this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
513 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4113 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
 

Yeah, both sides amiright?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What restrictions?, the article doesnt mention any, Bidens ultimatum came and went with no action.

Both sides were for unconditional aid to Israel, kamala may have added some laments about loss of life but she repeatedly said restrictions on military were off the table. Until someone can point to me a concrete policy that kamala had in her platform that was different from trump then yeah both sides are equally bad on this issue. Trump is worse on a lot of others but to a Palestinian they are both bad.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The article has a vague statement trying to make it sound like there were lots of restrictions, but I think it's just the 2000 lb. bombs, and maybe some sort of guidance system (IIRC). Because it's a fucking Fox News article for some reason.

Currently, U.S. restrictions include an embargo on a certain weapons shipment and limitations on various combat-related equipment, even if they do not involve explosive ordnance.

Allowing them is definitely more bad, but it's going from like 95% of maximum complicity to 100%.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Me trying to find the restrictions in question just like me trying to find Biden's red line and also just like me trying to find Blinken's endzone and also me trying to find the consequences of Israel's actions for the past 13 months.

What a joke lol

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago

The Democrats aren't in power anymore, Palestine is saved! /s

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Hey OP can you list the restrictions currently in place?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 12 points 4 days ago (13 children)

The problem is not military restrictions. Biden did not have any either. The problem is recognition of annexed territories. We see how Israel is clearing out the northern part of Gaza and they are already talking about annexing the West Bank. We are likely to see a lot more violence in the West Bank soon. My guess is parts of Jerusalem and Jericho being in focus.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Questy@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Wait, the ~14,000 dead children complied with American restrictions? The damaging or destruction of over 80% of all structures in Gaza was within restrictions? Interesting. It's honestly going to be tough for the victims of genocide to tell the difference. It actually may benefit Israel's victims since America is likely to massively lose influence in the world with the clown car pulling into Washington. Many nations who likely want to push back against the genocide are under huge American pressure to stay silent and complicit, hopefully as America loses influence that could change.

Not saying that will occur, just an opinion.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›