60
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

He knows he can do whatever he wants because liberals will vote for him anyway. Theyve cornered their supporters into a corner gave them a boogeyman and they will be rewarded, again, for shitty politics thats getting people killed

I could kill and starve thousands of brown people in the ME and not lose a single vote

[-] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago

The Boogeyman already proved his worth as a Boogeyman, but you're either too dumb or too privileged to understand

[-] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You act like the President makes international support decisions based on his opinions or constituency. POTUS has always leaned most heavily on the advisement of the State Department when making decisions like these. Not news, citizens, the UN, the ICC, or the ICJ, but state intelligence. Blinken needs to get back to work providing a more thorough and conclusive report so Biden has something to justify a change in a preexisting commitment of support, and Biden should be pressuring him to do so.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

If he takes their advice he is complicit in the outcome. He alone has final say.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’m not deferring responsibility, only explaining how the presidency works regarding intelligence of international affairs. You don’t have to like the truth, but I suggest you make yourself aware of it.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

The only truth here is the final decision comes from the top. And the top is the one responsible.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Again, I agree he’s the one responsible. My comment was meant challenge your suggestion that he’s making international relations decisions based on polls or likelihood of reelection, not tell you where to point your finger. Carry on with your judgement all you’d like.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

There's no pressure. That has been clear from the jump. But especially when police cracked down on peaceful protesters on campuses.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Do these ghoulish sociopaths feel that pressure?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There is absolutely no pressure on Biden to stop aiding genociders, just empty words. Nothing is going to happen to Biden if he doesn't change course, there are no consequences. There is more pressure on Biden to sanction the ICC with the maga republicans because those comments are coming from Netenyahu and he can actully evoke material consequences by fucking with the AIPAC funding.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Here's a similar scene from CoD 4: Modern Warfare. Instead of actual tyrant-following, shemag-wearing, AK-touting terrorists among the ruins behind the city/district road sign getting bombed to hell by your U.S. weapons of destruction, for some to masturbate to this killing firepower, there are kids and all the innocent people being put through genocide among those raging fires.

I'm not saying the games are a bad influence, not at all. But there is a painful discrepancy between how the U.S. weapons are depicted in use vs. how they are actually used.

this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
60 points (91.7% liked)

politics

18138 readers
4147 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS