Why does CNN put genocide in quotes in the article after the international court has already ruled that the actions in Gaza meet the definition?
“Journalistic integrity”
PS: but also what the other person said.
Technically, they only ruled that genocide is plausible enough to hear the case (and that South Africa has a right to bring the case).
As if voting for Trump will end up better somehow. Trump would bomb Americans if they said something that hurt his feelings.
Literally no one said that.
The sign in the fucking image does.
I love how this is literally the only response libs have. Can’t criticize Biden on anything because Trump is worse. Now shut up and support our genocider in chief.
There’s a sign in the image for this post that says “don’t make me vote for Trump”
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people would discuss the submission based on the screenshot as opposed to the actual content of the submission. That said, libs have been telling everyone in the last election that it was critical to elect Biden to stop Trump and for US to change course. After three years of Biden, nothing changed and Trump is more popular than ever. Seems that the policies that Biden admin has been pursuing accomplished exact opposite of what was promised.
And all leftists I know from the US are aware of that, but still vote for Biden, since Trump would do so much damage. Not voting for Democrats as a leftist is accelerationist bullshit. You can perform direct action and also vote against the fascist.
The reason people are responding to the image is because they have the most inane take pushed right into their faces.
Removed by mod
Maybe you should look up the definition of fascist and check whose rhetoric and actions align with what happened in Germany a hundred years ago.
“fascism” means something specific. It’s bad that you Americans only have the choice between an average Western neoliberal colonialist and a fascist, but it’s very clear which one is the lesser evil.
Guys. Vote in your interests. Sure Biden might be a complicit war criminal but the other guy is a domestic criminal who would be an enthusiastic war criminal given half a chance.
Secure your country from the Putin’s pet orangutan for another four years, then rake Biden across the coals.
If we’re lucky, we won’t have to deal with either of them in 2028.
Removed by mod
Hey yeah, I should stop picking on that Putin guy! 😁
I said Trump was Putin’s pet. He’s a foreign agent only by happenstance and perhaps through manipulation.
Removed by mod
And Trump is Putin’s pet.
Removed by mod
Why do you think a conspiracy is necessary for Trump to be Putin’s pet?
You seem to be convinced that I’m some kind of conspiracy theorist but I already told you I think Trump is a “Russian agent” through happenstance.
Removed by mod
I don’t know what country you live in but that sure is a lot of words that don’t really mean anything.
Can you please elaborate on what the “foreign agent bullshit” you’re talking about is?
And can you please also explain how said bullshit is akin to how republicans are blaming Qanaon? (And also please explain what republicans are “blaming” Qanon for, as it’s my understanding that most republicans are followers of Qanon, not critics.)
If you are a bot account I am sorry for putting you through the wringer as it’s my first day.
Removed by mod
There are a lot of reasons to be suspicious about trump when it comes to colluding with foreign powers, and there is even some evidence. I agree that people often take it too far, into the conspiracy theory territory. But I don’t think it’s quite comparable with QAnon, either in feasibility, or in scope, or in the problematic effects that it may have.
Also, the American system is, at best, only semi-democratic. The politicians are the ones who determine who is in power, much more than the people who actually vote. Are the citizens really responsible for what politicians we have? Am I responsible, as a man who votes conscientiously, who has campaigned during important elections, and yet does not have any real influence in who gets elected? Is the average person, who is just barely getting by, really expected to change the system by themselves?
We need systemic change, but we have no class consciousness, and we are not likely to get there. These facts are manipulated by the people in power.
So… When your choices are between two war criminals, your first thought isn’t that the system needs change but that we should vote for the war criminal with a track record of war crimes?
The system needs to change, but with one of those criminals it’s slow progress in the right direction and with the other it’s a sprint towards fascism. Take your pick.
slow progress in the right direction
lol
Great contribution to the conversation. Laugh if you want, but voting for Democrats in general elections and voting progressive in primaries is the only way this country will make any progress. Push for ranked choice and other non-FPTP voting systems to get people better representation.
But there has been no progress during my lifetime (well not here and not in the US, there might have been some progress in other parts of the world). In fact, whenever we had “left”-liberals in power here in Germany, the march towards the right only accelerated, as they adopted right-wing neoliberal policies and took at least part their base with them over to the right, and the rest gets marginalized. We’ve had some fatal damage done to the welfare state, worker’s rights and the anti-war movement, all by the social democrats and greens.
Your affirmation that there is “slow progress” is clearly not true. There was some progress before I was born, but as far as I can tell, that had nothing at all to do with voting for the lesser evil.
Are we talking about the US or Germany? And how long have you been alive? Things like legalized gay marriage, legalized marijuana (not federally but in many states), healthcare that can’t deny people because of pre-existing conditions are all examples of progress that have come in the last 15 years. There’s still a long way to go even on those things I mentioned, but ignoring that progress is needlessly pessimistic.
Sure but it’s always like one small step forward and two large steps back. Abortion was made illegal in many states. US domestic surveillance of its own citizens has increased dramatically and gone unchallenged. Housing and healthcare costs have continued to outpace wage growth. Inequality has increased unabated. Green energy remains woefully underfunded. I could go on.
Trump would probably bomb the shit out of Palestine.
It’s already been decimated. By Joe Biden.
If you think that’s a good enough argument, you are severely mistaken.
Yeah so vote for the guy that will bomb them even more AND ALSO fuck our own country and our own people.
Then the result is the same. Thanks, Biden.
Biden isn’t sending drones to bomb Palestine, to my knowledge. I’m saying that Trump would do that. If Trump were in power, it would probably be worse.
Not to excuse Biden, and his complete apathy for this ongoing genocide. It is unexcusable, and no one who tolerates genocide should be allowed anywhere near politics.
Biden isn’t sending drones to bomb Palestine, to my knowledge.
He bypassed Congress to send weapons to Israel. I think similar shit happened on several occasions, and it’s not nearing an end. What’s the difference? American tax money all the same.
I don’t think you will find anyone on this thread who supports Trump or thinks Trump will not be “worse”.
EDIT: wait, one second, seems like Biden actually may literally have done what you suggested: https://theintercept.com/2024/01/11/israel-air-force-targeting-intelligence/. And apparently the “hold my beer as I bypass the congress” happened twice
I guess he litterally sending both drones and bombs, but I meant that Trump would order a direct strike. But you’re right, that’s not much different in the end, is it? The main difference is that Biden maintains some plausible deniability. “WE didn’t kill anyone! We didn’t know they would use these tools for genocide!”. Maybe in some sense that IS worse.
When Trump was president suddenly all the atrocities of the Obama presidency weren’t acceptable. Now that Biden is president it’s all fine again. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather a public that is paying attention and thus limiting the president from being able to facilitate genocide.
Deep in my heart, I just hope both Trump and Biden get heart attacks before the elections kick off. Voters would get a fresh choice then.
I’m afraid that in our current political system, voters would get a fresh choice of candidates who would probably still send weapons to Israel. Somehow we need deeper political change.
deleted by creator
Trump is even worse than Biden on Gaza. I get trying to push Biden to do better, but let’s all keep the truth in mind. The actual truth, not the click bait bullshit horse race covered by the media.
The Canadian Conservative party is the one that usually runs on “imagine/look at how bad the other guy would be” as a party platform. It’s a bad look and a sign that you have nothing better. It’s politicking for the sake of politicking.
It is a bad look and a sign of a lack of good options, but that’s the situation.
Also, all Canadian parties run like that except for the Greens and the Bloc, and it’s probably because they know they won’t form a government
Trump is worse than Biden on anything and everything. But if any president can get away with supporting a genocide campaign, is this not the way they get away with it? By simply claiming it will ruin their campaign efforts?
It’s sad ppl only read your first sentence and then are fully satisfied with whatever shit you throw on, as long as you don’t specifically say ‘Biden is really bad’
Electoral pressure is literally the only lever we have to push Biden to do better. There’s no other way. Biden’s team is making a bet that we aren’t serious and that they can just use Trump to hold us hostage in the party.
So! No ceasefire, no votes. If this war is still going on by November, and Netanyahu has been saying it will, I will not vote for Biden.
It’s so easy to earn our votes! Why is Biden sabotaging his own campaign?
The trouble you guys face is Trump is worse.
Just on Israel-Palestine alone, Trump is the person that recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. If that isn’t informative about his attitude about the situation…
Yeah, and that’s Biden’s fault, not the voters. He is letting an unqualified candidate beat him because he won’t stop funding the war on Gaza.
Don’t know why you have downvotes, this is sound logic, trump will embolden Israel even more while fucking up a lot of other important stuff e.g. Ukraine
If the choices are genocide lite and genocide deluxe, the only answer is for America to be defeated. MLs call it revolutionary defeatism.
Electoral pressure is literally the only lever we have to push Biden to do better. There’s no other way.
This is correct, barring revolution.
Biden’s team is making a bet that we aren’t serious and that they can just use Trump to hold us hostage in the party.
You are incorrect. Biden’s team, under the direction of the Democrat party, have taken away your lever because they don’t want to win. The Democrats have said this, publicly. They said back in 2016 that they would rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie. The Democrat party is happy to lose, always.
To say that they don’t want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but that’s not what we see. With Hillary, they didn’t conspire to make Hillary lose. They really did want her to win! They didn’t want Bernie to win because he wasn’t a Democrat. Winning with Bernie would have fundamentally changed their shitty party, they didn’t want that. That’s just lose/lose for them.
If this analogy applies, if they would rather lose the election than stop doing genocide, then death to America. I won’t give a shit about who wins, hopefully whoever wins destroys this shithole.
To say that they don’t want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but that’s not what we see
It’s EXACTLY what we see. 40 years of campaigning on Roe v Wade as law, zero moves to make it happen. Spending their own fundraising on Republican opponents. Espousing positions that people want but never actually following through. Compromising before negotiating. Democrats make their money from Wall St, just like Republicans do, so they have to lie about wanting to win for progressives to vote for them, but they don’t actually want to win because then they’ll be exposed. When they have a majority, it’s always a small majority and there’s always one to three Democrats that adopt the “spoiler” role, either switching sides, going independent, pretending to be a Blue Dog, or lying about the will of their own constituents being opposed to Democrat positions.
With Hillary, they didn’t conspire to make Hillary lose.
They conspired to lose the election. Not to make Hillary lose, but to choose the person who polled terribly, to choose the positions that wouldn’t mobilize the voters, etc.
They didn’t want Bernie to win because he wasn’t a Democrat
No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely ahistorical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. He’s very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, he’s useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.
Winning with Bernie would have fundamentally changed their shitty party
No it wouldn’t have. Because general voters don’t elect party leadership, and the president doesn’t suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.
If this analogy applies, if they would rather lose the election than stop doing genocide, then death to America. I won’t give a shit about who wins, hopefully whoever wins destroys this shithole.
They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide. The country is built on genocide - non-stop genocide. Just go look up how many people the USA killed in each military action after WW2. Then go look at how many indigenous people they killed here. Then try to find the numbers for how many slaves they killed. Just for comparison, the very tiny island of Haiti was replacing around 50,000 slaves (because they were being worked to death) annually. During the Haitian revolt, hundreds were gassed by the French in the bottom of slave ships. And that’s just the KILLING. Then you’ve got the erasure of language, child separation policies, which you know about now but literally follow an unbroken line all the back to before the founding of the country, because separating kids from their parents is how you kill an entire social culture, forced sterilization of 1/3 of Puerto Rico and of indigenous and Black people was happening through the 1970s. Both parties are aware. They participated. They think it’s fine. They think it’s correct. They fucking paid the slave owners for property losses but refuse to pay reparations to those enslaved or their descendants.
The USA is a genocidal settler colony that asserted its own leadership, live a cancer that broke free from its host and now lives independently. All the politicians are engaged, fully or partially, in ongoing centuries of genocide.
No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely a historical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. He’s very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, he’s useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.
This is like accusing an Welshman of being a Scotsman. He literally isn’t a Democrat. That’s his whole brand and his function to the party.
He is a major part of the party and certainly a useful idiot, but because he literally isn’t a Democrat isn’t allowed to be an important part of the party. His job is to be a sheepdog and shepherd us back into the polls for Democrats, he isn’t supposed to actually lead the party.
Also… are you implying they treated Hillary badly and caused her to lose on purpose? That’s a pretty wild accusation lol
No it wouldn’t have. Because general voters don’t elect party leadership, and the president doesn’t suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.
That’s a contradiction. If the party was fine ideologically then Bernie couldn’t hurt donors because that runs counter to their ideology.
Bernie would certainly hurt their donors, and that itself would fundamentally change the party because it would change who the financial backers of the party are - but you’re also ignoring how Trump very clearly changed the Republican party (yes, I know Republicans were always fascists, but they were cryptofascists before they stopped hiding behind dogwhistles). The very demographic base of the party changed because of who the president was, and now those “”“respectable”“” Republicans that Democrats love so much are on the outside of the party’s base. Bernie, if he had been allowed to win, would have changed the voter base and the financial base. They’d rather lose than have that.
This is all a ridiculous hypothetical, of course, because Democrats would rather lose than let Bernie win. But that’s it! They didn’t want Hillary to lose, they really wanted her to win - but they wanted her to win with her unpopular platform that caused them to lose. Her platform wasn’t intended to lose, though, and they didn’t give her an unpopular platform to make her lose. You’re really putting the cart before the horse here.
They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide.
It certainly looks that way, but that doesn’t mean they want to lose for its own sake. I’m not sure what you’re even arguing here.
It sounds like you’re saying that Biden supports the Zionist’s genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they don’t want to be in power anymore.
It sounds like you’re saying that Biden supports the Zionist’s genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they don’t want to be in power anymore.
No no, I’m saying the genocide is more important than winning. And if he has to lose in order for the genocide to continue under Trump, then they want to lose.
I see what you’re saying now, but I think they want to win and also continue supporting genocide at the same time. They’re actually ideologues that really believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They don’t actually want to lose and will be very surprised when it happens.
In order for them to actually be planning to lose it would require a lot of people to secretly agree to lose. I don’t think that’s happening. I think those people are delusionally confident and actually really believe they’re going to win. Maybe I’m underestimating their intelligence lol
While I have serious issues with Biden on Israel, he really has no ability to force a ceasefire. (Short of sending US troops in to enforce it, and that would be a terrible idea.).
Biden could pull all US support for Israel, but that would create a power vacuum that China or (more likely) Russia would gladly fill. It still wouldn’t end the genocide, but it would put a wedge between Iran and the Palestinians. (Iran is their only powerful ally.)
Biden’s rhetoric needs to change, and we need Israel to feel some real heat for their actions, but the US doesn’t have Israel on a leash.
While I have serious issues with Biden on Israel, he really has no ability to force a ceasefire. (Short of sending US troops in to enforce it, and that would be a terrible idea.).
Did you forget about the UN Security Council votes? The ones the US ruined?
No, that is one of the serious issues, but I also know that UN security council votes would make no difference whatsoever.
How do you know that? It’s probably the best chance we have, surely?
Resolutions against further settlement were completely ignored. Ultimately, UN resolutions rely on a willingness to use military force if necessary. There is no interest in that, and there shouldn’t be. That would certainly spread the conflict.
There actually was a successful vote on humanitarian aid, and that aid is being largely blocked by Israel.
It seems like the problem is with UN security council resolutions not being enforced, so why make it look like America is the issue? Why not give it the best chance? Hell If you cared about the well being of your fellow human beings (controversial I know) wouldn’t you be approving resolutions and then fighting to get them implemented? If they ignore it you can fucking sanction them. Use it to justify stopping arms sales and aid.
America cannot escape their responsibility for this, IMO. If they’d voted for a cease fire and Israel had ignored it, it would be Israel’s fault. The way it stands America shares the blame, whether they like it or not.
Imagine thinking you’ll even be able to legally protest if Trump is president.
Pelosi is already directing the FBI to investigate pro-Palestine protestors https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pelosi-fbi-pro-palestine-protesters-russia-1234955648/
Removed by mod
And when he was president he regularly tried to outlaw protests, tear gasses them, etc. Not to mention a Trump presidency costed Roe v Wade and stacked the supreme Court with bought and sold Christofascists. I didn’t say he never was president, I said he’ll straight up outlaw protests the next time he is, which he was well on his way to doing the last time.
Removed by mod
Pure vibes. The Trump administration was no worse for protests than any other administration in my life time.
Are you a small child? He literally tear gassed protesters to take a photo op.
Yeah, great job there, Biden.
Nope. Trump’s admin.
The Democrats literally let the Republicans have two of those seats.
They didn’t have the house, plus they’re not great, but they’re better than Trump.
Want to make a bet on it?
It’s not a game and I’m not a child. He will.
Lol no.
Lol yeah, he literally wanted to call in the National guard, you can look it up.
Removed by mod
