4
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

please don't be from Florida. please don't be from Florida. please don't be from Florida

fuck.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Listen buddy it is like when you are on a plane. Make sure you are safe before helping others. Plenty of space available in the blue states.

[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not leaving yet. I was born here, I'm staying here, and I'm voting here. I give it another ten years before I abandon state.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you for your service

[-] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Constitution mentions anything about women in government.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

“This amendment would make that humanitarian aid illegal and people would die,” she concluded before Luna rose to rebut her speech.

“Chairman, I couldn’t help but pull out my pocket Constitution and I couldn’t seem to find anywhere in here where it says we need to fund programs for humanitarian aid for women and children in Afghanistan,” Luna said. “So, with that, I just wanted to point that out.”

Swamp ass.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/Uynb0_PH-40

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Is she that stupid, or that much of a bad actor?

[-] SeatBeeSate@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

We spend generations creating a population of uneducated people by gutting public education systems and price lockouting higher education, so now we need politicians that can pretend to be dumb, fit in and garner their support.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You know, sometimes Republicans can be right for the wrong reasons.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

She's not right at all though, so it doesn't apply here.

Some libertarians were right that it was a bad idea to invade and destroy the country, but not sending aid after fucking everything up for 20 years is just irresponsible and cruel.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Is Walther your dog? I love golden retrievers. I was unknowingly concern trolling. That aid was part of a $816 billion military spending bill. My complaint was more about the rage posting. Getting people to hate on Republicans without looking at the bigger picture. How is the aid distributed? How do we know women get it when the Taliban is in control? What are we getting in return? None of that is answered in the article.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Why does the US have to be a power? We have homeless here. We have poverty here. We have food insecurity here. I’m not against aid, just aid that goes to the wrong people.

[-] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/12/why-we-send-them-money.html Good piece from the RAND Corporation. The short answer is that it is in the US's self interest to do so....

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

So we’re reducing people in foreign countries to a commodity we invest in for our self interest. There’s a word for that- exploitation.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

We would have plenty of money to spend at home and abroad if we didn't have a military bigger than the next 20 combined. Giving foreign aid is something all first world countries do. Because they have it better than others. Even if there are people who live in poverty in America, overall the standard of living is higher than Afghanistan.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Maybe, if we hadn’t bombed their country for 20 years they’d have a higher standard of living. We’ll never know though

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Considering how they were before we bombed them, that's doubtful.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You think aid is going to stop the Taliban. We’re aiding a country we bombed, because of terrorists we created, because the Soviet Union was spreading communism. We’re deriving solutions to problems we created.

[-] minnow@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to solve problems that we created? That if we create a problem, intentionally or not, that we should just say to the world "ok you deal with it now"?

Because that sure seems like what you're saying here.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

That is exactly what I am saying. Did the Taliban ask for our help? Would our government accept aid from China to curb homelessness here? With restrictions of course that it be used only for food and clothing. They are a sovereign nation. We are usurping their authority. And we wonder why they hate us.

[-] minnow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well that's one of the more fucked up and asinine things I've heard in a while.

You know countries can refuse aide, right? Nobody is forcing them to accept the money. Because, you know, they're a sovereign nation with the authority to make decisions for themselves. You even said it yourself

Would our government accept aid from China

China offering us aid doesn't "usurpe our authority". How the heck did you even come up with that nonsense.

But hey, believe whatever you want. Me, I think we should take responsibility for the harm we've done to the world and offer to make amends in some way or another. I don't think it's right to take a shit in somebody else's yard and tell them it's their problem. But again, that's me.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Probably shouldn’t shit in someone else’s yard in the first place. :)

[-] minnow@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You're painting a false dichotomy. We can take care of all these domestic issues, and we can give foreign aide. It wouldn't even be hard, it would require a small fraction of the military budget or a slight to most increase of taxes on corporations and the ultra rich.

But some people don't want to give money to poor/starving people, regardless of how much it costs. You could end all foreign aide and all the money would just go... somewhere else that isn't poor people's pockets.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I wasn’t aware we had solved the domestic issues.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Why does American taxpayers have to fund aid for the rest of the world? Not morally, practically. Why can’t Japan or Germany do this?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Wow, that’s great. Now we don’t have to give aid.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Or we could because we have a long history of helping people, which shows them that maybe we're not evil.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

So instead of thinking "Oh we should do this since every other nation is doing it. It's not abnormal"

You think "Let's let some other chump take the loss"

Says a lot about you.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

He says as he steps over the homeless guy outside his door.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The US spent two decades sapping what resources the country had in the name of "bringing democracy" and then just abandoned them to the Taliban. Humanitarian aid is the bare minimum for any wealthy country, let alone the one that fucked everything up.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I agree. The point and question I was trying to explore was: Should the country that burned down the house be the one that offers to rebuild it? We could give that money to international organizations. Maybe they will. Which is good. The article doesn’t say that though, it just wants you to hate Republicans.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes the country that burned down the house should ABSOLUTELY help pay for the rebuilding and it can by law not give money to NGOs to do it as that would jeopardise their neutrality. As for private citizens voluntarily donating to humanitarian aid charities, that's unreliable at the best of times and dwindles significantly as the economic situation of the people worsens.

And yeah, regardless of anything else, it IS justified to spend a lot of time criticizing something that is genuinely abhorrent, such as wanting to deprive starving and oppressed people of aid under the flimsiest of pretenses.

[-] Fylkir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago

Bro really pulled a "are there no workhouses"

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I was trying to pose a question about colonialism and American hegemony, it did not go well

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4549 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