- 22 Posts
- 14 Comments
81·4 months agoWhat he meant to say was “No war with Venezuela…without me”, as he’s still hasn’t finished his application for
BlackwaterConstellis.
Very odd, divorced from reality response. TNR has regularly criticised Democrats, including on Gaza and Palestinian genocide.
https://newrepublic.com/article/199769/america-gaza-policy-bipartisan-catastrophe
https://newrepublic.com/article/197994/centrist-democrats-cuomo-jeffries-traitors-party
https://newrepublic.com/article/179841/uncommitted-michigan-gaza-biden
They’re still a liberal outlet, but they’re not “committed to covering for establishment dems”. The article is merely specifically about the report they’re burying, they’re not personally trying to cover up Dems position on Gaza.
I’m not defending the vote so much as pointing out that it was a meaningless vote.
Just ignore the part where you kept suggesting the Iron Dome was “defensive” therefore it’s OK and “not a weapon” (lmao) therefore voting in favour of it would be legitimate.
Again, you’re just an obtuse moron twisting yourself into a pretzel pretending its nuance.
If MTG brought up an amendment that said everyone gets to live forever and AOC voted against it, would you claim AOC is pro-death or would you recognize that MTG’s proposal was a useless measure that shouldn’t be taken seriously?
You’re just not a serious person. Learn to shut the fuck up.
Except I’m not. You literally quoted me saying I don’t support funding the iron dome.
You are an absurdly obtuse and disingenuous person.
Iron Dome funding is sending arms to Israel. Iron Dome protects Israel as it invades its neighbours and commits a genocide. It’s that simple.
You are defending a vote against stripping iron dome funding, accusing others of being in favour of killing civilians whilst trying to claim you also don’t support funding Israel. You can’t have it both ways. You support killing of civilians with your own stupid fucking rhetoric, but you want to dance around the issue and pretend you aren’t doing what you are in fact doing.
There actually was a lot of debate about civilian deaths in the firebombing of Dresden and the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan. Your lack of historical context and nuance doesn’t help your broad brush arguments.
You are genuinely a fucking moron. I said nothing about Dresden or dropping nukes. You are literally advocating for sending AA guns to Hitler by equating and reducing all forms of military response as being one and the same as mass murder of civilians to suggest it’s legitimate to support funding for the Iron Dome as “defensive”.
I wouldn’t personally support funding anything in Russia or Israel.
Yet here you are defending funding the iron dome. Weird that.
A gun is an offensive weapon. It’s not useful for self defense. You can’t shoot bullets out of the air easily. There’s no need for useless name-calling.
A missile is an offensive weapon. What do you think the iron dome is? Idiot.
Except she voted against said funding by voting against the bill.
Yet she defended funding the iron dome, which is giving arms to Israel.
The iron dome existed before the current genocide.
Irrelevant to the point.
But you’re literally saying that civilians in Israel should die because the people in control of the government and military are committing genocide.
Irrelevant to the point. You’re saying Russian civilians should die by saying you wouldn’t fund anything in Russia. You also said the same about Israel, so you also support killing Israeli civilians according to you.
You’re saying German civilians should die because you refuse to provide Hitler with AA guns.
I’d be interested in defending Israel entirely. The conservatives in the majority in Congress will not allow that to happen. However AOC voted or even if she abstained, the results would not be any different.
??? nonsensical.
She literally didn’t say that. If she did, you could quote her saying “Tlaib and Omar are Nazis.” You’re assigning that meaning to her words and then getting upset at your own interpretation.
“If you believe neo-nazis are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them!” She said about people voting in favour of the amendment. She called Ilhan and Tlaib nazis.
Would you support funding an iron dome for Russia against Ukraine?
The iron dome isn’t a defensive “weapon.” That’s a contradiction in terms.
A gun doesn’t stop being a weapon because you used it in self defence, idiot.
She specifically cited an interest in not having innocent people die.
By funding arms to Israel to protect it from consequences of committing a genocide and invading and bombing multiple neighbours, which then allows it to act with further impunity to keep doing what it’s doing.
She did not call Tlaib a Nazi. That’s a gross misrepresentation of the statement. Ask Tlaib if she thinks AOC was referring to her.
She straight up declared anyone who voted for it effectively a nazi. She called Tlaib and Omar nazis.
AOC herself defended “”“defensive”“” weapns to Israel. She was against the amendment on those grounds.
Her and other progressives vote for “doomed” bills and amendments all the time, as do most politicians. They vote for them to signal their position and push those positions publicly as much as anything else.
Rashiba Tlaib voted for the amendment. AOC called her a nazi.
Let’s send defensive weapons to nazi germany during the holocaust.
“Defensive” as Israel invades and occupies multiple countries.
The distinction between defensive and offensive is meaningless.
Deserves to feel the pain Palestinian families felt as he covered for Israel’s genocide and pushed false atrocity propaganda about beheaded babies.
Apologies, it came across as sarcastic but in the direction of defending DNC.
Cool that people making a principled stand to engage with a political party to encourage a change in policy are at fault for the leaders of that political party refusing to change policy, despite being told at multiple levels, for a multitude of reasons, including electorally, why that policy was bad.
Liberals hate democracy. Expecting to engage with a political party to affect change? Ew, just tick the box with a D next to it regardless of what they do or say. Don’t you know trying to engage with a party that doesn’t listen to its base or membership might lead to bad PR and might hurt them in an election? How could you be so inconsiderate? Your role is just to sit down and do nothing and accept whatever they say is true on MSNBC.
The White House routinely makes mutually exclusive statements about its desire to “end the war,” while saying Hamas could “have no role in postwar Gaza.” Yet no mainstream reporter, editor, or opinion writer bothers to reconcile this contradiction. This calculated vagueness is central to why Israel is permitted to continue bombing and killing at will for an indefinite amount of time. How can US officials simultaneously push for an “immediate, lasting ceasefire” while, at the same time, saying the other warring party must be completely defeated before they can support a lasting ceasefire?
This isn’t a call for a ceasefire—it’s a call for, in Netanyahu’s phrasing, “total victory.” The pairing of these two mutually exclusive phrases can only mean one thing: In common usage from the White House and its friendly media, “pushing for a ceasefire” means “continuing to bomb and besiege Gaza while reiterating terms of surrender.”
One linguistic trick that permitted this contradiction to go unchallenged is the sleight-of-hand in what the White House means by “ceasefire.” In some contexts, it means the term as it has been used by the Israelis, namely by Netanyahu: a temporary pause in fighting to facilitate hostage exchanges, followed by a continuation of the military campaign whose goal, ostensibly, is to “eliminate Hamas.” But this is explicitly not an effort to “end the war” as Netanyahu made clear repeatedly throughout the conflict.
The White House’s demand to “end the war,” increasingly popular since the summer of 2024, is just a reiteration of surrender terms. The State Department banned its staff from even using the word “ceasefire” for the first few months of the conflict. But in late February 2024, on the eve of a Michigan primary that was embarrassing then-candidate Biden, the White House, as we noted in The Nation at the time, pivoted to embracing the term. But the Biden administration changed its definition to mean (1) hostage negotiations, but with a firm commitment to continue the “war” once Israeli hostages were freed, and (2) a reiteration of surrender demands, sometimes using both definitions simultaneously.
The concepts of “ceasefire” and “push to the end the war” became, like the “peace process,” a ill-defined, open-ended process for process’s sake that US officials could point to in order to frame themselves not as participants in an brutal, largely one-sided siege and bombing campaign but a third party desperately trying—but perpetually failing—to achieve “peace.”
Several attendees at the November meeting — officials who help lead the State Department’s efforts to promote racial equity, religious freedom and other high-minded principles of democracy — said the United States’ international credibility had been severely damaged by Biden’s unstinting support of Israel. If there was ever a time to hold Israel accountable, one ambassador at the meeting told Tom Sullivan, the State Department’s counselor and a senior policy adviser to Blinken, it was now.
But the decision had already been made. Sullivan said the deadline would likely pass without action and Biden would continue sending shipments of bombs uninterrupted, according to two people who were in the meeting.
Those in the room deflated. “Don’t our law, policy and morals demand it?” an attendee told me later, reflecting on the decision to once again capitulate. “What is the rationale of this approach? There is no explanation they can articulate.”
Soon after, when the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken made it official and said that Israelis had begun implementing most of the steps he had laid out in his letter — all thanks to the pressure the U.S. had applied.
That choice was immediately called into question. On Nov. 14, a U.N. committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, was “consistent with genocide.” Amnesty International went further and concluded a genocide was underway. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations. (The U.S. and Israeli governments have rejected the genocide determination as well as the warrants.)
Absolutely wild the apologia for Democrats doing genocide you guys will do to avoid holding Democratic politicians and campaigners to account for their own decisions on policy and how they campaign.
Maybe Democrats shouldn’t have sent Bill Clinton to talk about how Hamas forced Israel to kill civilians and that’s why you need to not care about Dems facilitating genocide, or maybe Richie Torres could have not spent the last weeks of the campaign feuding with Hasan Piker on Twitter over Israel as he was also in Michigan to speak to Arab and Muslim voters.
I guess we already saw if they made the right choice.
https://bsky.app/profile/latimeriidae.bsky.social/post/3mi52awgh7s23