this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
343 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3277 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The White House statement comes after a week of frantic negotiations in the Senate.

President Joe Biden on Friday urged Congress to pass a bipartisan bill to address the immigration crisis at the nation’s southern border, saying he would shut down the border the day the bill became law.

“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

Biden’s Friday evening statement resembles a ramping up in rhetoric for the administration, placing the president philosophically in the camp arguing that the border may hit a point where closure is needed. The White House’s decision to have Biden weigh in also speaks to the delicate nature of the dealmaking, and the urgency facing his administration to take action on the border — particularly during an election year, when Republicans have used the issue to rally their base.

The president is also daring Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And if they had taken legitimate military targets or released non military targets within the next day or two, it would be a different story.

They didn’t, they raided a music festival and kidnapped babies and children.

They took a legitimate reason and turned it illegitimate.

Freedom fighters don’t kidnap babies.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The allies killed over a million civilians in their campaign against the Axis during WW2 through brutal fire bombings and nuclear bombs of civilian cities. Welcome to the brutal reality of war where civilians have always been targeted.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All I heard was what about what about what about

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If one can't distinguish Tu quoque from identifying a pattern and double-standards, then I suppose we're done here.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So then tell me why something that happened 80 years ago means that we should do the same today?

Tell me why kidnapping babies is ok now because of that

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Straw-man — never claimed we should.

But two can play that game:

Tell me why committing the equivalent of 20 October 7ths in the number of civilians killed directly by Israel (half of whom being children) is okay because of something that happened last year?

See? We're in agreement.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It isn’t. Fuck Israel. They crossed the line even more than Hamas did by an order of magnitude.

Neither event is justified or even justifiable.

That doesn’t mean that Hamas didn’t turn a cold/lukewarm war into a hot one.

Do you think l am trying to defend Israel here?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Ok fair. I have some disagreements on how someone backed into a corner over an overwhelming force that continues to annex their land should respond, but yes I'd prefer neither event to have occurred.