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
What exactly is your stance here? That the invasion isn't resulting in the needless deaths of countless civilians and the destruction of Gazan infrastructure? Or that that is happening, but that it's okay?
Why would I need to take a stance here at all? What is your point with that?
I'm saying that the way you're framing this whole ordeal lacking sensibility on the matter to paint an entire political party as some draconian death panel, when in reality, the presidency is supporting a political partnership during high tensions and made a tough decision. Why is there a need to pivot this with some unhelpful, inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric? And what's more, now you're accusing others of shit they have not said or even implied.
So, really, what is your deal? Of all the valid reclamations, why is reframing and putting words in people's mouths your go-to strategy? That is my point.
I think this question might have caused my brain to short circuit. You can't disagree with somebody unless you disagree with them about something. I cannot for the life of me fathom how you could possibly ever think otherwise.
When the thing we're talking about is continuing to aggressively fund a regime currently attempting a genocide, this is a comically lenient way of phrasing things.
Pivot from what? What are you talking about? The vast majority of your reply borders on word soup, and mostly consists of doing the thing you're currently accusing me of doing.
That writing an article about how great of a guy Biden is while the most pressing thing going on at this very moment is how he won't stop indirectly funding a genocide is ghoulish and repugnant.
If we're standing together on the street and I point out the guy currently kicking a puppy and start telling you about how much of a nice guy he is, how could you conclude anything about me other than the fact I don't care about the puppy?
This article is sick.
Yeah, because you expect a certain answer and I'm not giving you that. I'm telling you that I'm not playing your game because I'm calling you out. Your rhetoric sucks.
You know what's also comically biased? Pretending that that's all they're doing, but go off.
Quote me, do it. If we're doing the same thing I want to see exactly what you mean with examples. Because it seems to me that you don't want to understand and you're now reaching and deflecting. I was very clear with what I meant in my previous comment. I can't help you if you don't want to read it carefully and earnestly.
But that's not what you wrote. You are blaming Democrats as a whole for a political decision, essentially calling every one of them a panel murderers. And now have shifted to single-handedly blaming Biden for this funding when there has been clear bipartisan support. How is it that I'm more informed on this as a foreigner? You see how you're not the one being consistent? And I can quote you if you want although I think it's very clear.
The guy kicking the puppy is in Israel. The people who gave that guy the boots he's using to kick that puppy with with are in the USA. Ultimately, who is really to blame for kicking the puppy? Why do you need to blame people in the US directly for what people in Israel are doing on their own volition by taking advantage of the situation? The people in the US are currently telling them that enough is enough. Do you see what I mean by pivoting or pinning the blame on someone else? Do you see what you're doing?
Nah, you want to make it seem sick to advance your agenda by discrediting it completely based on some unrelated issue. How disingenuous is that.
I literally just asked what point you were even trying to get across because you weren't making any sense. It's not that deep.
Again, what is your stance here? That I should be criticizing everybody more? I'm not going far enough?
I'm sorry I didn't fill out the bulletpoint list for you. For the avoidance of doubt:
It's a statement that criticises the democratic party, and by extension Biden, explicitly tied back to the article via the structure of the headline.
It's a metaphor for "doing a bad thing". Funding a regime attempting genocide is a bad thing.
I know you need my analogy to not work—because it makes it painfully obvious how tone-deaf an article about how great Biden is, written when the most relevant thing he's done recently is funding a genocide—but it's very clearly fine.
If you insist on using your analogy, the US won't stop cheering on the puppy kicker even after everybody's asked them to stop.
They're telling them that enough is enough while continuing to fund their war and doing absolutely nothing to stop them. Words without actions are cheap. Apparently that's enough for you, though?
my horrific agenda of "genocide is bad, actually"
Exactly, so how are we 6 replies deep and still talking about this? Like, it wasn't complicated to begin with.
That's irrelevant. I'm telling you that your rhetoric is bad, nearsighted and inaccurate. Like someone else pointed out, bullshit is bullshit--do better. Invest even those 5 move seconds in thinking through what you're saying instead of casting wide nets, constructing black & white arguments and pretending that things are different than they are because you don't like them. It's lazy. How is that hard to understand?
Exactly, out of laziness. And now that we can look closely your list is still bad, nearsighted and inaccurate. No lack of insight, no nuance, not a care in the world. Your whole argument is Dems are bad m'kay.
I know what a metaphor is. I also know what a bad metaphor is, too.
And guess what, it was a bipartisan effort all along. But Dems are bad, m'kay.
Is giving credit where credit is due tone-deaf now? Can we not hold two different ideas in our head?
It's your bad analogy, sweetheart. And nobody's cheering here, you you're just exaggerating once again because you don't like what's happening. It's pretty damn clear.
Again, nothing to do with me. Stick to the topic: your arguments are unhelpful and lazy and nearsighted and inaccurate. Stop trying to change the topic.
Once again, I said "your agenda", not "your horrific agenda". Show the restraint of an adult, please.
So we're actually at the point where you're throwing out nonsense, but I'm not allowed to tell you that it's nonsense because that's changing the topic? Are you a real person?
You just keep asserting that what I'm saying is inaccurate and not expounding. The best you've managed so far is "it was a bipartisan" effort, which is so irrelevant I just ignored it the first time you said it because I presumed you were confused. Wow, who knew that two political parties could both be to blame here? A real shocker. I'll get the news on the phone.
Is the problem here that you don't understand things like sarcasm or hyperbole? Do I believe that somebody's run the numbers and come up with a precise figure on how valuable a Palestinian life is? Obviously not, no, but that's okay because no normal person is going to intuit that I think that from my original comment. (For the avoidance of doubt, that line about getting the news on the phone in the paragraph above was also meant in jest)
I was genuinely going to make a joke last time about how maybe I shouldn't have said "kicking a puppy", because it might confuse you given that it's Palestinians being kicked here and not a literal canine juvenile. Then you unironically go and get yourself muddled on the verb "cheering". Congratulations.
Similarly, a normal person would understand that writing a puff piece article headline about how great somebody's past actions are while making no mention of the genocide they're currently funding is morally bankrupt at best.
Ultimately all we're left with is that you feel I was just a bit too spicy for your liking when calling out a genocide—a genocide you agree is happening, and that the democratic party is funding. Your sum-total contribution to the conversation thus far has been to play the role of tone police. Thanks for your service, I guess.
So no, I don't need to "watch my rhetoric" when calling out a genocide. Because it's a genocide. Maybe you could try some of that adult restraint you mentioned next time you feel the need to interject with something quite so wholly worthless. Thanks.
Oh please, you're just wasting my time now with more bullshit. Nice pointless essay, have a life.