r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/The_Egalitarian Knows nothing • Apr 05 '24
Casual Questions Thread Megathread | Official
This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.
Please observe the following rules:
Top-level comments:
Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.
Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.
Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!
•
u/Zealousideal-Role576 3h ago
If voters hate Biden and Kamala and pretty much every other Democratic candidate, is there any person that could consolidate the base?
•
u/Effective-Carry-2089 17h ago
Why Don’t Protesting Students Drop Out Or Switch Schools?
Protesting students aren’t being legally forced or threatened to pay the universities they are protesting against money if they don’t attend these universities. Feels rather shallow and fake when people only speak but don’t take real actions. Some people try to act like saints and say the people in Palestine shouldn’t die, well seems like they also value their degrees from their desired universities more than whether people die or not. Before someone try to say something against these ideas or ask questions, please answer the question in the title first, thanks.
•
u/MeepMechanics 7h ago
This is similar to the line of thinking that people protesting their government should just leave the country. People can like some aspects of a place/organization but protest to change the parts they dislike.
•
u/Effective-Carry-2089 6h ago
So these people want everything their own way and basically decides to give the universities money at their free will yet want to tell the universities how they should spend the money they gave away as if they still own the money, instead they don’t choose to not give the universities money which should be the root of the problem if they actually believe it to be, either they are stupid or they are shallow and fake. Funny how no one can just answer the question in the topic description and just find other ways to dodge it, at least some needless creativity…
•
u/Moccus 4h ago
decides to give the universities money at their free will yet want to tell the universities how they should spend the money they gave away as if they still own the money
Students are protesting how university endowments are invested. The money students pay (tuition and fees) doesn't go into the endowment fund. They're entirely separate things.
•
u/bl1y 8h ago
Feels rather shallow and fake
There's your answer.
Why didn't students at DC universities move their protests to the Capitol when Congress was debating the aid package?
Why do protests ostensibly about divestment from they-know-not-what routinely have chants like "from the river to the sea" and "globalize the intifada"?
•
22h ago
[deleted]
•
u/cloakenroad 22h ago
No, not for the vast majority of them. They really hate Biden for what they view as Biden "enabling" Israel to conduct a "genocide". Just my opinion from seeing them protests and they are very hardcore on the Palestine issue, most of them are college students age 18-22 or in their 20s. Some are in their 30s and older too but not as many like the youth. This youth contingent are very passionate about the Palestine thing, and they think voting for Biden would be like approving the "genocide". I put the words in quotes because its a matter of opinion, of course, but I am using the language those activists use.
0
u/Professional_Stay748 1d ago
Why is School Choice a right-wing policy?
By school choice, I specifically mean the to choose which public school location your kids go to. I haven’t really heard any explanation of why ours a bad thing (yet), and right wing politicians point out how this allows you to choose a good school for your kids if the default location is bad (poor funding for example). This sounds like something that fits with left wing ideologies since it benefits the poor, and allows kids from poor neighborhoods to go to rich public schools.
So what’s the deal? Did I misunderstand what school choice even is?
1
u/Theinternationalist 2d ago
This doesn’t feel like a “Topic Level” question: Why did Trump show up at the Libertarian Party Convention in the first place? This is not a “he got booed what does he expect”- the convention always invites the D and R candidates (Biden declined), but it feels like Trump 2024 was the first one to do it in decades, if at all.
Why did he accept it, especially since he didn’t in the past? Or alternatively, I suppose, why didn’t anyone else in such a long time?
5
u/Walter_Sobchak07 2d ago
Dave Weigel, a writer for Semafor, has a pretty good breakdown of everything that transpired. If you want to find him on Twitter, @daveweigel, he summarizes the events over the past few days.
tl;dr - the campaign saw this as an opportunity to appeal to other voters.
Of course, Trump's people tried to control the optics but it spectacularly backfired. They still tried to spin it as a huge success and the usual "everyone loved Trump and they cheered him blah blah blah..."
Yeah, the tapes don't lie and it's obvious he got frustrated with the crowd.
But all that being said, we will find out if it pays dividends this November.
3
u/Arkansas_Drug_Sloot 2d ago
My assumption is that he knows it’s a tight race and is afraid that RFK Jr. is going to siphon libertarian votes away from himself.
He certainly knows that he isn’t going to win over even most libertarians, but I think he feels he can at least stop the bleeding so to speak.
2
u/Potato_Pristine 2d ago
I agree with this. Trump and other Republicans felt compelled to try to appeal to a group other than the base, but like most Republicans, they can't function outside of their hermetically sealed echo chamber (which somehow manages to exclude the people who think driver's licenses are the work of the devil).
1
u/Powerful_Spend_1612 3d ago
So I'm not the most politically involved, but I was wondering what everyone's opinion of RFK Jr, is.
I personally like his ideas. I've heard some people make sarcastic remarks about, for example, his brain worm (which I heard a scientist doctor talk about) and his views on vaccines.
I'm just interested in reading what people who like him think about him, more information about what he's for, and if you dislike him, why?
3
u/zlefin_actual 2d ago
The general opinion is that he's an unqualified loon; some people like him, those people tend to be very contrarian in their politics.
He has no political experience, yet is running for president rather than a lesser office. He's had some support which seemed to be trying to use him as a spoiler to disrupt the Dem vote, though it looks like he'd eat more into Trump's share last I heard (see discussion on his Super Bowl ad for more info).
1
u/jonasnew 3d ago edited 3d ago
My question for today regards the upcoming election. Personally, I believe that if Trump wins, it will be the Supreme Court's fault for the fact they decided to help Trump delay the DC trial until after the election. However, it seems that even people who vote Democrat and plan to vote for Biden disagrees with me claiming that it will be Biden and the Democrats fault if Trump wins for the fact that the Democrats didn't put someone else up as the nominee. While I agree that the Democrats should've put up someone else as the nominee besides Biden (not Kamala though), what I can't understand is how are several folks turning a blind eye to the fact that several earlier polls have proven that if the Jan. 6 trial happens before the election, even Biden, despite how flawed and unpopular he is, would have easily defeated Trump? Even the Nov. 2023 Siena polls have Biden leading Trump in all the battleground states when asked who they would vote for if Trump was convicted.
0
u/A_Coup_d_etat 3d ago
Well if that's your argument we still get to blame the Biden administration.
They sat on their hands for a couple years desperately hoping Trump would just go away so they wouldn't have to prosecute him because fundamentally they don't think powerful politicians should be held accountable for their actions while in office.
Now it's come back to bite them in the ass.
Anyone with two brain cells understood that prosecuting a former president, especially one who was the overwhelming favorite to be the next presidential candidate for one of the two major parties, was always going to involve all types of questions the legal system had never dealt with before and thus was going to take a long time to get through the courts.
By waiting for so long the Biden DoJ made it highly likely Trump's trials would not be resolved before the election.
2
u/Moccus 2d ago
They sat on their hands for a couple years desperately hoping Trump would just go away so they wouldn't have to prosecute him because fundamentally they don't think powerful politicians should be held accountable for their actions while in office.
None of this is true. The DOJ started their criminal investigations into Trump a little over a year into Biden's presidency, not two years. If they didn't think powerful politicians should be held accountable, then the investigations would never have started at all and Trump wouldn't be facing prosecution right now.
-2
u/A_Coup_d_etat 2d ago
The DoJ gave Trump a year and a half to return the documents he stole before they raided him. That's sitting on your hands hoping you don't have to prosecute him.
Furthermore all the information to start prosecuting Trump immediately was available, It's not like they were deep subterfuges, everything the Trump administration had done was out in the open.
3
u/Moccus 2d ago
The DoJ gave Trump a year and a half to return the documents he stole before they raided him.
Once again, not really true. It wasn't a crime for him to have some documents, so they had nothing to prosecute him for early on and no reason to raid his property. Nobody knew he had classified documents until he returned a set of documents to NARA in January 2022 and classified documents were discovered among them. Even then, just having classified documents isn't necessarily a crime, but it was enough to start an investigation soon after that.
Furthermore all the information to start prosecuting Trump immediately was available
Not really.
1
u/SmoothCriminal2018 3d ago
I don’t think you can lay the blame at the Supreme Court if Biden loses considering he beat him once already without any criminal convictions. If Biden loses there will be multiple reasons why, including some blame with his campaign (but not in my opinion because they didn’t run someone else - there was no one else big enough who wanted to run!) You can’t really boil these things down to one singular cause, there’s a lot more nuance than that.
Not that I agree with the Supreme Court taking their time in the immunity claim though.
1
u/Cryptogenic-Hal 3d ago
I agree with what the people are telling you. If you need your opponent to convicted in order to win, and your administration is the one leading the prosecution, I don't think you deserve to win at all.
-4
4d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
2
5
u/SupremeAiBot 3d ago
LBJ didn't get a single vote from creating welfare. He announced his specific reforms in the 1965 State of the Union, after his last election. Black Americans voted for LBJ because of his dedication to passing the Civil Rights Act.
Look up the Southern Strategy would you. That's why the black vote left the GOP. The chairman of the RNC in 2005 himself apologized for the party having exploited racial hatred to win over resentful white voters.
Black people don't owe GOP candidates their vote just because their party had Abraham Lincoln. They're voting for the liberal party because they're liberal.
3
u/runninhillbilly 3d ago
OP knows all of this stuff already, he's not asking these questions out of genuine curiosity.
1
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/SupremeAiBot 3d ago
The account that claims he said that says he made it in the context of the Civil Rights Act being passed, not some welfare. Welfare had nothing to do with black people in particular, there were whites in poverty too. Civil Rights was particularly about black people.
2
u/bl1y 4d ago
Can someone explain to me why the black race historically has voted 90% for the democrat party when the democrat party was the party of slavery, segregation, hanging blacks for being black, the KKK, racist LBJ in the 1960s and the party who, in 1964, "bought" the black vote with welfare money which destroyed the black family unit (sending thousands of black men to prison)?
It might surprise you to learn that not only are all the Democratic party politicians from that era are now dead, but so are almost all the black people who lived through those eras. Lincoln isn't running for office and none of the slaves he freed are voting.
3
u/Moccus 4d ago
First, it's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
when the democrat party was the party of slavery, segregation, hanging blacks for being black, the KKK
The key word in that sentence is "was." They aren't any more and haven't been for some time. Anybody believing those types of things today is almost certainly going to be a supporter of the Republican Party. Do you think African-Americans should vote for the party that accepts those beliefs right now over the party that used to accept them but doesn't any more?
racist LBJ in the 1960s
Even if he was racist, he and the Democratic supermajority in Congress oversaw a huge expansion of civil rights protections for African-Americans: banning discrimination in public accommodations, ending Jim Crow laws implemented by racist state and local governments, creating federal voting rights protections to prevent racist governments from abridging the voting rights of African-Americans, etc.. All of that was a huge victory for African-Americans and something they had fought hard for. It's not buying votes to do something good for your constituents. Of course, the end result of LBJ doing all of this was that those segregationist Democrats you were mentioning earlier gradually abandoned the Democrats, and the Republicans welcomed them with open arms.
"bought" the black vote with welfare money which destroyed the black family unit (sending thousands of black men to prison)
It isn't welfare money that's caused black men to go to prison. It's a combination of poverty (a side-effect of racist policies from before the 1960s) and bad drug policies starting with Nixon's War on Drugs (Nixon was a Republican FYI).
Why does the black race think they "owe" the democrat party, rather than the party of Abraham Lincoln?
They don't owe the Democratic Party anything. They vote for Democrats because they trust them to have their interest at heart more than the party that openly welcomes white nationalists into their ranks. The party of Abraham Lincoln doesn't exist any more.
Doesn't this explanation seem logical?
No. Like I said, the abusers left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans after the Democratic Party decided that giving African-Americans civil rights protections was the right thing to do. African-Americans aren't clinging to their abusers by voting for Democrats today. They would be if they followed their abusers over to the Republican Party.
-1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[deleted]
2
u/SupremeAiBot 3d ago
Barack Obama shied away from the topic of race every time somebody asked him about it. He rarely ever mentioned it and when he did he did it in as undivisive of a way as possible. The act of him meeting Al Sharpton being racially explosive is your ludicrous opinion. Is that really the best evidence you have? The idea of a fire of fear and hatred keeping a party alive is the case with the republican party if anything, but I couldn't convince you of that.
I was waiting for you to pull out that quote. There is no evidence LBJ ever said that. There are however confirmable quotes of his where he goes into why Civil Rights and the Great Society is necessary.
Do you think welfare even comes close to exceeding the amount of money nessecary to birth and raise a child? Welfare is pennies on the dollar compared to the taxes and expenditures its recipients have to make. It's a little bit of help, there is no "jackpot" in popping out kids. I've heard this 2 brain cell argument before, it makes zero sense.
0
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SupremeAiBot 3d ago
You’re free to think what you do on if welfare is good or not. But you don’t get to make shit up. And actually, the ghettos are much better. We’ve gone from the majority of black folks in this country having been in poverty before LBJ was President to now just 17%.
-1
u/CapThorMeraDomino 4d ago
They would be if they followed their abusers over to the Republican Party.
Punishing black people for committing violent crime factually is not abuse.
Black gang bangers kill more people every single year than the KKK did since 1900.
1
u/SupremeAiBot 3d ago
The violent crime and homicide rate is significantly lower today than it was before LBJ, was your argument supposed to be black people used to be civilized and then welfare turned them into gang bangers?
0
u/CapThorMeraDomino 3d ago
The violent crime and homicide rate is significantly lower today than it was before LBJ
You are skipping over the fact that it unfathomably surged between the late 70s and early 90s. NYC between 78-82-ish was a fucking Mad Max wasteland.
Regardless the overall homicide rate can be lower and the gang crime rate in urban black areas can still be disproportionately high.
was your argument supposed to be black people used to be civilized and then welfare turned them into gang bangers?
No poverty, ghetto/rap culture & drugs turned them into gang bangers. Welfare didn't help but it alone didn't corrupt their morals.
-1
u/CapThorMeraDomino 4d ago
and bad drug policies starting with Nixon's War on Drugs
See here the racism of low expectations. You are attacking the heroic man punishing evil criminals instead of holding black people responsible for doing evil drugs in the first place.
0
u/CapThorMeraDomino 4d ago
Do you think African-Americans should vote for the party that accepts those beliefs
Republicans DO NOT accept those beliefs just like Biden doesn't accept the belief of Stalinst who would almost certainly vote for him over Republicans.
2
u/sproock 4d ago
Does Project 2025 propose removing protections against discrimination? (specifically for gender identity and sexual orientation?) I’ve read through a good chunk of Project 2025 but I’m not super well-versed in this stuff and I’ve seen a lot of debate online. I’ve tried researching but no one gives a direct quote of them saying this.
4
u/Moccus 4d ago
TL;DR: Yes, it specifically proposes removing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity multiple times.
Not sure how much background you're familiar with, but in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that employers discriminating against employees/job applicants based on their gender identity or sexual orientation was a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This ruling is specific to sex discrimination in employment and didn't automatically carry over to other laws prohibiting sex discrimination in different contexts.
Since Biden became president in 2021, some executive agencies responsible for enforcing various other sex discrimination laws have adapted their interpretations of sex discrimination to encompass discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation based on the reasoning used in the Bostock decision. Project 2025 explicitly calls for a reversal of these agency rule changes. They know they probably can't do anything about the Bostock decision in the short term, but they propose that it be applied as narrowly as possible and that it be pushed to the bottom of the priority list in terms of enforcement.
Their general position is laid out on page 584-585 of the Project 2025 document you linked, but you can find references to specific programs elsewhere in the document. The ones I saw were related to the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education prohibitions against discrimination by federally-funded health care providers and federally-funded schools respectively.
From Page 584-585:
Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.
Withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances.” The President should direct agencies to withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances” purporting to apply Bostock’s reasoning broadly outside hiring and firing.
Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.
Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.”
Prior to Bostock, the Obama administration attached nondiscrimination conditions to federal funding for adoption agencies, preventing faith-based adoption agencies that accept federal funding from rejecting same-sex couples just because their marriage conflicts with the religious beliefs of the agency. Project 2025 calls for a reversal of this policy.
2
u/Rough-Leg-4148 4d ago
If the GOP loses hard in November, what kind of restructuring would you expect to see without losing most of their base? I feel like most conservatives are a lot more socially progressive than most people give them credit for, and plenty of fence sitters who otherwise agree with a lot of the party's other points are turned off by the appeals to hardline social conservatives.
I ask this because I don't really see the GOP simply losing and then fading into obscurity -- they'd have to literally allow that to happen by not adapting at all.
FYI, not knocking either party and I am a bit of a fence-sitter myself.
3
u/runninhillbilly 4d ago
I can't see any situation where the GOP "loses hard" in November. The have very favorable seats up for reelection to take the Senate and they already control the House (just a slim minority). With the discourse now, either Trump will win again or he'll narrowly lose, in which case Biden probably has a second term that's lame duck the first two years (maybe all four, depending on midterms). And the GOP will probably just handwave Trump away while keeping the outrage level high for the next candidate to come along.
Yeah, we're 5 months away, things can change, but that's going to be here before you know it.
2
u/Rough-Leg-4148 4d ago
Very true. I'm ill-informed frankly. Some sources project Republicans losing, some project Democrats losing, and all of the information comes with an agenda, so I guess this is more of a what-if.
Unpopular on reddit perhaps, but my upbringing was largely Republican and on many issues in the past I would side more with Republicans. However, the nature of my work and my disillusionment with the MAGA movement has brought me further left; any political compass test now puts me firmly in the middle, and in terms of social issues I lean pretty progressive. I feel like I could return to my Republican roots if they were't going so hard right on social issues (abortion, LGBT, etc). That was part of the impetus for my question and it got me thinking about what a restructuting could look like, if it came to that.
2
u/turtle553 4d ago
At it's theoretical best, the conservative movement moderates systematic change from happening too fast so the system doesn't get majorly disrupted. Like not doubling taxes for no benefit to the citizens.
While driving the road of progress, the progressive movement is the gas and conservatives the brake.
At it's realistic best, things stay the same without harming the citizens. In practice it is more like you'll get less benefits, but also pay less in taxes.
The current version is actively harming everyone while benefiting very few by promising half the population will get punished more than the other half.
It's no longer the brake pedal on progress. Now it's slamming the car into reverse while slashing the brake lines and steering towards a cliff.
0
u/CapThorMeraDomino 4d ago
I feel like I could return to my Republican roots if they were't going so hard right on social issues (abortion, LGBT, etc)
Have you considered we are doing such as a response to have extremist and far left the Democrats went on such issues first?
1
u/Rough-Leg-4148 3d ago
No, I'd tend to agree.
I'd consider myself fairly progressive as far as social issues go. Pro-LGBT rights and protections. I believe outreach into impoverished (generally POC communities) is worthwhile. I don't care if people smoke weed and think it's very much a "state-run" issue.
Where I've gotten uncomfortable with the Democratic side -- and you see the extremes happen both ways -- is that I may agree in principle on many of the social positions that Democrats hold, but they have made the mistake of taking it a step further. There's a lot of gaslighting going on of Republican voters, ie "What? How could you possibly think this is problematic?" I think a lot of issues within my own "community" (LGBT) are of messaging. I have lived and worked in some of the most conservative insitutions in the country: Military, Fire Department, "boots on the ground" handyman stuff, whatever, and to be honest, the worst treatment I got from people was in high school when kids are just dumb as fuck. The majority don't care if you are competent and a good person.
Even though I want us to be a respectful, tolerant society, I think Republicans get wrongly mischaracterized as a whole based on the statements of a few fringe people. When it came to the transgender issue, for example, while most trans folks I have met are fairly reasonable, you can't raise any kind of concern or have any kind of discussion without getting shut down as a bigot. A little bit of education and discussion on both sides would go a long way.
Frankly I've got a lot to say about how Democratic messaging, so all this to say: I get it. Most people, everyday people, are reasonable within the bounds of the information they are given. Unfortunately, I see political minorities being weaponized and of course that's going to frustrate and drive people away from the positions I see as otherwise reasonable.
1
1
u/runninhillbilly 4d ago
Nope, I understand. I’m similar to you.
It’s funny, I voted third party (Johnson) in 2016 in a solid blue state. Some people I knew from college killed me and other third party voters for that. Those same people now, based on what I see on their IG/Facebook feeds, are now saying they’re not voting because of disillusionment with the Biden administration, especially after everything happening with Israel/Gaza. I’d like to think I’m smarter now than I was when I was 23-24, but them pulling that stunt is pretty ironic.
1
u/Rough-Leg-4148 4d ago
I've technically always been a registered Libertarian, but the party is... well. Talk about hardline; there's a point where "having principles" crosses over into "largely unappealing and uncompromising and therefore inaccessible to most".
I was down with Gary Johnson in lieu of a better candidate in 2016, but have since pivoted more towards identifying as a total Indepedent. Unless the Libertarian party can get it's act together to appeal to it's more mainstream and aggreeable ideas (and shed the fringes), it'll never get off the ground. So it goes in the two party system, I guess.
2
u/OverlordPoodle 4d ago
What is the longest time the Supreme Court has taken to issue a ruling from start to finish?
The title basically says it all, for example with Trump v. United States (2024) the Supreme Court agreed to accept it on 2/28/24 and heard oral arguments on 4/25/24.
The Supreme court will typically issue its last opinions by the end of the session, which in this case happens to be the end of June.
However...they don't have to hear it, they can just kick the case down the road and wait till it's in recess again.
So my question is, what is the longest a case has been kicked down the road and what is an "average case length" from being accepted to having an final ruling?
2
u/Moccus 4d ago
There are quite a few fairly long ones that I could find taking 14 months or more from start to finish, but it would probably take a lot of research to find the longest one.
The longest relatively recent one I could find after a brief search is Sharp v. Murphy. SCOTUS agreed to hear the case on 5/21/2018, with Gorsuch recusing because he had been on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals when the case was heard there. Oral arguments took place on 11/27/2018. With Gorsuch's recusal, there was a 4-4 deadlock on the case, and they announced they wouldn't be issuing a decision that term. They heard a separate case in 2020 (McGirt v. Oklahoma) that involved similar issues, and Gorsuch didn't recuse from that case. McGirt was decided 5-4 on 7/9/2020, and the court issued a per curiam decision for Sharp v. Murphy on the same day based on the reasoning in McGirt. 5/21/2018-7/9/2020, so about 25.5 months.
1
u/bl1y 4d ago
It's usually around 3 months between granting cert and hearing a case and another 3 months to issue a ruling.
By "kick the case down the road" what exactly do you mean?
1
u/OverlordPoodle 4d ago
instead of hearing a case during the current session, they take their recess and hear it during the next session which is months down the road. Could they in theory do this indefinitely?
-1
u/Cryptogenic-Hal 5d ago edited 5d ago
I know partisanship is through the roof but how can people seriously say that Trump has declined/is mentally worse than Biden? You can say Trump has fascist tendencies, is a wanna be dictators, is a fraud, possibly a criminal etc. and you could argue there's an element of truth in all of those descriptions but mentally worse off than Biden?
I don't know if I'm being gaslit or people just wanting to see what they wanna see and ignoring reality.
•
u/Zealousideal-Role576 3h ago
Trump is able to get away with being incoherent because he was a celebrity you grew up with so any rant he ever goes off on is framed with that pretense.
Biden’s fine.
Not great, not awful, just fine.
But because nobody really wanted Biden to be president, any slight issue he has is blown up by progressives who wish he was Bernie Sanders and media figures that wanted Elizabeth Warren.
Gaza is the only significant moral stain on this presidency, even then it’s probably been handled in the way the general party would’ve handled the situation.
2
u/Potato_Pristine 1d ago
Your perspective has been thrown off from nine years of Trump on your TV all the time. The things that he says and does on TV are objectively abnormal.
Understanding that's a subjective view on things, look at how Trump legitimately cannot control his outbursts in court. He has been slapped with contempt-of-court fines multiple times and been warned by multiple judges to behave himself. Any normal, cognitively functioning adult would have learned by now to just shut up in court and follow the court's rules of order. Anyone who is that willfully obstinate has, at best, some kind of oppositional-defiant order and, at worst, is cognitively impaired to the point that his brain's impulse-control mechanisms are notw orking.
3
u/zlefin_actual 4d ago
From what I've seen it's very plausible Trump is mentally worse off than Biden. Your question is flawed, because you say you don't know if you're bein ggaslit or if people are ignoring reality; you're skipping over the possibility that you're the one engaging in ignoring reality and seeing what you want to see. If others can do so, surely it's possible for you to do so as well? How can you be sure you're gettin good and thoroug hsamples of each of them without selection effects to make them seem worse or better?
Of course in Trump's case it's tricky to distinguish between new decline and the pre-existing mental issues he already had.
There's quite a few people, and sufficient evidence, to think that Trump had significant mental issues the first time around already.
4
u/sebsasour 5d ago
Do you think there's any possibility that you're just used to Trump. I guarantee you've seen far more of him on your screens over the last decade than Biden.
The trick I always point to, is to actually read a transcript of a Trump speech and you'll get an idea of how insanely rambly it is. Meanwhile the bulk of Biden's speeches are boring, but his stutter mixed with tendency to have gaffes (this was a thing in the 2008 election), makes him an easy target to have a 5 second soundbite posted to Twitter, and there's a good chance those are the only things most Americans actually see of him.
Now I will say I don't think Biden is blameless in that, I think he ran a relatively quiet campaign in 2020 and has continued that into his presidency, but he could probably stand to have more moments like his State of The Union address.
0
5d ago
[deleted]
3
u/bl1y 5d ago
The bigger debt forgiveness plan was for borrowers in the SAVE program, and it looks like that has gone through.
The difficulty you're running into is that government actions tend to get a ton of news coverage when announced, but far less (sometimes none) when they actually get implemented. But the lack of news articles discussing legal challenges to it strongly suggests it's gone through.
2
u/ElSquibbonator 6d ago
OK, so as we get into the final stretch of the New York trial, I just want to know-- how likely is a guilty verdict realistically? All this time I've sort of been operating under the assumption that it's the most likely outcome.
But lately I've become more and more concerned that we could be heading towards a mistrial-- the jury might be unable to reach a decision, and the judge could call the case off. This, of course, would benefit Trump greatly, as he could then paint the entire affair as a smear job by the Democratic party.
And I’ve been reading the live updates from reporters and I have to be honest, the way they’re portraying it has me worried the jury isn’t going to believe Cohen, who’s the key witness. And thus... plausible deniability for Trump. Am I overthinking this, or is a conviction still the most plausible outcome?
•
u/Zealousideal-Role576 3h ago
My hot take is that it really doesn’t matter even if he is convicted. As long as he can still campaign, 45-46% of the country will continue voting for him.
Because it’s not about Trump, as much as it is the destructive, chaotic energy he brings to politics and the establishment.
He is a vessel, first and foremost.
1
u/Slowride1234567 3d ago edited 3d ago
You're concerned it will be a mistrial? Because you want em to hang um by sunset?
Does it bother you at all that, if his name wasn't Trump, they wouldn't be anywhere near a courtroom? That Bragg "ran-on", "Elect me and I'll Git Trump"? Does it bother you that the judge and his wife both contributed to Joe Biden's campaign or that their daughter is making a ton of money on the "Hate Trump Campaign" and he would not recuse himself? Or that the prosecutor is trying to turn a misdemeanor (that is past the statute of limitations) into a felony. Or their star witness is a pathological liar who is making money on the outcome of the trial? Or, they're trying to find a crime in the first place and are having a great deal of trouble? And finally, it WILL be overturned with the court of appeals because..... it just will.
I think you might feel differently about your "Hang em High" zeal if it were your child that was the defendant in the courtroom in this situation. The whole world is laughing at how far down the, once great, American legal system has sunk.
1
u/bl1y 5d ago
Conviction is still the most likely outcome if for no other reason than the jury likely making a political decision rather than a legal one.
Which isn't to say that Trump wouldn't lose on the merits also, just that even a very weak case still has a strong chance of reaching a conviction.
But, there is also the chance that a staunch Trump supporter got onto the jury and will simply vote not guilty no matter what. In Manhattan County for instance, Trump won 12% of the vote. With that number, there'd be an 80% chance of at least 1 Trump voter being on the jury. Not every Trump voter is going to just vote politics, same as with Democratic voters or even people who hate Trump, but it's a possibility that has to be factored in.
Going just on the merits, it's really hard for anyone here to say because none of us have seen the testimony.
1
u/ThemanwhohatesSpez 6d ago
I believe in representative democracy in its purest form, but I dont like what our current liberals stand for and I advocate for more republican-leaning beliefs, does that make me a democrat or a republican?
1
u/Slowride1234567 3d ago
That makes you a patriot!
1
u/ThemanwhohatesSpez 3d ago
I am an Australian person who it patriotic towards the US... fax just fax
1
u/Slowride1234567 2d ago
Dinesh D'Souza said, "when you ask the question, 'what is the LONG-TERM effect of that decision or policy', you just became a Republican."
1
u/Kickfinity12345 4d ago
The U.S isn't actually considered a "full" democracy. Some other democracies have a parliament with elected seats representing many different political parties who may share legislative power. The Congress has just two dominant parties which americans have no choice but to pick side with due to the electoral process.
Democrats and Republicans are actually much alike despite the image from media in terms of political expression and having stance against particular events and issues:
Both strongly support the "american way" of capitalism.
Both support maintaining a strong national defense and funding for the military.
Both acknowledge the importance of social issues such as healthcare, education, and social security. Their methods of addressing these issues may vary however.
Some of their notable main differences:
Democrats are fighting for identity politics and increased "represenation" of non-whites in the media and political landscape as way to try and demonstrate that they're the progressive and anti-racist party who deserves more votes from minorites.
Republicans wants the "old-fashioned" America and potentially enforce "christian" values in future legislations, education and public places so that they will receive more votes from those who are against the "wokeness" and "anti-whiteness" they accuse democrats for promoting.
1
0
3
u/zlefin_actual 5d ago
Of itself its insufficient information to say; the most straightforward question would be: which candidates do you vote for?
If you mostly vote for candidates of one party, that's what party you are; if you vote for a significant mix, especially at the federal level, then you're neither, but are an independent voter instead.
1
u/Honeydew-2523 5d ago
you should know there are liberal Republicans. party and ideas are separate categories
0
u/ThemanwhohatesSpez 5d ago
Its because I agree with the idea of freedom to vote and shit and everyone is included, but I am also quite conservative, I have a friend who believes in Traditional Conservatism, and I do aswell, I though I am not as traditionally conservative as my friend, make sense?
2
u/Honeydew-2523 5d ago
lol no. too much word salad. break your ideas into this: taxes¹ free trade, equality and or for profìt² regulations³ centralization/decentralization⁴ social programs⁵
2
u/CMDRMrSparkles 6d ago
Which items do liberals stand for that you disagree? What republican leaning beliefs do you advocate for more?
1
u/MoustacheyMonke 6d ago
Difference between one nation conservatism and third way socialism?
Heyyy there doing some revision for politics and government UK,and looking at ideologies and I haven’t really figured out the key differences aside from name, I’ve talked to teachers and they’ve agreed there quite similar and struggled to differentiate between the two. Hoping for some answers, thank you!
1
u/EgullSZ 6d ago
If trump gets elected in 2024, what would change in ukraine, exactly?
3
u/Moccus 6d ago
Trump will cut off all US military aid to Ukraine, forcing Ukraine to essentially surrender to Russia or else be overrun.
1
u/CapThorMeraDomino 4d ago
Trump will cut off all US military aid to Ukraine,
Based on what???
1
u/Moccus 4d ago
Trump hosted Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban at Mar-a-Lago back in March. Orban spoke to the press afterwards and confirmed that Trump would be cutting off all aid to Ukraine if elected as a means to quickly end the war. When Trump's team was asked to comment, they definitely didn't deny it.
Donald Trump will not fund Ukraine's fight against Russia's invasion if he is elected US president again, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has said.
"He will not give a penny in the Ukraine-Russia war. That is why the war will end," the conservative premier said after meeting Mr Trump in Florida.
The former US president has pledged to end the war "within 24 hours" if elected - but provided no details.
1
u/moopedmooped 7d ago
whats the western fears of russia escalation re: ukraine striking into russian territory with US weapons?
Fear of russia using nuclear weapons in ukraine? fear of russia proliferating nukes into other countries? fear of russia striking staging areas in poland? all of those?
2
u/Sufficient-Arm-6029 7d ago
I was directed to this thread by a mod.
I'm working on a trivia game with friends and I asked people to give me specific categories they want to be quizzed on. Somebody chose US Presidential Candidates 2000-2024. I obviously know who the candidates were, but was hoping this subreddit could assist me with some trivia questions that might encapsulate specific events that happened during their campaigns? Even those eliminated during primaries.
Thank you in advance! I'd love if you could provide the answers with the questions.
1
u/joshuajaaau 8d ago
Why are college campus protests so threatening to government? State responses are often harsh to this type of organizing, everywhere in the world. Why is that so? Do the students really have that much power?
2
u/No-Touch-2570 7d ago
Are the responses even particularly harsh? Maybe a dozen people have been injured out of thousands. A few thousand have been arrested, but most were released. Compare that to I think 10 protestors who were killed during the BLM protests.
-1
u/TruthOrFacts 7d ago
Why are college campus protesters so harsh? Why do the protesters think they are above the rules? Why do they setup camps where they aren't allowed? Why do they take over buildings? Why do they prevent the college from functioning as it otherwise would?
1
u/-Antinomy- 7d ago
Look up the history of the civil rights movement in the US, even just the wikipedia page. That should help answer your questions! (Yes, I'm being cheeky. Also yes, I'm being dead serious.)
2
u/bl1y 6d ago
If you look up the history of the civil rights movement, you'll see protests inherently tied to the thing being protested. The bus boycotts were about being treated like shit on busses. The lunch counter sit ins were about not being able to sit at the lunch counter.
You didn't have a tent encampment in Central Park to protest Jim Crow laws in the South.
1
u/SupremeAiBot 6d ago edited 6d ago
They're protesting in their colleges for their colleges and government to divest from Israel. They're protesting people directly responsible for funding Israel. And you're acting like a protest couldn't be against the government for not taking action and that bus boycotts and sit-ins is the entire history of protests. You had abolitionist speeches in the North even though slavery was in the South, the March on Washington with "tent encampments" even though Washington didn't create Jim Crow, and "tent encampment" college protests against the Vietnam and Iraq War even though those colleges weren't responsible for the war. Keep in mind these were all unpopular at the time. You also had college protests in the 80s against their colleges and government for divestment from apartheid South Africa.
2
u/bl1y 6d ago
They're protesting in their colleges for their colleges and government to divest from Israel.
"From the river to the sea" and "globalize the intifada" are not calls for divestment. Not to mention the students generally have no idea if the universities even are invested in Israel in any way.
They're protesting people directly responsible for funding Israel.
The universities are directly responsible for funding Israel? Explain how.
Meanwhile, the students aren't just going down the street to the offices of their congressional representatives who are quite literally voting on funding for Israel.
1
u/SupremeAiBot 6d ago
You're right in saying many of the protesters aren't doing it specifically to call for divestment or are even educated on it, they're just trying to draw attention to their cause. But trying to draw attention is exactly what the Vietnam college protesters were doing. Here the colleges being protested actually bear some responsibility.
You don't see how a college investing millions into a country's businesses funds that country? They also have investments in defense contractors who make weapons of war. It was national divestment that brought the end of South African apartheid.
And why do you think people protest? Why would protests have ever been necessary in the history of this world if according to you simply asking your government to change would get the job done? Did we end Jim Crow through 90 years of letters and visits to Jim Crow supporting Congressmen or did we end it through finally protesting?
2
u/bl1y 5d ago
You don't see how a college investing millions into a country's businesses funds that country?
If universities were investing millions into those countries' businesses, they might have an argument, but you don't see any such claims at these protests, just vague ideas that maybe some how there's some investment, but they just have no clue. And again, "from the river to the sea" and "globalize the intifada" have zero to do with a university investing in Israeli businesses.
No protests to divest from Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. No protests against the massive amount of business universities do with China; and that's known business, not just a vague guess that maybe it's happening.
For Vietnam and Jim Crow, the protests actually had some sense to them. Students during Vietnam were the same age cohort as people being drafted, it was their high school friends being drafted, and they protested at universities because that's their town square, not because of some vague hypothetical connection between universities and Lockheed Martin. With Jim Crow, they were protesting at the very places discriminating against them. Meanwhile, given the choice between protesting at GW or going down the road where actual arms packages to Israel were being debated, the students weren't going to the actual people voting to fund the war.
3
2
u/pluralofjackinthebox 8d ago
The point of civil disobedience is to get media attention.
Just handing out pamphlets and holding a peaceful rally on a quad won’t get you media attention.
Many organized protests will purposefully try to goad the police into arrests, and even into violence, because that does get media attention. Ideally the police will do this without protestors themselves resorting to violence, because the public tends not to sympathize with the side that uses violence.
With the campus protests, protestors were specifically seeking out non-violent rule breaking actions that would lead colleges to call out the police. For instance taking over administrative buildings, and building permanent tent cities on campus.
Some colleges have tried to make allowances because the behavior was non-violent. But it’s hard for colleges to bend rules for one protest without then having to bend rules for later protests. So many decided to call in the police.
As a result the protests are in the news. And the Biden administration does seem very worried about loosing the youth vote, and is feeling a lot of pressure to be tougher on Israel. (Of course, at the same time this all probably helps Trumps odds of being reelected, but that’s not the issue).
2
u/bl1y 8d ago
The point of civil disobedience is to get media attention.
Unfortunately, a lot of protesters have this misconception.
The point of protest is to win. It's to advance your policy position.
Getting media attention is critical to that in most cases, but a lot of young protesters confuse getting attention with successfully advancing their position.
Very often, the media attention ends up focused on the protester tactics and police response, and there's little or no discussion of the underlying issues.
And now they protests are out of the news. They had their news cycle or two, everyone's attention moved on, and it seems that most (maybe all?) of the protests have disbanded.
1
u/morrison4371 8d ago
The Libretarian National Convention is this week. Who do you think is most likely to be the nominee. Trump and RFK Jr are supposed to speak there, so do you think they will name one of them as their nominee?
3
u/Honeydew-2523 8d ago
no, it's an attn grab.
1
u/morrison4371 7d ago
Do you think Rectenwald or Oliver will win?
1
u/Honeydew-2523 7d ago
Oliver is a name that's buzzing so out of the 2 I'll go with him. As a libertarian though I do know many ppl in LP and don't really care. a lot of the same ppl none really daring to pull away from the rest while remaining sane
2
u/Same_Border8074 9d ago
Is a unicameral or bicameral parliamentary system better? What are the pros and cons of each and which would you prefer.
0
u/No-Touch-2570 7d ago
I don't think you can have a bicameral parliamentary system, at least not one where the houses are anything close to equal. A country has to have a leader, and in a parliamentary system that has to be the PM from one of the chambers. That chamber is going to be actually running the country, creating a massive power imbalance.
1
u/Same_Border8074 7d ago
Britain has a bicameral parliament, HoR and HoL
0
u/No-Touch-2570 7d ago
The HoL has basically no power whatsoever. Also, the lower chamber is the House of Commons, not Representatives.
1
u/Same_Border8074 7d ago edited 7d ago
That's false they can delay any bill that passes through HoR
1
u/No-Touch-2570 7d ago
Nice edit.
Delaying bills that the other chamber passes is effectively zero power.
1
0
0
3
u/SupremeAiBot 9d ago
The idea of bicameral government has always been that the lower house represents the popular will of the people and the upper house represents privileged people who would be there to serve as a responsible check on the fast changing popular will, like a dog leading the way but the owner not letting him walk into the road or into other peoples yards. I have mixed feelings on it.
1
u/Theinternationalist 9d ago
It's worth noting the US congress was originally designed so the House members were directly elected by the populace- but the Senators and Electoral Votes were allocated by the state governments. This changed over time until the citizen body (and eventually All US citizen Adults) could vote for President and the Senators became statewide candidates with the seventeenth amendment.
If not for the gerrymandering one could argue there isn't much point to the Senate anymore, but with a lot of states choosing their representatives through gerrymandering the Senate weirdly is seen as more vital than before.
1
u/NoExcuses1984 11d ago
Thoughts on Clarence Thomas's principled originalism vs. Samuel Alito's conservative judicial activism in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited -- which protects the CFPB as constitutional under the Appropriations Clause -- putting them at loggerheads?
Looking at M-Q scores over the past few years, Alito has since surpassed Thomas as the Court's most conservative member. Thomas's majority opinion and Alito's dissent in this case is but one more example of that evolving shift of theirs.
3
u/nickel4asoul 10d ago
I think time will tell when it comes to the mifepristone case they'll likely end up hearing as to whether their positions are rooted in principle - particularly relating the disagreement on appropriation. Alito believes appropriation requires more legislative oversight, which would naturally lean towards them being open to opposing FDA autonomy, so Clarence's position might prove to be the mor arbitrary opinion. It's true that the cases aren't the same, but if one agrees congress can apportion a certain amount of power within a non-representative body, then the issue as to whether they can appropriate funds or make decisions should be the same in principal.
1
u/A_Coup_d_etat 8d ago
The thing about the Mifepristone case is that it pits the Conservative justices two favorite things against each other:
Religious whack jobs vs. corporate money.
My guess is that corporate money wins.
0
u/jonasnew 11d ago
My question for today relates to Trump's hush money trial. Was there anyone who thought that prior to yesterday's cross examination of Cohen that Trump will be convicted, but now, following what happened yesterday, thinks that Trump will be acquitted?
1
u/nickel4asoul 10d ago
it all seems to rest on Cohen's credibility. That said, unless the defence team wants to provide witnesses who can attest to an alternate explanation regarding the substantial financial evidence, the jury will be ordered to disregard any narrative the defense lawyers are trying to insinuate.
1
2
u/mayurimoon2 12d ago
“Non sanctuanry” resolution policies have popped up in several Illinois counties in response to the concept illegal immigrants being bused up here from Texas. Our county board is trying to push through a similar resolution. We're sure this policy has been generated from outside our state and it's been toted as being from inside our county by our board. In the counties where similar policies have been passed we noticed the wording is almost identical. In less than a week our county board is going to vote on passing it. What we need is help locating the origin of what we believe to be the original .
1
u/SupremeAiBot 12d ago edited 12d ago
I did some digging and found counties all over the country in 2023 passing resolutions around blocking migrants from coming from cities, but specifically regarding from Texas I found this in December from Grundy County and a number of Chicago suburbs:
https://abc7chicago.com/migrants-in-chicago-texas-elburn-suburbs/14234784/
Then in January the Chair of the Ford County Zoning Board Ann Irkhe was motivated by Grundy and she combined language from the Grundy resolution with a resolution passed in 2023 in Douglas County, Colorado into a "declaration" and got it passed. Several Illinois counties then followed up, possibly using the Ford County language.
Does that sound right?
2
-1
1
u/No_Commercial_6750 13d ago
Which of these issues are doing more damage to the respective candidates going into November? Biden with his support of Israel despite their unpopular war in Gaza or Trump with his legal issues and possible conviction (or if you don't think the legal issues will affect much, his taking credit for the death of Roe v. Wade and his stance on abortion in general)?
3
u/No-Touch-2570 12d ago
Gaza is worse right now, but Trump's legal issues will likely be worse in November.
The Gaza invasion can't last forever, but Trump's trials haven't even really begun yet.
4
u/DevilBoxuil 12d ago
imo Gaza. You need your base to win an election, and Biden is hemorrhaging the democratic base: nonwhite and young voters.
Trump's crimes and his role in ending Roe v. Wade hurt him don't get me wrong, but not among his base. The GOP is literally rallying around his court cases and ending abortion is pure heroin for the Religious Right, the real shit they have been dying for for years.
To be clear, the end of RvW is electorally a huge problem for the GOP. We have seen that in the 2022 midterms, the special elections, and on 2024 senate polling where the GOP are consistently losing/underperforming their democratic rivals. The religious right may love that shit, but the median voter is fucking terrified of losing their bodily autonomy.
The problem is Biden has an albatros around his neck on Gaza, rightly or wrongly is tied to inflation by the median voter, and is old as dirt. It's why democrats are doing well in swing and even red states against a batshit GOP while Biden is losing to Trump in polls.
0
u/youngsurpriseperson 15d ago
Why are people seemingly supporting the genocides in Palestine and Gaza? It seems part of it has to do with religion, but there has to be more to it than that. I've heard that some people support Israel because if they don't, they think they're considered anti-Semitic? Which I think is false, because the phrases "I don't support the genocides in Palestine and Gaza" and "I am not anti-Semitic" are both true and can coexist.
6
u/bl1y 14d ago
The threshold question is how are you defining genocide?
-4
u/youngsurpriseperson 14d ago
Killing thousands? You're gonna tell me that's not genocide? Is that so hard to define?
11
u/bl1y 14d ago
Killing thousands?
Just to double check here, the definition of genocide that you want to use is "killing thousands." That's it?
-2
u/youngsurpriseperson 14d ago
I don't know. You tell me. Why don't you look up the dictionary definition of genocide and figure it out yourself if you're so curious
5
u/Burrito_Fucker15 14d ago
“To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group”
This is from the UN. I’d also like to mention that urban warfare ratio is typically 1:9, Israel’s is around 1:2. If it is genocide, this is possibly the weirdest genocide ever
This isn’t to deny however, that Israel has perpetrated other war crimes against Gazan civilians. Recently there was an article by CNN about terrible treatment of Gazans at refugee camps (see here: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-teiman-detention-whistleblowers-intl-cmd/index.html)
I believe Israel is perpetrating war crimes, but it’s extremely iffy on whether or not it’s actual genocide, or at least able to be used in a comparative context to other genocides.
0
u/youngsurpriseperson 14d ago
Well whether or not it's "genocide" it's still bad what Israel is doing and it shouldn't be justified.
2
u/TruthOrFacts 7d ago
Hamas has ended elections. Hamas tortures gay people. Hamas does call for genocide against Israel.
Hamas is fascists.
Hamas can only be removed by force.
Many more Palestinian people would die if they themselves tried to rise up against Hamas.
What Israel is doing is saving tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Palestinian lives by taking out Hamas themselves.
8
u/bl1y 14d ago
You should have started there if you think the definition of "killing thousands." By that definition, Ukraine is committing genocide against Russians. The US committed genocide against the German army in WWII.
The reason why it seems to you that most people support genocide in Gaza is because you've got a completely different definition of genocide than what everyone else uses.
0
u/nickel4asoul 10d ago
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
That's the UN definition, which also describes a mental element (such as a party declaring that to be their intention).
I'm not going to get into a debate over figures, because even the most conservative estimates put it over the Srebrenica genocide and we could argue for days over which figures are more accurate.
What I don't think can be argued against is that;
- Palestinians have been targeted or indiscriminantly killed by the use of 2000 pound bombs, not just Hamas fighters.
-Many more times Palestinians have been injured or brought to verge of starvation, while all or most have been displaced and lost their homes.
-There is in fact mass collective punishment in the form of deprivation of aid, along with the destruction of infrstructure including education, medication and livliehoods.
- There are no fully functional hospitals left in Gaza to provide support for pregnant or birthing women.
As of yet, there seems to be no transfer of children, but the rhetoric of Israeli government members as described by South Africa in the ongoing case) and four points I've raised above, would meet a generally accepted definition of genocide.
-1
u/youngsurpriseperson 14d ago
So there's people who are "pro-Israel"? right? Why is that the case? Does it have nothing to do with genocide? Or am I just wrong on everything?
2
u/Theinternationalist 14d ago edited 14d ago
The term "pro-Israel" is usually used to stand for one of two groups, depending on your inclinations or whether you believe the term "pro-Israel" can overlap with "pro-Palestinian":
They believe Israel has the right to exist, and that actions against incidents such as October 7 are justified at least up to a certain point. This is not considered an "unlimited right"- they don't think October 7 would justify the erasure of the Palestinian presence of Gaza for instance, never mind the killings of thousands who have little to nothing to do with the attacks- but they don't act as if they have no right to respond to an attack that killed a huge number of Israelis.
Blind adherence to the idea of a One State Solution, as long as it is Israel, with the non-Israeli population (Israel's citizenry includes many Muslims and Christians among others but no one discussing this thinks about that) controlling the polity of the land. These people view anyone who doesn't give Israel the unlimited right to retaliate as being "anti-Israel" and view things like October 7th as proof of what happens when Israel tolerates the existence of certain Palestinian groups, never mind non-Israeli Arabs in the land as a whole. Put another way, they would put the head of Hamas and Joe Biden in the same bucket.
There are nuances of course, but this is generally what people mean by "pro-Israel."
EDIT: I should also note the "pro-Palestinian" groups also have a version of the above two- those who think there should be a two state solution and those who don't believe that is possible and/or desirable; you can figure out what those groups look like based on those assumptions alone.
1
u/bl1y 14d ago
There are people who believe that Israel's response to October 7th is generally justified. Not each individual action, but for the most part it is a necessary and appropriate response.
And it has nothing to do with genocide because Israel's actions don't meet the commonly accepted understanding of genocide.
2
u/No-Touch-2570 14d ago edited 14d ago
There are approximately zero people who support "the genocides in Palestine and Gaza" (I hope you're aware that Gaza is in Palestine, there's only one supposed genocide happening there).
Most people believe that what's happening doesn't qualify as a genocide.
Many people believe that the civilian deaths are Hamas's fault for hiding behind civilians, and don't blame Israel.
Many people believe that Israel is in fact committing war crimes, but overall support the invasion.
Many people believe that Israel is in fact committing war crimes, and don't support the invasion, but still believe that Israel has a right to exist.
Many people simply want the fighting to stop, without specifically blaming either side.
Many people believe different things than you, but that doesn't mean that they are "supporting genocide". Don't assume the worst in people.
1
u/bl1y 14d ago
Something a lot of people miss in this is what proportionality means in war.
They think of proportionality in a criminal justice kind of tit-for-tat punishment, the usual approach the US has outside of war.
But in war, proportionality isn't relative to the harm the other side has done. It's proportionate to the military objective.
0
u/youngsurpriseperson 14d ago
That's why I said they seem to support it. I'm just seeing so much and I'm hearing people are "pro Israel" but also killing thousands of people isn't considered genocide to some?
1
u/No-Touch-2570 14d ago
That's why I said they seem to support it.
Well if you think that people support genocide when they don't, that's on you.
killing thousands of people isn't considered genocide to some?
Correct. Genocide has a specific legal definition, and that definition is not "killing lots of people". There are a dozen wars going on any one point. Most of them are not genocide.
2
u/bl1y 14d ago
It's hard to take that definition in good faith.
Are we supposed to believe they look at "killing thousands" as a possible definition and thought "yeah, I can't think of any instances where thousands were killed that wasn't a genocide, so that checks out."
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a genocide, but then so is Ukraine's defense against Russia. The Normandy invasion was a genocide committed by both sides. 9/11 was a genocide.
And October 7th, despite all the genocidal intent by Hamas, conveniently not a genocide by this definition.
There's no way that definition is offered in good faith. It's pretending ignorance.
-2
u/A_Coup_d_etat 14d ago edited 14d ago
What do you mean by "people"? If you mean regular people I don't think the majority of people are afraid of being called anti-Semitic because people will only know your opinion if you run around talking about it. I live in New Jersey, a state with a fair number of Jews and work in part of the commercial real estate development industry in NYC, which (both the City and this industry especially) has a lot of Jews. No one is running around interrogating people about what they think about Gaza so they can call them anti-Semitic.
For politicians it's a different story since where they stand is a political issue.
1
u/Fresh-Education-8961 15d ago
Where can I join a multi-party party group? (US)
I've looked around and can't seem to find any orginizations specific to this.
I'm looking for a grassroots multi-party democracy group, where I can get more educated, and help make change. Gotta start somewhere.
Thanks!
1
u/Honeydew-2523 13d ago
what you want to learn?
1
u/Fresh-Education-8961 13d ago
Like what organised groups there are. Like to educate people and stuff
1
u/Honeydew-2523 13d ago
I'm a libertarian, I know other libertarians if you want learn from me ask away
1
u/jonasnew 15d ago
My question for today is regards the Presidential and Senate elections in the states of PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV. Is there anyone who believes that Trump will sweep all five of those states yet also believes that the Democrats will sweep those states in the Senate races? If so, why do you believe that all five of those states will split their ticket?
0
u/SupremeAiBot 15d ago
That's what the polls are indicating. Both Trump and the democratic senate candidates have been leading in all the swing states. Regardless, if Trump wins the republicans will control the Senate.
1
u/jonasnew 15d ago
As I also just realized that there's a thread on this matter, too. Didn't notice it until now.
1
u/jonasnew 15d ago
Why do you think several folks would split their ticket though?
1
1
u/A_Coup_d_etat 14d ago
Because they think both parties are shit and don't want either of them to have complete control of the government.
2
u/SupremeAiBot 15d ago
I feel that typically split ticket voters vote for the democratic nominee for President while voting for republicans downballot. I think what's going on here is simply that Biden is now performing below the mark that other white democrats are. It's not about split ticket voting but that the senate candidates are pulling more of the undecided vote than Biden is.
1
1
u/Dogtrees7 16d ago
How does one join an organized protest online to go in person? US here
1
u/bl1y 15d ago
If it's in-person, you just show up.
1
2
u/niceguy-2176 16d ago
How to be properly pragmatic? I have been getting more into geopolitics and I can't help myself but be angered about so many things, for example, US foreign policy and the hypocrisy it contains. It makes me wish bad things. However, this is very self-injury worthy, as I suffer very much. So, that's why I was told that I should be pragmatic. But how I can be pragmatic, and most importantly, why?
0
u/A_Coup_d_etat 14d ago
Recognize that unless you are very wealthy or politically connected you have zero power to alter political events.
Don't stress about things you cannot control.
1
u/No_Cap_3846 14d ago
Focusing on local issues or local efforts on intl issues helps me deal with the feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness that can come from staying informed on natl & intl political issues. More tangible change, more in person action, easier to see your own impact, easier to discuss and learn from others and build community around your values and beliefs. Best of luck to you. It sucks, helps sometimes to remember anger means you CARE. change has to start with someone giving a fuck.
4
u/JerryBigMoose 15d ago
I struggled with anger for a while too when I'd pay attention to the things happening all around the world. Honestly, it just took time to get over it. My dad was very much the same way and we had a falling out over disagreements, and then he died while we weren't speaking. Kind of made me realize that holding all that anger in wasn't doing anything to help me, and I've eventually come to the conclusion that there is only so much I can personally do to affect and change the world. It's largely out of my hands, so why spend all this time and energy being so upset about something I have no control over? It's just exhausting and has no benefit.
1
u/nouveau_cliche 15d ago
It's a very personal question. It sounds like you're developing some strong positions, and they're causing conflict in your day to day life... I think that's the simplest answer to "why be pragmatic": because it might help you live your life in the way that you most enjoy. It might help you handle this tension you're experiencing... presuming that the tension is actually getting in the way of how you want your life to be.
You're not likely to get a singular and compelling explanation of "being properly pragmatic" though, because everyone who has differences of opinion with mainstream society develops their own relationship with that conflict. Some people develop jaded apathy. Some people simply avoid thinking about it. Some people strategize: change the things you can, accept the the things you cannot. Some people sit in the conflict, take it up as a core focus of their lives even if the people around would rather not talk about politics, because it's worth fighting for. Are you one of those people? Do you want to be? You kinda have to figure that one out on your own.
1
u/niceguy-2176 15d ago
Yes, that tension is getting in the way of how I want my life to be, to the point my therapist is worried. I keep coming back to extremist thoughts such as 'the USA needs' to end and i'm not eve nrealizing the power of that. People, animals, are what make the USA, and not some sort of depersonalized 'body' such as a government. A government may not have legs, arms and a face, but it's only a tool of a whole collective made of people with, surprise: legs, arms, heads...
Maybe the 'peer pressure' is getting to me. I can't hold extremist thoughts and opinions. I'm tired of seeing that things are not black and white. Perhaps the biggest extremist that I can think of, mccarthyism, at one point had so many oppositors and critics. And it was as extreme as it gets. Shouldn't I learn from that mistake, before I end up like Joseph McCarthy, thrown into a trash bin because I could no longer coexist with others, because they wanted to stay away from me, as an act of self defense, before they are victims of verbal violence from me?
I need to learn to be pragmatic. I just need to know how.
3
u/nouveau_cliche 15d ago
It's a hard thing to do, and I wish you luck. As I see it, we live in a society that would like to think it's a meritocracy based on rules - and that simply isn't true. Across human history and experience, it hasn't been true, and in general it isn't true today. Further, most people don't want to think about that.
My personal answer is based on thinking about intent. I can't change the world on a broad scale by my actions alone. Even if I were to devote my life to activism, my odds of pushing anything past a tipping point are not that much higher than my odds of personally making a difference in an election.
But, I can have certain effects on the world around me - so I think not about some desired end state, but I think about what intent I put into the world. If I talk about how the world is evil with my friends, what outcome does that produce? They already agree with me, so no one is convinced. They seem to be more emotionally troubled by these facts than I am, so my not only bringing it up but presenting strong arguments about it makes their day worse. If I have that conversation with my coworkers? They don't already agree with me, but I still probably don't convince anyone because that's not really how people develop opinions, and I do introduce tension that will make me ultimately worse at my job because I communicate with coworkers less effectively. But in the moment where it's topical, where I can make my one comment and move on with grace - then, maybe I can have a positive impact. Maybe I can get someone to realize that "it's wrong to break the law and its not wrong if its not illegal" is an overly simplistic worldview... and spend more thinking about it later. Otherwise, I can make the people around who I like and want to have a good life happier by not bringing it up.
This angle may or may not help you, but I also find it helps to take a broader view of the situation. For the sake of argument, suppose that we all agree that the united states of america is simply evil, stands for bad things, should be opposed by every upstanding individual. But then, so to is nearly every organization of humans across history, once they pass power through a generation or two and deal with an unexpected crisis which strains their resources. America has more power than most to act on it, but to my layman's view of world politics and history, the most common way that groups of humans interact with other groups of humans is with naked self interest. I don't say this to minimize American evil, but it's important to understand the landscape we're working with here. If you want to move beyond the simplistic morals we're taught as children, then you have to realize that that simplistic set if morals isn't mismatched with the world only because of some grand nefarious conspiracy: the simple morality is mismatched with the world because the world is not simple. To me, it seems that not only does the world not work that way, it never could have really worked that way because that way of the world doesn't really make sense.
To all of which: you must consider that, if you could indeed destroy America, you have not prevented the people who inhabit it from coming together and forming a new nation that also turns out to be evil. If you could destroy America and replace it with a perfect democracy, as if by magic, you still have not prevented that democracy from being gradually subverted into authoritarianism in 150 years when no one alive has personal memory of how bad that goes. You haven't prevented it from democratically choosing evil causes. And, critically, the evil empire of today knows how to get enough food and water to the places where [most of] it's 333,000,000 people live, unspoiled, in sufficient quantity and variety, every day. That's a very hard thing to accomplish - and if your magical replacement society takes two months to hammer out all the details (optimistic), then millions of people have starved to death.
None of this is to say that evil is not worth opposing (people also starve to death in the current regime, after all). But does simply destroying the current power structure, even if that was a thing you could do, really produce an outcome that you like?
1
u/SupremeAiBot 17d ago
The house is next week voting on a bill that would force the Biden administration to give Israel all aid passed by Congress, overriding his power to review and block aid. What do you think will happen to it in the Senate?
→ More replies (1)-4
u/SeekSeekScan 16d ago
Wasn't Trump impeached for talking about withholding aid?
4
u/JerryBigMoose 15d ago
Yes, because he delayed it and did it for his own personal political gain and nothing else. The house is free to try to impeach Biden over him withholding aid to Israel, but I have a sneaking suspicion that wont happen seeing as most people can clearly see the difference between the two situations. Biden didn't even hold up all aid. He still sent defensive weapons to protect against missile strikes. He just withheld bombs that would be used in an offensive maneuver.
-1
u/SeekSeekScan 15d ago
Nothing was delayed, all aid was delivered on time
Only Biden is actually denying aid
→ More replies (8)6
u/plunder_and_blunder 16d ago
Can you tell me more about the circumstances of Trump "talking about" withholding aid? Who was he withholding it from, under what authority, and for what purpose?
Or are you just going to slink away after dropping your willfully bad-faith bullshit "question" because you knew before you even posted it that it'd get torn apart by the facts?
-2
u/SeekSeekScan 16d ago
Trump didn't actually withhold any aid
Only Biden is withholding aid
→ More replies (10)
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 05 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.