Supporting Israel is not the same as supporting Netanyahu.
Biden and Netanyahu have a decades-long relationship that has at times been strained. At the Monday evening reception, Biden said he once gifted Netanyahu a photo and wrote at the top: “I love you but I don’t agree with a damn thing you had to say.”
“It’s about the same today,” Biden said, adding he’d “had my differences with some Israeli leadership.”
Sounds like he’s criticizing Netanyahu.
From a utilitarian point of view, it probably makes more sense to attempt to minimize suffering rather than opting out of the decision and thereby passively enable greater suffering.
But hey, it’s the trolley problem all over again, and people hate even thinking about that one.
Oh, corruption is going to thrive under Trump. Did you not notice that last time around? Did you not notice the fake charities, the tax payer money funneled into Mar-a-Lago, the hundreds of millions going to Trump PACs, the money going to the Trump hotel in Washington DC, all the corruption and bribes and schemes?
And the fun thing is that now that Trump knows how to do all of this, how to funnel millions into his own pocket, a second Trump presidency is going to be corruption on steroids.
The only thing that’s going to crumble are democratic norms and human rights in the United States.
Ironically, so is supporting the Hamas position that Israel shouldn’t exist.
The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn’t it?
deleted by creator
it’s a losing issue. It’s never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.
You know, that’s exactly what people said about Roe v. Wade and about banning abortion.
Turns out that you can keep losing on an issue for 50 years, yet winning only once will drastically change the trajectory of the entire issue.
That’s because they like the idea of a Trump dictatorship. They simply assume they’d be on the side that’s going to do the dictating.
It’s hardly possible to do worse
There are about a million ways to do worse.
For example, a U.S. president could send American ground troops into Gaza. Or recognize Gaza and the West Bank as Israeli territory. Or increase military aid to Israel tenfold. Or launch a preemptive military attack against Hezbollah. Or launch a ground attack against the Huthi rebels for firing rockets at Israel. Or increasing tensions with Iran for funding Hamas. Or round up suspected Hamas supporters in the U.S. and deport them. Or round up suspected Palestine supporters in the U.S. and hold them in indefinite detention. Or create a House Committee for Un-American Activities. Or bring back “enhanced interrogation” for questioning Americans suspected of un-American activities.
The possibilities are really unlimited.
This is like arguing that voting for Hitler as Reichskanzler wouldn’t be so bad, because at worst he would be doing the exact same thing as Kurt von Schleicher.
But that’s the thing: things can always get worse. And Trump has proven time and time again that he’s willing to make things worse.
Which is why they released women for the other 7 days. Love how this article contradicts itself in the first sentence.
Here’s the entire sentence:
Israeli official says Hamas doesn’t want to release remaining women because it doesn’t want them speaking publicly about what they endured on Oct. 7 and in their time in captivity
which clearly implies that Hamas was fine releasing female hostages that were treated okay, but is refusing to release the remaining female hostages that have possibly been abused, raped, sexually mistreated.
You obviously don’t have to agree with that analysis, but where exactly do you see the contradiction?
Yeah, but see: she worked incredibly hard to
and she firmly stood her ground in telling everyone that Obamacare was a danger to the nation bigger than any terrorist attack on America ever could be.
That’s a lot of hard work, you see?
Also Kevin McCarthy. And Chris Christie. And Rex Tillerson. And Omarosa. And Steve Bannon. And Scramucci. And Reince Priebus. And Mike Pence. And Michael Flynn. And John Kelly. And Sebastian Gorka. And John Bolton.
There are literally hundreds of people who swore allegiance to Trump, only to be thrown under the bus.
That’s because every single person who slights him even the tiniest bit was obviously always his enemy, and he obviously always knew this. Probably a RINO, a secret Democrat, a stealthy undercover deep state fake Republican. Very bad person, could not be trusted, in fact Trump barely knew them, they begged him for the job, but they simply weren’t up to it.
Even if he praised that same person to high heaven just the day before.
Evidence: the 263 people he hired and fired in the last administration (with the firing usually done via Twitter, when they were far away from wherever he was tweeting from).
Judges simply shouldn’t be nominated by one single person, particularly if that person is the de facto leader of his political party. And confirmation of judges simply shouldn’t be possible purely based on how many seats that same party holds in the Senate and, in a worst case scenario, without any kind of bipartisanship purely along party lines.
Because that essentially means that Supreme Court judges are nominated and confirmed by the political parties.
Apart from maybe a president being able to single-handed determining Supreme Court judges, almost any other system would be better. Including - as shitty as that would be - direct election of Supreme Court judges by the entire electorate.
You’ll never completely eliminate all possible bias from human beings serving on a nation’s highest court, but out of the things that could be done, the United States is doing exactly nothing.
It’s what the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA Republicans did with the GOP.
If you want the party to move in your direction, you have to become the party.
That’s fair.
However, it’s just an argument for cracking down on money laundering, criminal enterprises, dark money in politics, etc.
Bad actors who oppose cryptocurrencies out of nefarious reasons don’t make cryptocurrencies a good thing, particularly if even worse actors support cryptocurrencies for even worse reasons.
Milliardäre sind halt so unglaublich weit weg vom eigenen Erfahrungshorizont, da könnte man sich genauso gut über Smaug den Drachen unterhalten. Menschen, die vielleicht hunderttausend mal mehr Geld haben, als man als Durchschnittsmensch in einem gesamten Arbeitsleben verdienen kann? Da fehlt vielen Menschen komplett das Vermögen, das in irgendein Verhältnis zum eigenen Leben zu setzen.
Da sieht man sich dann lieber in der eigenen, erlebten Umgebung um und tritt dann gerne kräftig zu, am liebsten nach unten.
Another thing of course is that the banks are unhappy with not getting their share in money laundering, crime investments and tax evasion, like they do with government currencies. Cryptocurrencies could also democratize organized crime and not just leave it to the established ties between politics, banks and existing crime groups.
I’m not sure that “cryptocurrencies make it much easier for criminals to launder money, finance criminal enterprises, evade taxes and for organized crime to funnel dark money and into politics and corrupt politicians” is the kind of pro-cryptocurrency argument you seem to imply it is.
So what is it?
Support Ukraine in the war against Russia - or all wars are equally bad, only chickenhawks support wars?