this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
382 points (99.2% liked)

politics

18986 readers
4375 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., repeatedly suggested a leading Arab American activist is a Hamas supporter when she testified Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on hate crimes, and he told her she should hide her "head in a bag."

The activist, Maya Berry, said repeatedly that she did not support Hamas and was "disappointed" by the minuteslong exchange toward the end of a hearing called "A Threat to Justice Everywhere: Stemming the Tide of Hate Crimes in America."

"You are the executive director of the Arab American Institute, are you not?" Kennedy said at the beginning of the exchange. She said she was and agreed with Kennedy that she is a Democratic activist.

"You support Hamas, do you not?" Kennedy asked, referring to the militant group behind the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel. The question prompted gasps and surprised laughs from the audience.

"Senator, oddly enough, I'm going to say thank you for that question, because it demonstrates the purpose of our hearing today in a very effective way," Berry responded. Kennedy then cut her off and insisted he needed a yes-or-no answer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wrong? No, not really. As I said, all of the "wrong" things I'm aware of aren't in their control at all, and blaming the federal government for them is just stupid.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If you say so. I suppose it's easier to complain about other countries than to look within. I mean the housing crisis, the health care system stain, issues with indigenous rights, outdated public transportation, BC and its whole opioid epidemic. But I guess those aren't problems the government could do anything about at all...

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

The housing crisis is an issue of democracy, not the federal government. Fixing it would get them voted out in a heartbeat, because the only fix is to drop existing house prices by around 80-90% and 65% of the population lives in a house they or their family own. Homeowners are also far more likely to vote.

The health care system strain is an issue of resources, there's an unlimited possibility to spend money here to do more. The government has to balance available money with an acceptable level of care. Again if you asked voters for an extra $1000 each a year to boost healthcare, you'd likely get voted out.

Indigenous rights, same problem. You can't give the land back entirely, the citizens wouldn't allow it. What will citizens allow, and indigenous people accept that will resolve the situation? Probably nothing. So they balance what they can, and neither party is exactly happy.

Public transportation is a provincial, or even a municipal issue, not a federal one. It's also not a popular issue with voters, because again the demographics of voters is heavily tilted towards car owners.

We've tried things for the opioid epidemic, other places have tried things for the opioid epidemic, nobody in the world has found a solution yet. Even countries with harsh drug laws like Japan are seeing massive drug use deaths, almost 100k people a year right now. So how is it OUR government that's failing?

The system of government we have follows what people want, and people don't always want what they say when there's a cost associated with it. It's all well and good to say "I want this fixed" but if you put the real price tag on it, people are rarely willing to pay that cost. It costs more than the annual family income to jail someone for a year for example. Lots of people are tough on crime, until they realize it takes all the taxes for their entire block to pay for one inmate.