this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
316 points (89.9% liked)

politics

28595 readers
2325 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This has nothing to do with the finding of fact as to how this woman died

In fact,it's not true. First, let's ignore the fact that this woman apparently from small arms fire which we don't supply to the Israelis. Congress wrote a bill to supply other weapons to Isreal. to Isreal. It was unable to put restrictions on sale. That left it in Biden's lap. Biden asked State to evaluate how the Israelis were using weapons as it pertains to standing US law. The result was that State could not find a legal reason not to supply.

You can have your own feelings on the matter, but not your own facts

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The result was that State could not find a legal reason not to supply.

Yeah, imagine that. Someone from the Biden administration pretending not to see the obvious.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are a nation of laws. You may not like them. You may ridicule them. But you mind them anyway. It's no different for the President unless you're Trump

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You celebrate bad faith in government when it's in favor of genocide.

You're no different than Trumpers who rejoiced that the system "works" when SCOTUS overturned Roe.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Minding laws has nothing to do with faith in anything.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretending to see no genocide when it's fucking obvious so you don't have to abide by the Leahy Law is absolutely bad faith, even though you clearly approve of the results.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You keep reading things into my remarks and I'll keep on correcting you.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, you'll pretend you weren't whatabouting.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can pretend you're not confused

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, it's the old I'm rubber, you're glue defense. Brilliant

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Guess I was wrong. You can't stop gaslighting.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure. Like state when they pretended that there's no genocide in Gaza.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They were actual lawyers. I am not. Are you?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They were actual lawyers.

So were the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe. You're telling me that lawyers are trustworthy.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this the guy who cries whataboutism?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I was providing an example of lawyers being dishonest. To anyone else, it would be as obvious as saying the sky is blue, but since they looked the other way in order to enable genocide, you think they're incapable of lying.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah yeah. It's fun to dislike lawyers. They even dislike themselves

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

But they're paragons of honesty and justice the instant they enable genocide.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-state-department-official-resigns-says-us-report-gaza-inaccurate-2024-05-30/

Again it's easy to continue to not do anything if you ignore all of what's going on.

You can have your own feelings on the matter, but not your own facts

Every thread is you doing this

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, there's a report from state that says Isreal is using weapons in line with US law and someone at state doesn't agree? Call it the reason for resignation? Fact is it is still a report issued to the President

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

we're a nation of laws, except when we close our eyes and put heads on the sand

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

When a report is issued it becomes an item that can be subject to supena. Therefore, the House could get it and use it in investigation of Biden had he not followed it