193
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago
[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Jesus fucking damnit. It's like that first moment in House of Cards when you're like "omfg and this is the blue team?!"

I know US Senate is as prestigious as you get after the executive election, but if this is the people's guy, how tf we ever going to break up the two party system in the upper house?

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

as soon as you say the phrase "blue team" you betray a bit of a misunderstanding. don't feel bad, people work really hard to perpetuate that misunderstanding. the blue team doesn't exist. the red team only kind of exists. the people you unconsciously split into the "blue team" and the "red team" are on the Money Team, and we're not.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I understand your point and mostly agree with you. But I will never ever ever say both sides are the same

This is what the blue team does: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/new-california-laws-2024-18552414.php

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

all right cracking down on that "excited delirium" horseshit is eliminating a very real and very deadly police overstep. I'm into it.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Dude right?? Our state is legislating against police brutality. And doing it with tools, and creating a safer space, rather than trying to get the good apples to snitch and risk their lives and careers.

The ebony alert sounds like white people grandstanding bullshit at first but there's a good point.. if all day you see that and rarely see amber alert.. you'll realize why black people are begging to be seen and the whole point of BLM. Plus it's first hand experience, not pushed on people, so they can draw the conclusions themselves without getting defensive

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

I forget which interview it was exactly but Ryan Grim had some information on this. He brokered a deal with AIPAC to stop them donating to his opponent and get them donating to him instead.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Aaargh. Does he get a pass for surviving the game to get in a position to do the right thing?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

Dunno specifics. but their lobby gives to pretty much everyone; so long as there for the line where Israel is concerned.

A fair amount do the pro-Israel statements are to either protect or get more of those donations

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't think so, I think it's from misplaced sentiment and misunderstanding of some kind. Fetterman doesn't just support Israel, he openly mocks people who are concerned about Palestinians. There was a time he ran into some protestors near DC, and he went into his office to grab an Israeli flag and ~~wrapped himself in it, laughing at them~~ waved it at them when they were accosted by authorities.

Like. That's fucked up. The article mentioned that there was a big shooting in a synagogue when he was in office, and I get the impression he's conflating Israel with Jews in general, and he feels some sort of guilt he's making up for.

It's incredibly disappointing. I was really happy with him and thought he'd be a great president. I seriously appreciated the attention he brought up mental health when he very publicly took care of himself. My father had a stroke when I was younger and had had speech issues ever since, so Fetterman's stroke and recovery were very relatable to me on a personal level.

Never meet your heroes, I guess.

Edit: Some corrections after I found the article again.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/22/fetterman-unbending-on-israel-confounds-this-progressive-brethren-00128502

[-] MayvisDelacour@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Never meet your heroes, I guess.

I wholeheartedly agree, such a disappointment. He took a very weird turn, and it was so sudden.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

It took some time for it to sink into me just how awful his behavior was. At first I was disturbed but didn't think I'd change my general feelings about him, but as time goes on, it really hits me just how fucked up this is of him. He's still better than the best Republican, but damn if I don't want to see him primaried. He's the same as Manchin in my opinion now, just with better policies.

Tangentially, this is also why I'm wary of self righteous politicians who don't apologize nor admit fault. They're probably going to be wrong about something eventually, and they'll learn nothing from it.

this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
193 points (87.0% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3317 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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