191
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lutillian@sh.itjust.works 40 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not just the media, but perhaps worse, unverified strangers on the Internet though social media. The biggest thing that pisses me off is every time I the lesser of two evils argument spouted of paired with Biden's handing of something that 100% should fall in the domain of Congress to solve. So may things that historically have been attributed to the President were ultimately created and decided on by Congress and the public attributes way more power to the President than they actually have because of it.

If we want actual support to Gaza we need to push our congressional members to provide that support. Which is laughable because congress can't even pass a bill that had bipartisan support because half of one floor bends knee to the will of a private citizen. Biden keeps having to overreach his office with executive orders and policies that aren't backed by law and as such are highly transient and subject to constitutional review allowing them too be thrown out, as well as peace time commander-in-chief powers to do things like supply airdrops or back door old equipment sales to their other countries to affected groups.

The difference between Ukraine and Gaza is that unlike Ukraine, have does not have a unified Palestinian force that the US can safely supply arms to (HAMAS has actively proven that they are not the good guys) and that we're legally obligated to supply arms to Israel, which we are not to Russia. Biden can only sit loudly at Israel stating that genocide is bad threaten that this could lead to a withdrawal of US support, but he can't actually withdraw US support. Congress needs to provide a bill for him to sign that does that.

On a side note... I'm fairly convinced that a good chunk of the rhetoric spouted to not vote for Biden likely originated from foreign sources to plant the Idea in people's minds and get them to repeat it everywhere because on the surface it feels right. The vote any vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump rhetoric probably exists for similar reasons, mostly to help reinforce the thought that both sides are the same because it's quite easily proven not true and likely increases the odds that someone it's used to convince to vote for Biden ultimately ends up either withholding their vote in protest or voting for someone else out of spite.

[-] Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social 15 points 9 months ago

Excellent points, truly.

Esp on congressional v presidential power/responsibility. I must admit im rather guilty of this, too. Its easy to hate on our cultures authoritarian tendencies that prevade in the stupidest fucking places, and yet i still consistently think, "wheres that marjuana legislation, Joe? Why arent you passing executive orders to prevent the intellectually challeneged baboon heading Texas from busing his responsibilities to my state? Or at least offer more executive support in handling the influx of ppl? Maybe something to give out more work visas, no?

Reading this tho reminds me, most all of that is legislative tasks. weve just all been brainwashed by years of executive encroachment to where the broken parts of our system behave extra broken.

Keep fighting the good fight. Your words hit hard.

[-] lutillian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

The best way to think of it is that the presidents power is roughly bellcurved relative to how much Congress is in alignment with them. If Congress is completely out of alignment with them they have very little power because congress can pass a vote on what he vetos or issue a stop on any executive action he takes. If Congress is slightly in alignment or out of alignment he becomes able to singlehandedly stop laws and executive actions aren't likely to get overruled and will have up go under judicial review. If Congress is completely in alignment with him, he doesn't need to use his veto powers or executive actions and if he does they likely won't be contested anyway but we're generally better off with Congress passing a law.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If we all (very justifiably) believe that Trump would truly become a dictator if he wins in November, then it is clear that the president has the ability to wield tremendous power to radically remake our system.

Which means that Bidens failure to act on any given issue is a choice.

If Trump's administration would radically reshape the country through breaking norms, then Biden could do the same, but for beneficial purposes. We should ask ourselves why he is prioritizing procedural norms over real improvements to Americans standards of living. Why do we accept that The Rules are more important than our lives?

[-] Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

sigh being capable of wielding that much power is not supposed to happen is the point. Donnie dipshits potential to do so is enabled by the same problems that americans have been avoiding facing for years. The answer is not opening the door for the next in line to radically reshape everything they dont like, thats beyond inefficient. Instead, lets avoid opening up such a possibility that is only available to dump bc he wields a cult of personality made up of dinosaurs.

If u would like to pursue direct action rather than wait on electoral politics to change ur life, then i think u will find those are much more easily pursued in Biden's America v. Trumps. Enough so that taking the small amount of time itd take to vote for Status Quo Joe is worth it. Similarly, your local down ballot choices are also worth checking off based on who is best or least shit. We can effect greater change long term when ur local electoral politics are, for example, funding ur local schools sufficiently.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

sigh

This sort of communication is incredibly unlikable and causes the median viewer to deeply dislike you and your positions. Which is perfect if you're trying to confirm to Americans that Democrats are elitists who don't care about normal people. If, however, you're trying to persuade people and win elections then you need an immediate attitude adjustment or you need to refrain from such discussions if you are unable to be likable

wielding that much power is not supposed to happen is the point.

Said a different way, drastically improving living standards for Americans is not supposed to happen, quickly or otherwise. Which is deeply unsatisfying and is a perfect argument for a 3rd party candidate

Americans have a consumer mentality. They have no interest in longterm solutions. They want their, very significant, societal problems to be fixed correctly and immediately. If Democrats refuse to use the full power of the federal government to achieve that expeditiously then Americans will vote for someone who claims that they will.

Being smug will not change any of that. We don't live in the world you want to live in, we live in the real world. If you want to persuade literally anyone then maybe it is more effective for you to behave accordingly

[-] Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Whos being smug here? Youve boiled down everything i said to absolute nothing, all while ignoring the central thesis that aimless bitching about it solves nothing, and that if ur going to do something about it, then u might as well ensure that the maximum amount of people are capable of living bearable lives under the current regime. Youve also completely ignored my call for unity across the left leaning spectrum. You do all this not because im "smug," but bc, in this instance, u are a bad faith actor looking to be contentious.

Eta: and calling the problem consumerism is merely blaming the victims.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

You're intentionally (or worse, unintentionally) being incredibly unlikable. RFK and the Green Party could use more online "activists" like yourself

Please stop trying to do anything to help the Democratic Party. Your personality is absolute poison for them winning Michigan Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Point of order, we are not legally bound to sell weapons to anyone. The Leahy Law actually bans the sale of weapons to countries or organizations credibly accused of war crimes. The creator of the Leahy Law has publicly said Israel should have been cut off by that law. Former civil servants have said that Israel gets a special vetting process that requires several political appointees to agree Israel is problematic. In contrast to any other country getting a single civil servant.

We are in fact taking great pains to send them weapons illegally.

[-] lutillian@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

We're not bound to sell weapons but we're bound to provide aid by a combination of Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952) which I can't find the text of from my phone... Need to wait till I'm near a computer to try again and Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991) which I linked elsewhere in the thread.

https://www.dsca.mil/programs/excess-defense-articles-eda Does explicitly allow the sale of arms to a list of nations from my understanding. This is a huge rabbit hole of laws and then exceptions to laws.

whether I personally agree any of this is right is a different story here

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

None of that matters if they're committing war crimes. That was the entire point of the Leahy Amendments and later the Leahy Law.

[-] lutillian@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

Yes. That's a question that has been raised by the US department of state that we might see an answer to in our life times of we're lucky.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Not likely. The Department of State has been shielding them from Leahy for decades. They setup a special committee just for Israel. To shield them from accountability for things like shooting protest medics on purpose; continuing to settle the West Bank in blatant violation of international law; holding thousands of Palestinians without charge; and just so much bombing of civilians.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Consider though what "unverified" means these days - the media circus is one of the three main sources that got Trump elected the last time (Hillary Clinton's corruption, e.g. with the DNC collusion, and Ted Cruz were the other two main ones iirc), so it seems like they have lost the public's trust?

Therefore if people turn to "unverified sources" - and who even is that really, like aren't Hank/John Green, Innuendo Studies, Kurzgesagt, CPG Grey, and then on the left the comedians like John Olivier, Jon Stewart, even fucking Bill Maher, and ofc on the right are those like Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, etc.? - can we really blame them, when the "verified" sources ARE lying to us? And keep in mind that people like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnel, Lindsey Graham, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bohbert, etc. are among the "verified" ones, yes? They are "verified" by virtue of having the seal of approval by authority.

Maybe you mean places like the CDC, FDA, FBI, etc., and while I whole-heartedly agree, many others do not agree. (Also, Republicans like Trump are constantly ordering them to say or not say some things, like removing all words "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" from the official documents, and Yellowstone National Park was even forbidden to collect temperature data any longer - plus look into why doing taxes sucks, and why the post office sucks, it all becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when these organizations are targeted for destruction and then they get to cite how "unreliable" they are later, as if one action had nothing whatsoever to do with the direct consequences of it.) Meanwhile, in authoritarian communist China and Russia, the "verified" sources could be among the least trustworthy of them all? Now, the USA is not that... we have our own whole other thing going on here, but in both cases people turn to "unverified" sources for the same reason, and imho it is not the presence of the unverified sources that should concern us nearly so much as the absence of good information from verified ones - by which I mostly mean news media, but in some highly specific cases government agencies too, when they are forced to comply by a Congressional order despite the facts, possibly remaining under attack for YEARS until the director is replaced by someone who will be more easily controlled.

Also, of COURSE a lot of this comes from outside sources - I thought this was verified at some point - but also it would be a huge missed opportunity for that particular foreign not to take advantage of that opportunity, and they definitely are not that stupid. Also we do it ourselves to other nations all the time. Water is wet, stones are hard, h8rs gonna h8 and cheaters gonna cheat - at some point I don't even blame them anymore - or rather I at least cease to be surprised - and start blaming ourselves more for falling for such cheap tricks, over & over again! It is hard to get out of an abusive relationship, I get that, but if we need to do it then we just need to get it done, somehow! Or else we will fall, as a nation - and ngl that has a much better chance of happening now than it did back when Trump ran the first time.

[-] lutillian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

I was mostly using unverified in lacking sources and people not going through and verifying their sources before just blindly believing them. Which seems to happen a lot.

People see Biden did something and don't look into why Biden did the thing he did then start calling him every because he did the thing he did without understanding why he did it. It's a vicious circular loop that I've seen with pretty much every president we've had since I can remember.

Biden seems to be pretty conscious about remaining within the bounds of law so there's a good chance there's generally some obscure treaty or other random grouping of legal documents that when all bundled together cause the reaction we see. I like to look up what those are because I find it interesting but I can guarantee the bulk of people in this thread do not.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 1 points 9 months ago

The TV show Designated Survivor did a good job portraying that IMHO. He had to agonize over every decision and try to find a way to do the right thing in the right manner. But I guess Trump's real-life antics were more exciting and so that show was too "boring" by comparison, being too intellectual like that, and got cancelled.

We are lazy, greedy, and judgemental. Our "stuff" all pushes us further in that direction - e.g. social media, algorithm based video players, and somehow predating computers bc boomers do it too - yet it is our own fault for choosing to engage in it, when there are choices to pull back instead. And by "we" I mean not just the USA but our whole Western culture, see e.g. Brexit.

Like the audacity for someone who dropped out of high school to claim that they know better than all of the MD and PhD educated scientists + all relevant U.S. governmental organizations too (CDC, FDA, NIH, NIAID) + worldwide ones as well (e.g., WHO), about vaccinations, disease, and viruses that are far too small to be seen with the unaided eye, is staggering. Though I watched some videos like Plandemic and such where the media personality, who are entirely uncredentialed, walked people through the process: "murder is bad, right?" -> "so killing of innocent little babies in the womb is bad, right?" -> therefore somehow equating that to taking the vaccine is likewise equivalent to murder? Brainwashing techniques are strong, especially when delivered from an authoritative source, which causes people to receive things emotionally rather than rationally, and far worse, unquestioningly - despite how e.g. the very Christian Bible itself says "test everything against what you know to be true".

Then again, the sheeple do not know how! This was done to our culture, so I do take pity, but also we allowed it, and more to the point some of us are working to KILL PEOPLE, e.g. by cutting off access to medical care. It's not like I want those who do that to simply die, but like... ranked choice voting might be something worth looking into enacting, in the more liberal leaning states that could potentially get it passed? e.g. if a child who does not know how to drive grabs the wheel of the car you are in, you may want to grab it BACK before bad things happen... bc the consequences of a crash could be REALLY severe.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Biden's handing of something that 100% should fall in the domain of Congress to solve. So may things that historically have been attributed to the President were ultimately created and decided on by Congress and the public attributes way more power to the President than they actually have because of it.

But the public is right to do this, particularly regarding international wars like Ukraine and Gaza. The United States has not declared war via Congress since 1942. Yet clearly we have fought plenty of wars since then solely under the command and authorization of the presidency alone. Which means there is 80+ years of precedence of creating an imperial presidency that authorizes Biden to act against both Russia and Israel. He is choosing not to avail himself of the precedent. And genocide is the result.

we're legally obligated to supply arms to Israel,

Israel is legally obligated not to engage in collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Yet, they are doing those acts anyway. The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. Yet Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the War on Terror, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine/Gaza demonstrate that is apparently an illusory Constitutional requirement. Laws are meaningless if there is no enforcement mechanism.

I'm fairly convinced that a good chunk of the rhetoric spouted to not vote for Biden likely originated from foreign sources to plant the Idea in people's minds

This is undoubtedly true. And it is a sad reflection of the weakness of our system, our historical actions, and the intellectual capabilities of our citizenry that it is as highly effective as it is. Trump will destroy The West if he is elected in November. And plenty of Americans don't have a problem with that because they don't understand what it means. Which is a consequence of neoliberal privatization and deregulation of all social programs, including public education.

As Malcolm X said, this is Chickens Coming Home to Roost. And, unfortunately for us who live in the United States today, an innumerable number of Chickens are coming home to roost in our very near future. I wish I had been born in Denmark or Norway - at least their social democratic safety nets would allow my community to thrive as the world burns around us

[-] lutillian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

I wish I had been born in Denmark or Norway - at least their social democratic safety nets would allow my community to thrive as the world burns around us

I feel this in my soul.

this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
191 points (83.5% liked)

News

23627 readers
2499 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS