this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023

301 points (94.1% liked)

politics

19077 readers

5839 users here now

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

• 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

301

Fetterman says he assumed speaking publicly about his mental health ‘would be the end of my career’ (thehill.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave to c/politics

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) said in an interview that aired Sunday that he believed opening up to the public about his mental health struggles earlier this year would negatively impact his career.

In an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press,” Fetterman opened up about his battle with clinical depression earlier this year and urged those facing mental health issues to seek help. He said that for the first couple of weeks while being treated for depression at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, he felt scared about sharing his experiences publicly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FlyingSquid 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Instead he continued on into a career that allowed him say all kinds of atrocious things in support of Israel.

Still better than Dr. Oz would have been though.

For all the people downvoting me:

Asked if he was surprised that so many on the left disagree with him on Israel, Fetterman responded, “I mean, of course, I expected that there will always be a diversity of opinions and that as long as things go that the Democratic caucus might splinter more.

"I would be the last man standing to be absolutely there on the Israeli side on this with no conditions.” He continues, “I grieve, and it’s awful the incredible civilian deaths and the suffering. It is awful. War is hell, as they say. But only one side has used civilians as human shields. Only one side has broken the ceasefires. Only one side will systematically rape, torture, and mutilate Israeli women and girls in the most unspeakable, awful ways. … Without destroying Hamas, there will be no enduring peace and a stable, two-state solution.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-fetterman-hamas-must-go-i-would-be-last-man-standing-for-israel/ar-AA1md0Ad

"If not for the horrific attacks by Hamas terrorists, thousands of innocent Israelis and Palestinians would still be alive today," Fetterman wrote on Wednesday.

"Now is not the time to talk about a ceasefire. We must support Israel in efforts to eliminate the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered innocent men, women, and children," he went on.

"Hamas does not want peace, they want to destroy Israel. We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized," the senator added.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/john-fettermans-israel-remarks-spark-furious-backlash/ar-AA1iuX2Z

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

I mean, the things he’s saying aren’t atrocious, you just don’t like or agree with them.

[–] FlyingSquid 36 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"I would be the last man standing to be absolutely there on the Israeli side on this with no conditions.”

That sounds pretty atrocious to me. No conditions means "even if they plan to slaughter every last Palestinian child."

But only one side has used civilians as human shields. Only one side has broken the ceasefires. Only one side will systematically rape, torture, and mutilate Israeli women and girls in the most unspeakable, awful ways.

This, meanwhile, is an atrocious lie. Because Israel and the IDF have been found guilty of all of those things. It is an atrocious lie, not just a lie, because it ignores all of the horrific things Israel has done since he wants to be the "last man standing on the Israeli side"

If not for the horrific attacks by Hamas terrorists, thousands of innocent Israelis and Palestinians would still be alive today

This is atrocious because it puts the responsibility of taking the lives of thousands of Palestinians out of the IDF's hands and entirely in Hamas' hands, suggesting that Israel is innocent of killing Palestinians.

We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized,

And if you can't see why this is atrocious, unless you're just unaware that thousands of children have been killed in the very short timespan of this war, I don't even know how to help you.

[+] Adubya -19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That sounds pretty atrocious to me. No conditions means “even if they plan to slaughter every last Palestinian child.”

The Senator knows that isn't happening currently nor is it going to be occurring and is speaking in that context. Quite frankly I've heard way worse actually professed by Pro-Palestinians supporters up to the point they consider even Israeli babies legitimate targets. Even when Pro-Palestinians are challenged to at least denounce Hamas they ridicule the effort which seems worse than the Senator's statement. You might just have to accept that the Senator is being aspirational about the statement given the current realities not the ones you want to exaggerate.

This, meanwhile, is an atrocious lie. Because Israel and the IDF have been found guilty of all of those things. It is an atrocious lie, not just a lie, because it ignores all of the horrific things Israel has done since he wants to be the “last man standing on the Israeli side”

Ceasefires relate to the conflict in which they are negotiated. So far the Senator is correct that Israel has yet to violate one in this iteration of the Israel/Gaza-Hamas War.

This is atrocious because it puts the responsibility of taking the lives of thousands of Palestinians out of the IDF’s hands and entirely in Hamas’ hands, suggesting that Israel is innocent of killing Palestinians.

There needs to be at least some(not all or large amounts of) allowances for refugees to neighboring regions. Sad fact is every country is fencing in civilians here because of irrational fears of land theft & political axe grinding. Israel returned all the land of Gaza already through disengagement. These are vulnerable people and I do agree it is an atrocity. There is an entire UN refugee program & numerous NGOs dedicated to Palestinians and the world has allowed a lot of extremism to flourish over the decades. Disappointing that no one wants to discuss the negligence from these organizations.

Quite frankly the UN has been embarrassing with the increase of Global conflicts. Food Aid is decreasing while hostile powers are strangling grain supplies yet it can barely respond. Recently Sudan & Congo is in conflict with lots of children suffering yet no one cares.

[–] HasturInYellow 16 points 10 months ago

You very conveniently ignore the part of the comment you were replying to where they said that Israelis also rape and torture Palestinians. Which is a fact, which Fetterman appears fine with given his unconditional support.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Standing by genocide is atrocious. Decent people will of course not like and support that.

[Edit] Oh? Do you disagree? Is supporting genocide A-OK in your books?

[+] [email protected] -16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You’re framing the opposition as supporting genocide - either in bad faith or ignorance. No-one’s going to waste their time discussing this with you.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Genocide is what they're up to. People could at least be honest with themselves about what they're supporting.

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[7]

It's as plain as day.

[+] [email protected] -15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It requires an intent to destroy all Palestinians as a group. That’s the debatable part. It is not enough to just not just have a different weighting of military value vs civilian casualties - it requires systemic intent to destroy the whole or a significant part of the group.

If that isn’t required, every battle ever conducted is genocide, every war was genocide. It really dilutes the meaning of genocide.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it requires systemic intent to destroy the whole or a significant part of the group.

This is what they are about.

They are telling you who they are. Believe them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

There's a hefty supply of various proof that genocide and land seizure is the end goal, not our fault you refuse to accept that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Because a genocide is happening, and he is standing in defense of it.

If youre pretending its not a genocide, you are doing so in bad faith or ignorance. Ample evidence has been shown.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Refusing to call for a ceasefire at the least is supportive of continuing atrocities. It is atrocious to support the Israeli state at this point and has been for years.