this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
126 points (98.5% liked)

askchapo

22748 readers
273 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
quartz242@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
blashork@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net
126
I've posted on social media about how it's fucked up that more money is going to Isntreal than to hurricane relief, and libs are saying that's a "right wing talking point" without explanation. Why? (hexbear.net)
submitted 3 weeks ago by Bobson_Dugnutt@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't watch cable news and I don't pay attention to Jeff Teidrich or whoever so I don't know where this bullshit is coming from. At least one person responding is nominally anti-genocide, so I don't think that's the reason. Another came back with something about the funding bill for FEMA as if it's a gotcha.

What's their logic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 29 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This makes it something of a disingenuous argument attempting to spread the narrative that "Democrats support genocide more than the they support struggling American citizens".

Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people

it is an attempt to tie two unrelated events together to keep topics damaging to the Democrat election machine alive while the news cycle has shifted to a topic that could hurt the Republicans election machine.

The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much

Everything is connected and not in a pepe-silvia way

Attempts like the Democrats attempt to increase funding to FEMA which was blocked by Republicans.

Did they try when they had a majority and could've pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren't serious about passing anything that helps people

[–] EndOfLine@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people

I totally agree. The current political climate is very much one of "why try to solve a problem when you can profit off of it."

My issue is in the choice of language. Trying to make it seem like one party is to blame when both are.

The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much

There is a difference between direct and indirect connections. In this instance, the aid sent to Isreal has no direct or immediate impact of federal aid to the communities impacted by the hurricanes. It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.

Did they try when they had a majority and could’ve pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren’t serious about passing anything that helps people

I am very confused by this argument. Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities? Please, can you expand on what you mean by this?

[–] Bobson_Dugnutt@hexbear.net 6 points 3 weeks ago

It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.

Yes, exactly. That's what I meant, but I think people took it in a partisan way.

Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities?

Speaking for myself, if I was in charge of a political party that had just gained majority power, I'd have a plan ready to pass as much priority legislation as possible in that term, knowing that I could lose the majority at the next election. The Republicans understood this, which is why we're still dealing with a lot of Trump's executive orders and appointees.