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
And people think Democrats will ~~vote on~~ support Trump because Biden won't denounce Israel...
It's at least in part Russian propaganda. They don't want people to vote for Trump, they do want democratic voters to not vote at all, which will help Trump get elected.
Look at the people pushing the 'genocide Joe' thing. Invariably they're anti-NATO and make excuses for Iran, Syria and Russia. Not that they're doing it deliberately, but plenty seem to have bought the propaganda and are acting like useful idiots by spreading it.
Anytime someone goes to name calling I assume they are a bad actor. We can have a serious discussion on the matter without devolving into name calling so I just assume they are trying to sew discord more than anything else.
But you'll use that as the excuse every time someone says they won't be voting for Biden right?
The problem you run into with this excuse is regardless of where the ideas are coming from or who is amplifying them you and many others are clearly concerned about the upcoming election. Biden won the 2020 general election so that means you're worried there are people who voted for Biden in the 2020 general election and won't vote for him in 2024. If they're leftists or progressives that means staying home, voting 3rd party or writing in.
So here's a crazy idea: find a compromise. Leftists and progressives have raised multiple reasons they are frustrated or even angry at Biden. Why not yield to some of those objections? Frankly, the fact that discussions about giving progressive and leftist voters what they want in order to gain votes get so heavily down voted feels like the real PsyOP. Especially when the people downvoting simultaneously talk about the wonders of democracy and compromise. Here's just a few ideas Biden could do today:
It's hard to take people seriously when they talk about how important democracy is but sneer at the very idea of sacrificing any policy positions in order to court voters sitting to the left of Biden.
Without taking a position on what you're saying, do you think it's at all possible that making those choices could lose more voters than they'd gain? I honestly don't know, but changing a position on any issue runs the risk of losing votes as well.
Yes. You take a risk either way.
thank you
What do you know about politics dude because it seems like nothing.
Do you want to mock my understanding of politics or do you want my vote? You can't have both.
you're making this up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russias-alleged-election-meddling-tactics-is-2024-already-compromised/ar-BB1iXPOs
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-intelligence-report-alleging-russia-election-interference-shared-with-100-2023-10-20/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
none of your links support a claim that russia is using the conflict in israel to favor one candidate or another.
What many of us imagine is that it's bad when either nation does this.
Yes, it is hypocritical for most US politicians to criticize Russia's interference in US elections, but it's not incorrect.
It certainly isn't wrongthink for those of us who have little influence on what alphabet agencies do to complain about it happening just because it's happening elsewhere, too.
That's a non sequitur at best.
Another non sequitur, and in any case not what I said (nor implied, unless you read my reply in bad faith).
Thank you for explaining what your point was, but it's absolutely a non sequitur. My original point was about the validity of criticizing something because it's happening by more than one bad actor. Not quibbling about whether an small part of my statement ("little influence") is 100% correct or not. My point wasn't about litigating whether or not the US is a democracy, so: it was a non sequitur.
That said, it's clearly a waste of time to engage with you, because if you're going to be bent out of shape for being "accused" of a non sequitur and then start calling me "a schlub that lives in a fascist empire", then you don't have the temperament to actually fight a fascist empire. Some of us do more than vote and complain online.
Imagine banning people from your stonercringe community because they said you shouldn't drive high
no one is threatening to vote for Trump because of biden's genocidal proclivities. since nobody's doing that, none of them can be Russian agents. you made this up.
Since reading is hard:
Way to ignore the entire point of the person you responded to.
i'm not ignoring it. i'm challenging it.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were "challenging it" by ignoring the actual point and making up something else to respond to. My mistake, I'll have to learn alternative definitions for words.
the actual point is that they claimed there is a russian campaign to help trump's performance in november on the basis of biden's support for genocide. there is no evidence for this.
Just like there was no evidence during the 2016 or 2020 campaigns, but surely they've changed this election. If only there were any evidence of it happening this round, I'm sure you'd change your mind.
I mean, could you imagine if they had tried to drum up charges against the president's family by getting an asset to be believed as a credible witness in a case against his family? Or if they were putting out deep fakes to make people think Biden said something he never did?
that's not the claim that's being made or to which i'm objecting. i'm objecting to the characterization of leftists as russian propagandists.
this is innuendo. there is a specific claim being made about people who are objecting to joe's genocide, and that claim simply isn't supported by any evidence. your innuendo is slander.
Thanks for proving you're a bad faith actor, you clearly didn't even bother to read even a single link I posted that showed evidence.
Bye friend, I'm not dealing with your goalpost moving bs any longer
my position hasn't changed at all.
your links were provided above. your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
Genocide Joe needs to be held accountable for sending weapons to a country engaged in genocide. That's not propaganda, that's international law.
And just for the sake of science: do you have an opinion on NATO?
Do you have an opinion on anything I said or just insinuations about my agenda?
It's fine I guess, I'm not a Russian or Chinese shill lmao. I guess I was technically a social democrat, then I thought humanity would be okay in small tribal communes, but now I think humanity should go extinct in order to save the remaining animals we haven't already driven to extinction. For sciences sake.
So you do realize that's worse than Hitler right? Your "noble cause" requires humanity to be exterminated, Hitler just wanted a "perfect race" of humans. Even if it's not by your hand or directed by you, you want the elimination of the entire human species.
There are some days where I'm in that camp too lol
Yeah I don't think it should be an extermination, I know there are others like me called the voluntary extinction movement or something. I think intelligent people can see the writing on the wall that we've passed an important climate tipping point in 2023, I'm lucky I didn't already have kids, but I'm getting a vasectomy.
Humanity has driven 70% of all species to extinction in the 250,000 years we've been around. 150 species a day. How many megafauna did we permanently erase before we even developed the written word? I think if we burn ourselves out before we spread to other planets or solar systems, said places are lucky.
That's the easy way out. Please stick around and help the rest of us try to steer humanity in the right direction. Help the moral arc of the universe bend a little faster. It's hard work, and most of us won't see much of a return. But long-term, let's hope that humanity can.
To clarify: I'm a biologist. The perspective you've taken is basically "Noble Savage" but for animals. Animals are pushed to extinction all the time. Yes, we're incredibly good at it, and we're good at coming up with highfalutin reasons for killing things, but look at chimps, ants, dolphins...nature is brutal. It sucks to be most animals. Say a habitat changes, and a species "needs" to move into an adjacent similar habitat that's already occupied by one or more species exploiting those resources? Extinction of something is pretty likely. That's all very much an oversimplification, of course, but this is a lemmy comment.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111310 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-waging-war-ants-humans-have-lot-common-180972169/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
The hope I have is our intelligence. The fact that you recognize this existential threat is more than a badger is capable of.
If we found an organism that drives 150 species extinct a day what would we do with it? Put aside your human exceptionalism for a second and think about it.
That's entirely my point though: we can't reason with a deadly virus, but we can with most humans. Or at least some humans. OK maybe a few. The point is, I don't think it's logical to throw in the towel.
That isn't human exceptionalism in my view, either: because I don't believe we're inherently special animals when it comes to how we treat the environment. My point is that most animals inherently exploit resources, and drive others to extinction. We just managed to make guns and power tools and propaganda. Once humans are gone, we have no reason to think that any species that manages to start some technologically advanced civilization will be any better. So either we eradicate all biological life to ensure that it doesn't eradicate biological life...or we try to improve humanity, because despite things, we can often be reasoned with. Humanity has gotten better, even though it hasn't improved enough, when looking at human civilization over the last few thousand years. That's my point: not that we don't deserve calamity, but that we can - if we fight hard enough - try to steer our own species toward a better future for everyone.
Who knows though, maybe if humanity is gone the bonobos will rise up to take our place. They're pretty chill, all things considered.
There are no organisms to compare with how destructive/exploitive humans are to the other species/resources around them. It makes more sense to compare humanity to extinction events like super volcanoes and large meteor impacts. And we're not even through the worst of the climate catastrophe that we're still accelerating into, let along slowing or reversing.
I respect your take, and I appreciate your well meaning.
Thanks, I respect your take too. I fully understand that I'm an optimist, and will desperately cling to any shred of hope we have. Not a position everyone holds, and I don't hold it against anyone to not have hope for humanity's future, as much as it conflicts with my own thoughts. In any case, I hope you have a good one! Thanks for a good discussion.
Likewise!
They will. By not voting for either.
I don't believe that is something that anyone has ever said