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
He does a lot of talking. He also structures arms deals so that they don't meet the minimum requirement for oversight from Congress in order to supply arms to a country engaged in an obvious genocide. I guess he's a pretty good multitasker!
Yeah but he was caught in this totally unscripted “hot mic” event looking like he’s going to do something. Thats all he needs to do for the sycophants to swoon over him.
Fuck the 30,000 dead, its Dark Brandon time baby. He’s totally gonna one day do something to stop what he is already doing for Israel!
It really looks like he's about to start taking concrete actions, you're perfectly correct in criticizing how long this took but in the past few days he's started the floating harbor plan and is probably going to come down hard on Netanyahu. Skepticism is fair, but everything is currently moving in the right direction.
Maybe if there wasn't an 80 year old Zionist in the Whitehouse things wouldnt take a fortnight to ponder.
He's not doing anything though. The air drops are literally useless (some of the meals were even expired), and the port is gonna take two months, which is too late to save anyone unless aid arrives by truck. If he really wants to do anything he could just force Netanyahu to allow in aid.
Any day now he might actually do something to stop doing what he's doing.
I'm seeing 10-year-old walking skeletons on Instagram, but in two months Butcher Biden will finish building his floating harbor.
Let me guess: If Biden does actually reverse several generations' worth of mass-murder-enabling Israel policy, and brings about a positive change to the absolute worst thing that the US does and has been doing for the last 50 years, it'll suddenly be something else that you're incredibly upset at him about which is your reason you can't possibly support him.
No? Maybe not. How do you feel about his actions in regard to climate change?
I was legitimately thrilled with the Inflation Reduction Act. That was huge. But I can't turn a blind eye on the travesty that is the Gaza genocide. It's not just a continuation of US foreign policy. But maybe our foreign policy wouldn't be so awful if people like you didn't just shrug.
I'm just gonna refer you to this thread; I had this conversation already today. Those comments rebut your claim that I'm "turning a blind eye" (at least as far as my comments on Lemmy, for whatever they're worth), and the links in them contain some rebuttals for your ideas about what's happening in Gaza being 100% Biden's fault. Some percent yes, on that we'll agree if on basically nothing else about this.
Lemme guess, Biden could go over to Netty’s for a little Palestinian-Baby bbq, and you’d still support Biden?
It’s fair to criticize Biden for supporting and enabling genocide. It’s also fair to point out that. Biden has been a senator for most of those fifty years.
It’s also fair to point out that corporate subsidies aren’t going to solve climate change or bring resiliency to what change is now unavoidable.
It’s also fair to recognize that Trump is an even greater asshole.
But it’s not fair to point to Trump and say it’s unfair to criticize the sitting president for their actions.
Pretty sure none of that has anything to do with what I actually said.
I guess it is easier to argue with someone if you can just decide that they're saying "it's unfair to criticize the president" or similar bollocks and then explain why that is wrong. 🙂
(BTW - If you scroll around in this thread, you will find me criticizing Biden)
It's always amazing how dedicated they are at "offering criticism" completely out of context, with little to no evidence that completely ignores anything that doesn't paint Democrats in a bad light while simultaneously ignoring any criticism of the GOP. Solutions and context are enemies for some reason...
My guy, we're going to have an ice free Arctic by 2025. There is no more time for business as usual neoliberalism bullshit. You are deluding yourselves if you think trump is going to bring about the end of the world when the end of the world is literally currently happening lol.
What study bears out that 2025 date? Everything I've read regarding sea ice points at 2050-2080 at the earliest.
.. so downvotes in lieu of evidence? Plain lies it is then.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9.epdf?sharing_token=0NN56H4vvzIXbs2UgHYPftRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NFQIAvhFvCajrKQh9Lh36bEr1sOzQGNb8DUy_OcWKHndKitcaJ4OsBQ3GmYrXDezBE5godwv3yPRrIaOAJrSX2w05OWVIefbYkLE_prkttS4UATffqfp4KExTVuY_YHqE%3D
Keep your tits on, I'm on the east coast.
And I'm central, regardless I find the downvotes rolling in before any evidence is presented flummoxing, mammary glands aside.
And that study points at 2050, 2067 as an outlier. 2025 is the number you promoted above, no?
Read harder
What you need me to define the word conditions? Do you need to read the paper again and understand what ice free means?
Hahaha
Wow! You really are operating in the same fashion in both spaces. You might not care about intellectual dishonesty throughout someone's post history, but I find it incredibly illuminating.