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
Here's me saying that Biden should stop sending the Israelis aid, because that's accessory to mass murder.
Here's me posting an article that says "It lets ... duplicitous President Joe Biden be less servile when Netanyahu dismisses the low death toll."
Valid criticism, I'm fine with, and there is some to give (specifically on Gaza, absolutely). Propaganda and talking points that don't correspond to reality, I object to. Surely that's not confusing?
(I mean, I know you're not actually confused -- you're assigning me views I don't hold because that's way easier than addressing what I'm actually saying, and you're fully aware that you're being dishonest. I eagerly await your pivot to some other accusation which is just as untethered from the reality, or maybe just repeating this one and insisting on it. Or maybe a little drive-by quippy insult followed by radio silence. IDK. Let's see what the future holds.)
Have you ever called it the genocide it is?
The very first sentence in your link is a standard "Biden is the most [thing Biden emphatically isn't] ever!" statement, and you want to talk about propaganda and talking points.
Moving of goalposts! Okay, I didn't have that one on the card, that's new.
The answer is yes:
Here's me saying "yes, I think Biden's complicit to a certain extent in the genocide going on in Gaza."
Here's me saying "if you don't like Biden enabling genocide by not reversing US foreign policy (which, again, I don't either)"
What's the new goal posts? My guess is that you'll read the context for those statements, and say that because I also wrote loads of stuff in them that doesn't fit your narrative (e.g. the fact, that you objected to, that Biden's done more anti-Israel stuff than the criminally low bar that is every other US president), they don't count.
Yes, that's the bullshit line. Even Reagan was willing to cut Israel off. I hope Biden moves to the left of Reagan and stops supporting genocide.
Ah, picking one little element and ignoring the rest of the message completely! I need one more for a bad-faith bingo.
However I will tell you that the one piece you picked out also doesn't hold up. Citation:
Pausing weapons shipments had nothing to do with murder in Palestine; it was because they attacked Iraq and we liked Iraq back then. Reagan, of all people, was just as supportive of the slaughter of brown people in Palestine as he was of it in many other places. And even besides the reasons why he might have been briefly upset with Israel for non-Palestine reasons, he didn't place sanctions on any Israelis, he didn't meet pointedly with Begin's political opponents, and he sure as shit didn't land the US military in Palestine.
I'm not trying to say that Biden doing those things somehow undoes $10 billion worth of weapons and money to support Israel's ongoing slaughter. I'm simply saying that it's factually true that the tiny steps Biden is taking are more than any other US leader in the long line of neoliberals has decided to do.
So he was willing to cut off Israel and they weren't even committing genocide at the time? Why is Biden sticking with them when they are?
I notice we've fully moved away from the question of "am I open to criticism of Biden" without comment, and smoothly transitioned to disagreeing on some other topic without acknowledging the abandonment of the first topic. That's another common propaganda tactic; by clever selection of what parts of the message someone responds to or not, they're able to transition to a new topic without ever having acknowledged that now that we've analyzed the question a little, they were clearly completely fucking wrong about the original topic of discussion. This can be done any number of times, for any number of arguments that don't really hold up when challenged, in order to continue a hostile exchange that doesn't really go anywhere but still creates an overall impression of factual parity between the two viewpoints.
I regret to inform you that I've got a bingo now, so we'll have to close it here. I feel pretty comfortable with what I've laid out as far as Biden's record vs. Reagan's and all that, but if you don't feel the same way, I think you're gonna have to cope with that feeling all on your own.