this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025

105 points (86.7% liked)

News

37400 readers

1262 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

105

Ex Biden press secretary Jean-Pierre switches from Democrat to independent (www.reuters.com)

submitted 11 months ago by nulluser@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

June 4 (Reuters) - Karine Jean-Pierre, who was former President Joe Biden's press secretary at the White House from 2022 until 2025, has left the Democratic Party and is now an independent, according to the publisher of her forthcoming book.

"We need to be clear-eyed and questioning, rather than blindly loyal and obedient as we may have been in the past," she was quoted as saying by Legacy Lit, part of the Hachette Book Group, that will release her book 'Independent' in October.

https://archive.ph/6SlZZ

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 63 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Whoop de doo. Another person hocking a book.

[–] salacious_coaster@infosec.pub 41 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I strongly suspect that every political book for the last 20 years has been a money laundering scheme. Otherwise I can't fathom who the hell is buying these.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 13 points 11 months ago

My in-laws have several books by Republicans, including Pence

Religious nut jobs, in my experience.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My dad had one of those books. A book by Ben Shapiro. Didn't read it. Doesn't know where he got. I suspect an aipac convention. Well, he's dead now, and all I ever got from him was, "we don't burn books here" (to me, very upset after finding the book displayed on a guest bedroom bookshelf). My mom tells me he most likely placed these books around haphazardly. So, this explains at least one copy of one of those books.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 33 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They print and sell them to themselves to inflate their numbers, then give them away everywhere.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

republicans do. People who actually know how government works often have interesting things to say.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 10 months ago

I wouldn't say Republicans, in general. Policy wonks, yes, know thyself, know thine enemy.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I think the OP was referring to actual books.

heh heh.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

No, it's just a cash grab. Person "writes" book (i.e. someone ghostwrites it and they put their name on the cover), then sells a bunch based on recent name recognition.

[–] uuldika@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

hawking*, unless they're chucking it at you.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Gracias.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 3 points 11 months ago

You have to do something after spending years lying on the white house podium. There's only so many MSNBC jobs to go around.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I can’t blame anyone for quitting the Democratic Party after having to defend Biden’s approval of genocide.

[+] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -13 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I’d genuinely like to hear what Israel should be doing instead in response to Hamas. It’s easy to condemn what’s happening - and I get why people do - but I rarely see anyone offer a serious, workable alternative. If the argument is that military retaliation is off the table entirely, then what exactly is the proposed path forward?

Because from where I’m standing, it seems like Israel is expected to absorb attacks and hostage-taking without responding, or to somehow remove Hamas without any civilian harm - despite Hamas operating from civilian areas. And if that’s not viable, then are we really just saying Israel shouldn’t exist where it is? If the answer to this is yes, then what's the alternative?

This isn’t rhetorical - I’m asking for concrete alternatives. Because if we can’t offer those, then we’re just criticizing without grappling with the impossible position they’re in.

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's a difference between counterinsurgency and just bulldozing entire neighborhoods, shooting children in the head, and preventing anyone from bringing food and medical aid to civilians. Yeah Hamas attacked first but Israel's response is disproportionate and aimed almost entirely at civilians. Over 54,000 Palestinians have been killed while fewer than 2,000 Israelis have. Estimates vary for the civilian casualties in Gaza, but they're almost all over 50%. So in the best case, you have Israel killing over 20,000 civilians.

Israel's plan for taking out Hamas is eliminating the Palestinians. Otherwise, they would be taking even the most basic measures to avoid the mass slaughter of civlians that is going on right now. Before the war and even in the earliest days I leaned a bit more towards Israel because I didn't realize the level of hatred they have towards the Palestinians and Hamas attacked first, but as the war has gone on it has become impossible to defend their actions. This is a genocide, plain and simple.

[+] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don’t see an answer to my question there. We all agree the status quo is intolerable - so what’s the alternative? What should they do instead?

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Can you point to another conflict that was resolved by doing all of these things clearly targeted at civilians? How exactly are the things I mentioned required for fighting a terrorist group? When ISIS was defeated, did the coalition forces come in and just murder literally everyone and flatten occupied villages to the ground, or did they take out leadership? I am not merely talking about civilian casualties when people are near a place targeted by an airstrike- I am talking about specific targeting of civilians.

As for what they should do instead - actually fight Hamas instead of the Palestinians as a whole. By taking actions aimed solely at Palestinian civilians, Israel has lost all claim that this is in any way self defense

[+] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

actually fight Hamas instead of the Palestinians as a whole.

You do see how extremely vague this "alternative solution" you're offering is, right? I think the fact that people struggle this much to give anything resembling a concrete answer when this question is posed highlights just how impossible the situation is that Israel is facing.

I’m extremely sympathetic to the reluctance of going door to door looking for terrorists who are hiding among civilians - often dressed as civilians themselves. While I can’t defend bombing an entire city into rubble, I also don’t feel comfortable telling them not to when I have absolutely no idea what they should be doing instead.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

actually fight Hamas instead of the Palestinians as a whole.

You do see how extremely vague this "alternative solution" you're offering is, right?

I don't think this is vague at all. Stop doing airstrikes on places that have civilians in them. Send in armed troops instead if shooting one or two Hamas assholes is so important to you, or just drop it and refocus on making your intelligence and security better so October 7 can't happen again, but either way dropping bombs on places with civilians is never acceptable. "But Hamas [whatever]" does not change that.

I’m extremely sympathetic to the reluctance of going door to door looking for terrorists who are hiding among civilians

Please, at least they have guns and armor and squad mates and medics and it's infantry v infantry for them, the poor civilian bastards have none of that and are facing a damn air force

[+] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It is vague.

Gaza is a city, not a country. Telling Israel not to strike where there are civilians is effectively the same as telling them not to fight back at all. Hamas operates from among the civilian population - often dressed as civilians themselves. They don't not-strike where there are civilians. It’s an enemy that doesn’t fight fair and deliberately exploits the rules of war for strategic advantage. They could relocate their civilian population into one part of the city and engage the IDF in another - but they don’t, and I’d argue that’s deliberate.

You don’t just “drop it” after 1,200 of your civilians have been brutally murdered.

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You don’t just “drop it” after 1,200 of your civilians have been brutally murdered.

So what should Hamas do in your ideal world? I am legitimately curious because you're kind of making an argument in favor of Hamas here, since Israel has killed, at the absolute lowest estimates, 20 times as many civilians as Hamas has. I am obviously not saying they should fight to the bitter end, just that this reasoning means that the fighting should never stop.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What should Hamas do? Deradicalize or die. Israel isn’t going anywhere - so either they both learn to live in peace, or they don’t live at all.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking here. I do sympathize with Hamas in the sense that they’re fighting a vastly superior enemy, and fighting fair would likely lead to their defeat. But deliberately sacrificing their own civilian population as martyrs and human shields doesn’t seem like the way forward either.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

Will deradicalizing hamas stop israel occupaying palestine? The obvious answer is no.

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I love this reasoning. Do you apply this to literally anything else in your life?

"Hey I think we should target the cancer cells instead of taking out the whole liver because I'm pretty sure that's bad"

You do see how extremely vague this "alternative solution" you're offering is, right? I think the fact that people struggle this much to give anything resembling a concrete answer when this question is posed highlights just how impossible the situation is that the doctor is facing.

I’m extremely sympathetic to the reluctance of looking carefully at each cell under a microscope looking for cancer- often looking like the healthy cells nearby. While I can’t defend removing a patient's entire liver, I also don’t feel comfortable telling them not to when I have absolutely no idea what they should be doing instead.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 4 points 10 months ago

Your solution is killing almost all palestinians under the pretext that hamas use human shields

[–] Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Israel practically organized Hamas to have an opponent easily disliked by western nations. They funded and molded it to the exclusion of more secular and leftist organisations like PLO. Hamas is not a problem for Israel, it's a tool to allow them unlimited brutality on the Palestinian population. I know people on lemmy don't want to hear this but when you look at what happened since the days when people like Rabin and Arafat were making headway in peaceful solutions that might have ultimately led to freedom, safety and dignity for everyone in the region.

The agreements they made werent perfect, they were stepping stones in the way to a better situation, and they were what could be eeked out in the existing situation. Of course Zionist extremists could not live with that. Never forget who killed Rabin.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago

Maybe they should stop doing the final solution on a captive population?

[–] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They invited this reality on themselves.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree but I still don't think it's fair to make their civilian population pay the price for it.

[–] Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But that's the point though isn't it? They do make their civilian population pay the price. They rile up the Palestinian population every 4 -10 years by killing their loved ones thereby ensuring a guaranteed militancy to fight against. Then they clamp down on Gaza even harder than before, denying access to the basics and the cycle continues. If you truly want to know what Israel should be doing, it's almost in all cases the opposite of their current path.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Israel make their civilians population pay the price by maintaining a 57 years occupation

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you refering to the state of Israel as a whole? Where do you suggest they go?

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you ignorant or pretent to? Israel was created in 48 so that's 77 years ago. Gaza and the west bank was occupied in 67 so 58 years ago. If you was smart you would realize the parts that need to be given back to palestinians

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My apologies for not being good with dates. Typical of an ignorant idiot like myself.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

So do you agree that Israel should end occupation in the land they sized after the 67 wars that the Un consider fully Palestinians?

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 5 points 10 months ago

Stop occupation

[–] uuldika@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I’d genuinely like to hear what Israel should be doing instead in response to Hamas.

negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas in exchange for the remaining hostages. reign in the West Bank settlers, to focus the conflict on Gaza specifically rather than the conquest of the Palestinian territories. as part of the ceasefire,

remove IDF troops from Gaza.
freely allow all medical, food, construction and infrastructure aid, along with foreign aid workers. still check all shipments and persons entering for weapons and other contraband. maintain a naval blockade and checkpoints to implement the screening.
rather than having IDF implement the screening, propose a joint peacekeeping force, staffed by Israelis, Egyptians, Jordanians and UN peacekeepers.
offer a pathway towards increased autonomy, easing of travel restrictions, potentially even Palestinian statehood contingent upon the peaceful transition of power from Hamas.
encourage Arab foreign nationals and other non-Israelis to volunteer or do business in Gaza, rebuilding, running aid clinics, teaching school, etc. establish economic prospects for collaboration between Gazans and the rest of the world.
remove Netenyahu from power and investigate him for corruption and his dealings with Hamas. remove Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezazel Smotrich from the Knesset, and ban Otzma Yehudit the way Kahan's Kach party was outlawed.

sound fair?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 10 months ago

Rein in settlers? No. Pre 67 borders. Zero settlers.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This doesn’t address the core issue - Hamas. They have no intention of living peacefully next to a Jewish state. They’ve openly stated that they want to destroy Israel and kill Jews. After the IDF withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas didn’t use that time or international aid to build infrastructure or improve life for civilians - they used it to dig tunnels and stockpile weapons in preparation for the ongoing conflict.

I genuinely don’t believe a two-state solution is viable as long as Hamas exists. If one were established tomorrow, it would likely just return to the same cycle - with rockets being fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, and the rest of the world expecting Israel to just take the hits without fighting back.

[–] uuldika@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

correct. it doesn't address the core issue. however, sometimes enemies have to live next to each other. a military solution cannot end Hamas. anything short of full-scale ethnic cleansing of the population of Gaza cannot end Hamas. that is the unfortunate reality. the human cost is too great.

Hamas murdered 1,195 people on 10/7. Israel has killed ~57,000 in Gaza, and razed it to rubble. Israel has had its retribution, killing 50 Gazans for each dead Israeli. enough.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago

I understand that what I’m about to say might come off as cold, but this is how I see the conflict: the overwhelming reason for the high number of civilian casualties isn’t the IDF - it’s Hamas. That’s not to say the IDF or the Israeli government is without guilt, let alone individual soldiers who’ve committed atrocities that absolutely match what Hamas has done. But there’s so much Hamas could have done to protect their own civilian population, and instead they’ve consistently chosen the opposite - to use them as human shields.

If we now decide that the civilian death toll is intolerable and use that as a reason to pressure Israel into ending the conflict, to me, that’s equivalent to paying ransom to kidnappers. It shows the tactic works - and it encourages more of it. I want us to do the opposite: make it clear that it doesn’t work. If you fight from among civilians, then civilians will get bombed, and the responsibility for that will be placed on you. That’s how Hamas should be treated, and honestly, how their own people should come to see them too.

I just don’t buy the narrative that Israel is intentionally bombing civilians as part of some ethnic cleansing campaign. If that had been the goal, they could’ve pursued it decades ago. But they haven’t. Hamas, on the other hand - I genuinely believe they would if they could.

[–] ramsgrl909@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

We need a 3rd party and now. Dems aren't getting it and we can't keep waiting.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

"I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes. We need to be willing to exercise the ability to think creatively and plan strategically," she said.

Jean-Pierre had previously worked on Biden's 2020 presidential campaign, in President Barack Obama's White House, and was chief public affairs officer for MoveOn.org, a progressive advocacy group.

The Democratic National Committee declined to comment on the news that Jean-Pierre had become an independent.

Y'all midterms are roughly a year away.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hey me too.

I joined the Dems for Bernie. Nearly ten years later nothing good has come of it.

If they prop of AOC I will consider it, but I'd rather we have more parties. To only have two is absurd

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

AOC has no interest in becoming potus, she said she stays in the house, because more can be done there.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 6 points 11 months ago

I hope all of us are pleasantly surprised.

Eta by her future actions

Edit again: nevermind, it was for nothing noble

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

looking for a spot to grift with the gop. just like all the dinos that switch to independant, to siphon votes from the DEMS in future elections.