Tinidril

We're I at my PC I might dump a boatload of links to lemmy comments but, since I'm not, I'll just tell you to do your own search. It's incredibly prevalent in the more "tankie" subs, but they show up pretty much everywhere the subject is discussed.

The frustrating thing is that there are two groups doing it. There are right wing trolls pretending they care but actually just taking advantage to damage Democrats, but there are also good people arguing for the best of causes, but not understanding the dynamics at play.

Words fail me.

I don't doubt it.

Definitely not Iran, but Russia and China are definitely possibilities. The only reason it seems impossible is that Israel has been a US satellite since it's founding. If that tie is severed, what's possible changes.

There are three real powers in the Middle East, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Two are in the US sphere, and one is in Russia's. Russia would live to pull ahead, and China desperately wants a solid foothold in the region.

Russia specifically would see a lot of tangible benefits. Israel has a top-notch defense industry with many technologies that Russia is missing. Protecting "the Jews" would also play into Russia's narratives about fighting Nazis in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The US has been pressuring Israel to spare civilians since before they went into Gaza. That's just reality. They haven't followed the disastrous strategies that critics have demanded for exactly the reasons I explained.

Netanyaho is a far right maniac who's popularity was based entirely on national security and who was facing multiple criminal allegations. There was no way that he wasn't going to go hard into Gaza. The US could have pulled all aid and weapons deals on day one, and it wouldn't have changed a damn thing - except that Israel would now be a Russian satellite state.

Ramping pressure over time is/was the best available strategy. That doesn't mean I think the US did everything right. That doesn't mean that Biden's personal positions on Israel aren't deeply troubling.

I'll say it again. You got exactly the resolution you were demanding, and exactly the result that people like me said you would get from it. Take the L and learn something.

The ceasefire vote passed, and just like everyone predicted it will have zero impact on the genocide in progress. The only impact it has was to further limit the ability of the US to pressure Israel to not advance into Rafah. You got your resolution, and now the situation is worse. Yet, here you are doubling down.

I totally appreciate (and share) your zeal in wanting the slaughter to end (assuming that is actually your objective), but this development clearly illustrates the deep flaws in this kind of criticism, and how little you understand about foreign policy and negotiation tactics.

The US has one negotiation point left to keep Israel out of Rafah, and that's the weapons. Once that is played, the only other choice would be to allow the genocide to continue, or intervine militarily. Thankfully the US didn't play that card already, and the Biden administration is sending clear signals to Israel that it's on the table.

Israel has other options for aid and weapons, but they only become viable if the relationship with the US is severed. Once that happens, Palestine is done.

BTW: Abstaining from the vote was, if anything, kissing Putin's ass, not Netanyaho. There were sticking points between Russia and the US, and the US blinked. Anyone who actually followed the negotiations would understand that abstaining means the US decided the resolution was too important to hold up over specific language.

This is very similar to the last such resolution to pass. Russia and America couldn't agree on language, so both agreed to abstain. This time, Russia got their way while the US took the high road.

That's why Senators from both parties get time to ask questions. The witnesses do get time to say what they want to say but, when they are being evasive, Senators aren't going to let them burn up valuable time.

There is a ton of actual dysfunction in the Senate, but there are very good reasons why these hearings function as they do. It's not going to be a pleasant conversation when witnesses are subpoenaed to testify on subjects they would rather avoid. That's especially true when one side of the isle is completely unconcerned with truth.

The Airbender movie was an amazing accomplishment of sorts. It somehow managed to completely suck in every single dimension a movie can suck in. Casting, direction, acting, fighting, pacing, dialog, special effects, practical effects, and wardrobe were all complete disasters.

Again, witnesses would then be able to spew bullshit non-answers until their allotted time is up. If Senators don't shut them down, they might as well never have hearings at all - especially with hostile witnesses. Time is also not allotted to the witnesses, it's allotted to the Senators.

A quick search turned up legitimate sources for both Benadryl and Prozac overdoses being potentially fatal, as well as a list of serious interactions. Fatal dosages are generally not available for combinations of different drugs but, generally speaking, interactions make overdoses far more likely.

Short of any credible counter information, the coroner's report is the appropriate (and only) legitimate source.

I am firmly against the right on these issues, but not to the point where I will start chasing conspiracy theories like they do.

It has to do with the traditional rules of how the Senate operates. Senators only get so much time to both ask and receive answers to questions. It's just too easy for a witness to burn up that time with long winded non-answers. That's why Senators are quick to grab control back.

Nex actually was the first to commit an assault, by throwing water on some girls that in all likelihood totally deserved it.

It does appear to be a suicide by intentional overdose of two prescription medications. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the fight/beating contributed, but that doesn't amount to murder.

Communication is kinda important.