engage in a broader campaign of organized displacement out of Gaza or starvation in places where combat has largely died down, a larger number of military units could potentially become implicated, which could maybe make a lawsuit more feasible. We'll have to see.
Regarding AIPAC, since Citizen's United determined that monetary donations are a form of speech, this requires either an amendment or recapture of the Supreme Court. Otherwise Americans are allowed to lobby the government for whatever they wish, even if they are doing so at the behest of a foreign government. They have to disclose that, but so long as they do, they are simply exercising their Constitutional rights as perceived by the current Supreme Court. This isn't going away any time soon, the current law is very clear and pretty much ironclad, rooted in the Constitution itself via the Bill of Rights.
Some good answers already. To add, in the media sphere Pod Save America and their related branches is a liberal progressive media organization that tries to run counter to the conservative media ecosystem, trying to ride the line between policy wonkery and approachability.
No, not excuses, simply doubt. Manchin has a long record in the Senate as a moderate, Clinton-style dem. He's even voted against abortion rights. Rather than corruption, I think he's just semi-conservative, he even voted with Trump around 50% of the time during his first term. That is not typical for a democrat, it's quite unusual actually.
Ah, that's orchestration, which you just said was not happening. You are insinuating that most of them are neoliberals who simply put forward a chosen sacrificial scapegoat in some sort of planned scheme to deceive the American public. Strong claims require evidence, otherwise they are simply convenient ideas we can adopt to oversimplify a messy world and make ourselves feel better.
If that's true, then the bill failed by a slim margin. It almost passed, and had the support of the majority of the democratic party, including passing the House of Representatives. This is an important detail.
No, that is a false claim. It was not passed by the Senate and never became law. We can certainly criticize our neoliberal factions, but we should do it factually instead of weaving whatever narratives we find most convenient. Unless you're confusing it with the Infrastructure bill, which did pass. They were linked at one time, but were separated after both failing became likely.
view more: next ›
Yes, I think we can.
But remember, during WW2 the USSR and the US were able to cooperate to defeat fascism. We cannot be too picky when it comes to alliances when there's bigger fish to fry. Ideological purity is not our friend, never has been. Even if that makes everything a confusing pain in the ass, which it does, that diversity of opinion is necessary if we are going to robustly pursue our goals and not get too stuck up our own asses and blinded.