350
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
350 points (94.9% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3679 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
God, what a shitty article. The title quote is literally just from some random internet person.
Lindsey Graham supports Ukraine. If you look at anything else he's said on the subject, including the rest of the interview, his stance on it is abundantly clear. Newsweek, for example, covers the remarks while doing the most basic level of journalistic integrity by presenting the context rather than covering a bunch of random social media dunks from randos who don't know what they're talking about.
You're eating your own, libs.
Lindsey Graham doesn't hold a single real position on any issue, other than "what currently benefits me the most?"
As with most politicians. But do you have any actual evidence to support the idea that Graham's support of Ukraine is not genuine?
Nope I just completely made it up off the top of my head to be a silly guy. Lindsey actually has an impeccable track record of never flip flopping his words or voting against his own stated stances on issues. It's why he's known as one of the greatest and most reputable congresspersons of our generation. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt wouldn't you say?
Got it, so you don't have any evidence.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/22-senate-republicans-defied-trump-voted-aid-ukraine/story?id=107193651
Graham is a flip-flopping spineless coward. You can tell that because they put a 'R' behind his name.
Interesting, thank you. It appears there is evidence that he's not fully supportive of Ukraine.
General rule of thumb, Repubs don't like supporting Ukraine because Uncle Vlad indirectly (or directly sometimes) lines their pockets. His spending on the war there is impacting their ability to live a cush life here.
Of course, there's also the incentive of funding the military industrial complex which also lines politicians' pockets.
If I were to hazard a guess, Graham is trying to navigate a position that's acceptable to both establishment republicans and Trump republicans. I don't think it's that he's a Russian asset so much as that he's playing a political game. Personally, of course, I despise him. But I do stand by the article being shit even if his support for Ukraine is purely performative.
Yeah, the article is shit. I see a bunch of articles that are just a vomit of reddit posts these days, and it just makes me die a little on the inside every time. WTF is journalism anymore?
Nope I completely made it up! Certainly Lindsey Graham will never change his stance on Ukraine, that would be a silly thing to think given his historic track record of staying on the same side of issues. I should continue reading and believing things that Lindsey Graham says
I understand that this whole thread is just about repeating unsubstaniated bullshit about a shitty person because he's a shitty person, you don't have to keep telling me that.
I guess the difference is that I care about whether the things I'm saying are actually true, even when I'm talking about someone I personally dislike.
Oh but you and I agree. We both love defending Lindsey Graham and giving him the benefit of the doubt because he's earned it. Keep on fighting the good fight brother
The downvoters think you're being serious. Lol!
Well, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe we should start just embracing whatever things "feel true," whether or not they correspond to reality. Like, we have these facts that are supported by evidence, but what if we had, let's call them, "alternative facts." Maybe what really matters is how true something feels to us, a sort of "truthiness," if you will. If we untether ourselves from evidence, think of all the things we could say! Like, what if we said Trump was operating a sex trafficking ring in the basement of a pizza shop, and accused anyone pushing back or asking for evidence of "defending Trump?"
I call it, "Blue MAGA." I know you're all about making sure claims are based on evidence even when they're about people you don't like, but I really think you might like that idea.
One point of clarification friend. I never said Lindsey does not support Ukraine. I said his reason for supporting anything is always self-serving, which there is mountains of evidence of. You could wave your hand and do the centrist "whatabout" all politicians being self-serving. But the fact is that Lindsey Graham is one of the most obvious modern examples of flip flopping on issues to benefit himself. If you have a counter example I'd love to read about it.
My original point is that it really doesn't matter what someone like Lindsey says or supports today, because it will change with the wind tomorrow (when he's up for election usually)
You took what I said and made a beautiful little Blue MAGA strawman out of it.
Right, so you're just going to gloss over all your sarcastic replies mocking me and characteristing me as "defending Graham" for pointing out that there's no evidence that his support for Ukraine is insincere.
Good talk.
Oh I get it now, you can't read :(
A classic finisher. Just put it at the end of any argument and declare victory, instant win, no counter, Riot plz nerf.
Do you have any evidence that's what I'm doing? I didn't declare victory. You definitely won this argument!!! I had no chance competing against such an onslaught of arguments unrelated to what I actually said to begin with. I loved the part where you made up a belief system and aspects of my personality at the same time you argued for evidence based conclusions. It really drove your point home! I understand everything clearly now
Oh, well then thank you.
You're very welcome, I somehow forgot for some people the most important thing is to hear "you won" and not actually comprehending the conversation. With that context, your previous comments make even more sense. I didn't stand a chance
The things you're saying are not true.
For example?
That Graham genuinely supports Ukraine.
I just noticed your username. It checks out, and everything makes sense now. Are you an AI bot?
I'm very confused why you think my username would indicate that I'm a bot. I am, however, entirely unsurprised that you'd make that allegation without a shred of evidence, as evidence doesn't really seem to be your thing.
I picked it because I'd recently gotten into the Ace Attorney games, and also like to ground my beliefs in evidence and expect other to as well. For a while, I was channelling Phoenix Wright's voice, as a bit, but then I got bored of it.
If I am a bot, then whoever programmed me deserves a promotion, because I think I sound very human. But I'm not really sure how I could go about proving that I'm not a bot. Let's see, punching Nazis is cool and you should do it, does that work? Ah, but maybe I'm a bot with safety restrictions turned off. Probably there's nothing I could say to prove it to you, it's utterly unfalsifiable.
At that point, how do I know you're not a bot? Maybe this whole thread full of bots! Oooooohhhhh~ spooky spooky. Can we return to reality now, please?
You're a troll bot. AI bots can be very eloquent.
As predicted lol.
Yes. His name is Lindsey Graham. A staunch anti-Trumper until it was detrimental to him too continue to be so.
Sorry, I was asking you for evidence about his position on Ukraine. Since you presented unrelated evidence, I'm afraid you're going to lose two bars of health.
Go away, bot.
"We celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day. It was a failure. It was the 'unnecessary war, ' described by Winston Churchill. We had a dozen chances to stop Hitler. It's not about NATO. It's not about American weapons in Ukraine. It's about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms."
He did say what was in the title quote.
If I was being really generous, I'd say this is a nuanced statement saying that Hitler could have been stopped in a hundred different ways before it ever got to that point. I'm not inclined to be generous to Lindsay Graham, however. Part of that is because people who were Graham's political ancestors in Germany--people like von Hindenburg, or Georg Neithardt, the judge in the Beer Hall Putsch trial--are the one's at the top of the list of people who could have stopped it much sooner.
In context it's clear that he is saying we should have acted sooner and it was a failure for not having done so. The title makes it sound like he is claiming dday itself was a failure, rather than it being the result of a failure. It's garbage and reporting and should be treated as such.
You're outright admitting that you aren't being objective.
Yes, because Graham is a fuck head. I don't feel the need to worship objectivity.
Plenty of actual solid reasons to hold the opinion that he is a fuck head. Giving the middle finger to the facts in order to do so is completely unnecessary, and likely counterproductive because it just makes it easy to dismiss your claims as coming from someone unreasonable. You are also justifying believing whatever you want reality to be, kind of like a Trump supporter. It's shocking that people would be proud of denying reality.
In even larger context, Graham is one of the one's not acting sooner by giving Trump a pass. The generous interpretation is still hypocritical, but why even grant him the generous interpretation?
I'm not generously interpreting his statement, it's clear what he's saying. If we're being objective, of course. Is he a hypocrite? Yes. Does this change that it's clear what he said? No.
Remember, just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you have to interpret everything about them as negatively as possible. You can still remain objective.
Who was it who said "He's truly lost his mind," the quote that appears at the start of the title, which some might describe as, "the title quote?" Was it, perhaps, an Internet user identified in the article only as "SnarkyPanda," who some might describe as, "a random internet person?"
That's not "being really generous," it's the obvious interpretation and the only coherent one. How do you interpret it, exactly? That he thinks fighting Hitler was bad because he thinks Hitler was good? How on earth does that make any sense whatsoever with the overall point he was making?
It's clickbait soundbite outrage porn for people who either can't read or have no interest in reading. It's no different from what you'd find in a celebrity tabloid, just for a different audience.