Speaking of hypocrisy, if you’re worried about a ‘hunger for violence’ you’re going to be so mad when you hear what Russia has been up to.
Speaking of hypocrisy, if you’re worried about a ‘hunger for violence’ you’re going to be so mad when you hear what Russia has been up to.The US can publicly shame Rashida Tlaib but it cannot do the same for politicians who say things much, much worse. Is it because the US is a hypocritical nation on many levels? See for yourself.
From The Intercept:
MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN REP. Tim Walberg recently declared at a town hall that the U.S. “shouldn’t be spending a dime on humanitarian aid,” in Gaza. Instead, he posed, “it should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick.”
Members of Congress like Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., have long been pilloried — and even censured — by their colleagues for speaking out against Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians, while the media class has spilled boats-worth of ink on bad-faith interpretations of the progressive Democrats’ statements. Republicans who belittle, or even encourage, Palestinian suffering have typically generated no such equal, let alone proportional, response.
REPUBLICANS’ HUNGER FOR violence began just days after Hamas’s attack against Israel on October 7. “We are in a religious war here, I’m with Israel,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., declared on October 11, in an appearance on Fox News. “Do whatever the hell you have to do to defend yourself. Level the place.” (Graham later said that no amount of civilian casualties in Gaza would prompt him to scrutinize Israel’s conduct.)
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., echoed Graham’s bloodlust on Fox in mid-October. “As far as I’m concerned, Israel can bounce the rubble in Gaza,” said the senator who famously called for the Trump administration to sic the military on protesters at the height of the George Floyd uprising. “Anything that happens in Gaza is the responsibility of Hamas. Hamas killed women and children in Israel last weekend,” he added. In the months to come, Israel would go on to kill over 25,000 Palestinian women and children
On October 11, Ohio Rep. Max Miller lambasted Tlaib for planting a Palestinian flag outside her congressional office. He refused to recognize Palestine as a state, calling it “a territory that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot.”
A few days later, Miller’s colleague Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., took the unusual step of donning the military garb of a foreign country in the halls of the Congress — wearing an Israel Defense Forces uniform he earned while volunteering for the country’s military in 2015. Shortly thereafter, he introduced an amendment that would slow down humanitarian aid to Gaza. “Any assistance should be slowed down — any assistance,” Mast said in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the bill. “Because I would challenge anybody in here to point to me, which Palestinian is Hamas, and which one is an innocent civilian? … It should absolutely be every effort made to slow down any perceived assistance that’s going there.”
-----------------------
In America, you have a Palestinian flag, you are shamed publicly but wearing the military uniform of Israel is allowed.
I understand Republican party is tied to the Christian base largely so blind support for Israel is required (plus lobbying groups). But why did other Democrats not stand up and defend Rashida Tlaib? Ilhan Omar is regularly insulted by so many US politicians and this is perfectly allowed as well.
So basically they are in a round about way gonna vote for Trump (by not voting for Biden)...it's really annoying when holier than thou people don't do the right thing when all the evidence required to do so is right in front of them.They won't vote for Biden but they have decided that their vote is not worth anything because of the options.
They are religious right people that can't stand this human.
I got one on my cell phone in rural Nebraska in 2020 (not long before I moved), that one I answered and participated in, I got another (I've mentioned here recently) a month or so back, but it was right before I had to jump on a meeting. Claimed they'd call back, did not. So it does happen, but probably only a small percentage of us answer calls from unknown numbersI’m a registered independent in a swing state and I’m definitely on the mailing lists for both parties—and yet no poll has ever reached out to me or gotten through to me. I don’t have a home phone—but I assume polling can be done by cell phone now? But I screen all calls from unknown numbers. I’m guessing there are lots of professional 40-something and under folks in urban/suburban areas of swing states who skew lefty and totally get passed over by polls.
So if I walk into a polling place in Ohio and Joe Biden isn't on the ballot, they're going to add 1 vote for Trump regardless of whether or not I actually vote for him? Sounds like something that would be against the law.So basically they are in a round about way gonna vote for Trump (by not voting for Biden)...it's really annoying when holier than thou people don't do the right thing when all the evidence required to do so is right in front of them.
It’s a contest with only two plausible outcomes. Anything that decreases the chance of one outcome is by definition increasing the chance of the other.So if I walk into a polling place in Ohio and Joe Biden isn't on the ballot, they're going to add 1 vote for Trump regardless of whether or not I actually vote for him? Sounds like something that would be against the law.
Still doesn't make sense. If 100 people voted and there were 49 votes for Biden, 49 votes for Trump and 2 didn't vote for either - it doesn't become Trump wins 50 to 49. The result is still 49-49.It’s a contest with only two plausible outcomes. Anything that decreases the chance of one outcome is by definition increasing the chance of the other.
It would probably be better to say not voting for Biden is half a vote for Trump but directionally they are the same.
Now take that same experiment and have three people not vote and Trump wins 48-47. See?Still doesn't make sense. If 100 people voted and there were 49 votes for Biden, 49 votes for Trump and 2 didn't vote for either - it doesn't become Trump wins 50 to 49. The result is still 49-49.
Obviously it’s not this black and white. It’s back to that thought, my single vote won’t make a difference. If everyone thinks this, that 1 is now a thousand, ten thousand, a million. And if that was a red vote that would have never voted blue. But this has to be a landslide win to truly stomp out the orange turd. So every vote does indeed count even with the stupid ECStill doesn't make sense. If 100 people voted and there were 49 votes for Biden, 49 votes for Trump and 2 didn't vote for either - it doesn't become Trump wins 50 to 49. The result is still 49-49.
That would be 5 people if there were 100 total. You're assuming they would've voted Biden instead of Trump when they voted for neither.Now take that same experiment and have three people not vote and Trump wins 48-47. See?
Still doesn't make sense. If 100 people voted and there were 49 votes for Biden, 49 votes for Trump and 2 didn't vote for either - it doesn't become Trump wins 50 to 49. The result is still 49-49.
Yes, that is the entire point. A decision not to vote for Biden makes it more likely Trump will win as illustrated and therefore is directionally the same as voting for Trump.That would be 5 people if there were 100 total. You're assuming they would've voted Biden instead of Trump when they voted for neither.
The specificity of this gave me a chuckle.Lets make this really simple, if you don't want Trump to be the next president for sure, get off your 12 sandwich eating asses and VOTE FOR BIDEN. But, but ,but.............
RFK is not actually good on the environment - for example he opposes nuclear power and spent a lot of his career trying to block it.The point is that people who normally would align with the Democrats (or against the GOP) getting their panties in a bunch over purity or out of bitterness. Saw it in spades in 2016 with butt-hurt Bernie zealots. Statements ranging from "both parties are the same" to "it just needs to all break down, so let Trump win". Childish. Let's let the GOP pack the Supreme Court for decades, that'll teach the Democrats!
At least if there's a 3rd party candidate that actually aligns to your positions the best, then I guess go for it--but your vote is literally pissing in the wind. Neither of the other two parties will change a thing if Gary Johnson or somebody gets 10% of the vote. Well, they might actually prop up someone if they might siphon off votes from the enemy (like those No Labels clowns, or the Green party).
I guess I'm lucky that I don't have a tough decision...no 3rd party has been measurably better than the Democrats for me. And with Trump--and worse, all the scum like Stephen Miller he's going to bring on as part of his administration--I'd be compelled anyway to vote for anyone that might beat him. As much as I disliked McCain and Romney, Trump is far worse.
RFK being--on paper--better for the environment is definitely a point in his favor for me personally. Trump has never met an environmental restriction he wouldn't love to strip away. Unfortunately for RFK, I'd never vote for an anti-vax kook and coup supporter unless it was him or Trump--and that would be a severe "lesser evil" test if there ever was one.
RFK is not actually good on the environment - for example he opposes nuclear power and spent a lot of his career trying to block it.
He’s just shitty about basically everything.
Gave me an appetite trigger...The specificity of this gave me a chuckle.
Except that you made that specific claim some 6 months ago? I don't like where we stand now compared to 4 years ago; but if anything Biden's state in the race has inched up a tick over the past month. It's barely perceptible so I wouldn't make too much of it. If you look at Biden's approval ratings over the past 30 months, they are pretty stable. That is a huge problem for his reelection.I said this months ago: Trump's floor/ceiling are the same...numbers won't move much for him.
But I claimed Biden's floor would continue to drop, and here we are. This isn't 2020 anymore, "not Trump" may not be good enough.
Every person that doesn't vote for Biden equals one fewer vote Trump needs to win that state.It’s a contest with only two plausible outcomes. Anything that decreases the chance of one outcome is by definition increasing the chance of the other.
It would probably be better to say not voting for Biden is half a vote for Trump but directionally they are the same.
I've just had with the people who want to put the fire out, but not get the drapes wet at the same time. In my 50 or so years of voting, there has never been a perfect candidate. There is always compromise to make things work. Just look at the Republican majority in the house constantly striving for the perfect legislation to please their master. See where that's got them.The specificity of this gave me a chuckle.