US Politics

Beachryan said:
Hes the guy your 'is he really any worse' Trump is considering as defence secretary.
Click to expand...

Trump would be worse and i said it here multiple times. What i said is that i dont see how it would be worse in gaza. No one can tell me a feasable scenario yet. But again, as i said before, the only one capable would be trump
 
Pintu said:
This has to be a joke?

Click to expand...

It’s genuinely mental that this bill will pass. Israel has really made the US its bitch. They’ve (or AIPAC) got both sides under their heel.
 
On the protests, I really think people need to try to consider the nuances, and reality.

Protests are good. Student protests are good. The optics of huge numbers of people protesting the Israeli government's actions can only help to move forward a ceasefire. Using protests to impact Israeli trade will put internal pressure, and again, hopefully push to oust the corrupt, desperate current regime. I'd love to see the entire mall flush with students protesting, make it today's Vietnam, force the administration to finally publically part ways with what Netanyahu is doing.

Further, yes, historically there have been many examples of protests crossing legal boundaries and making an even bigger difference. There are plenty of forgotten counter-factuals too.

But, if you're an official in a position of power and you're forced to comment on the protests, and you say something along the lines: "Protests are a powerful tool, peaceful protests are a fundamental right in our country. But violence and destruction of property have no part in those" I just cannot fathom this somehow being construed as a hugely controversial or inflammatory statement. I think people are rightly incensed about Gaza and not thinking about what is a realistic option for such forced comments - and they are forced by the press - are supposed to be.

What do you expect him to say, assuming that he's unable or unwilling to finally change his policy w/r to Israel? "This is such a crucial issue, I'm proclaiming that all law enforcement shall forego action if the protests are pro-Gaza. I'm passing an executive order to ammend the entire judicial system as such. I will expunge any criminal record any student gets if they commit a crime, but again, only if you're supporting Palestine. You over there with your faded Uyghur signs, stop your damn hunger strike and get back to work. I will also be personally overseeing any and all university security matters."

Further, this is the United States of America. A country deeply, deeply divided with the most fundamental political factor being law and order. With a media driven by violence and obsessed with conflict. The right want nothing more than violence on campuses. It wants deaths, it wants blood. It wants Twitter flooded with imagery showing not only are young liberals clashing with police at left-wing universities, but they're dressing like arabs! Good Jesus protect me. The right want to send in the national guard. Literally. They want Kent State. Because a scared America only votes one way.

So the more these protests push boundaries into what is deemed unacceptable, the more likely they will meet violence, the violence will be gleefully projected by the media and the end result will be a rushing away from liberals and towards the party of throwing weapons at problems.

And some will argue - good at least the Gazan plight is front and centre. Regardless of the consequences. Right now 99% of these protests are peaceful and don't have any law enforcement involved. Long may that continue.
 
Beachryan said:
On the protests, I really think people need to try to consider the nuances, and reality.

I'd love to see the entire mall flush with students protesting, make it today's Vietnam, force the administration to finally publically part ways with what Netanyahu is doing.

[...]
Click to expand...

Here is the New York Times Editorial Board writing about MLK's opposition to the Vietnam War:

The moral issues in Vietnam are less clear-cut than he suggests: the political strategy of uniting the peace movement and the civil rights movement could very well be disastrous for both causes.

Furthermore, Dr. King can only antagonize opinion in this country instead of winning recruits to the peace movement by recklessly comparing American military methods to those of Nazis testing "new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe." The facts are harsh, but they do not justify such slander. Furthermore, it is possible to disagree with many aspects of United States policy in Vietnam without whitewashing Hanoi.

As an individual, Dr. King has the right and even the moral obligation to explore the ethical implications of the war in Vietnam, but as one of the most respected leaders of the civil rights movement has an equally weighty obligation to direct that movement's efforts in the most constructive and relevant way.

There are no simple or easy answers to the war in Vietnam or to racial injustice in this country. Linking these hard, complex problems will lead not to solutions but to deeper confusion.
Click to expand...

That is indistinguishable from your recent posts, it's the same arguments. You want this to be 'today's Vietnam' but it's unclear whether you would have supported Vietnam protests yesterday.
 
Last edited:


Riot police officers wrestled a 65 year old Jewish lady to the ground and arrested her last night for nothing. Here, in plain sight of police officers, there are noticeable monkey noises and impressions and the police do what they do best. Protect the white establishment against the slaves they brought in.

Biden not rushing through any BLM bill urgently to arrest anyone accused of horrendous racism to black people?

First they wiped out brown people. And we said nothing. Then they are started wiping us out.
 
The Israel supporters really are scum. Horrendous human beings. Shouting racial slurs, spouting rape and genocidal insults. Absolute lowest of the low.

Here’s solidarity from students in the Antarctic!

 
The Corinthian said:
The Israel supporters really are scum. Horrendous human beings. Shouting racial slurs, spouting rape and genocidal insults. Absolute lowest of the low.

Here’s solidarity from students in the Antarctic!

Click to expand...



Better than being a Hamas sympathiser.
 
Quality control
langster said:
Who in these forums would you say is a HAMAS sympathiser? Because I don't think there is any at all.
Click to expand...

My point is, these campus protestors don't really care. They hate Israelis more than they love Palestinians. It's the trendy thing to do. Buy a scarf, instagram it and get likes.
 
The Corinthian said:
It’s genuinely mental that this bill will pass. Israel has really made the US its bitch. They’ve (or AIPAC) got both sides under their heel.
Click to expand...
At the risk of being an anti-semite the question is 'is Israel's the US' puppet state' or 'is the US' Israel's puppet state'? I have never seen such a weird relationship as the US - Israel where the by far stronger state acts like a servile of the smaller less powerful state.
 
Revan said:
At the risk of being an anti-semite the question is 'is Israel's the US' puppet state' or 'is the US' Israel's puppet state'? I have never seen such a weird relationship as the US - Israel where the by far stronger state acts like a servile of the smaller less powerful state.
Click to expand...

"Who's the fecking super power here?". Bill Clinton (1996).

It's absolutely bizarre, but also worth remembering that this movement comes largely from Americans that hold pro-Israeli views for a variety of reasons. To my knowledge, AIPAC and other groups are not really funded by Israelis, but by wealthy individuals within US borders, which is similar to many other lobbying groups. So while it may seem like US politicians are beholden to Israel, they are really just beholden to money as usual (and many of them obviously also hold pro-Israel beliefs themselves). And of course, bad actors like Netanyahu are smart enough to realize this and exploit it.
 
Mike Smalling said:
"Who's the fecking super power here?". Bill Clinton (1996).

It's absolutely bizarre, but also worth remembering that this movement comes largely from Americans that hold pro-Israeli views for a variety of reasons. To my knowledge, AIPAC and other groups are not really funded by Israelis, but by wealthy individuals within US borders, which is similar to many other lobbying groups. So while it may seem like US politicians are beholden to Israel, they are really just beholden to money as usual (and many of them obviously also hold pro-Israel beliefs themselves). And of course, bad actors like Netanyahu are smart enough to realize this and exploit it.
Click to expand...
Sure, I agree with this. For Republicans, a lot of support for Israel comes because the evangelists wants the US to support Israel thinking that the creation of the state of Israel is one of the final signs before the judgement day. For some it is money from wealthy individuals within the US (some of which are Jewish), and for many is simple memetics, essentially support Israel cause the US always supported Israel.

It is kinda bizarre though how far the US is willing to go. I get not making more diplomatic pressure to arguably their second biggest ally in Israel doing borderline genocide (let's be fair, the US didn't make lots of diplomatic pressure, in fact encouraged Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war in an even bigger destruction), but this idea that you cannot even criticize Israel is really ridiculous.
 
gfactor86 said:
My point is, these campus protestors don't really care. They hate Israelis more than they love Palestinians. It's the trendy thing to do. Buy a scarf, instagram it and get likes.
Click to expand...
Yeah just like they didn't care about the Vietnam war, or African American civil rights in the 1960s. Why would any young person care about an occupation and massacre of thousands of women and children in their name, at the behest of their government? And those thousands of Jewish protestors too, the sickening anti-semites they all are.
 
Mike Smalling said:
"Who's the fecking super power here?". Bill Clinton (1996).

It's absolutely bizarre, but also worth remembering that this movement comes largely from Americans that hold pro-Israeli views for a variety of reasons. To my knowledge, AIPAC and other groups are not really funded by Israelis, but by wealthy individuals within US borders, which is similar to many other lobbying groups. So while it may seem like US politicians are beholden to Israel, they are really just beholden to money as usual (and many of them obviously also hold pro-Israel beliefs themselves). And of course, bad actors like Netanyahu are smart enough to realize this and exploit it.
Click to expand...

I asked that question one time. So as AIPAC are American Israel Public Affairs Committee is fine because they are american, if we would have another lobby group called ARPAC American Russia Public Affairs Committee, also american. It would be ok because they are american? So they could publicize how many candidates they support? would this candidates would boast support for Russia?

So they not only support it because Money, what the money is buying matters too because sure, some of them receive Russian money behind everybodies back but they don't publicize it at all like Israels interests
 
WI_Red said:
Just on this page we have a comment marked for quality control that, while I don't agree with it, is not horrific, and multiple posts that rightfully point out the evilness of the house bill that essentially criminalizes criticism.

Oh, and people having a pissing contest about whose supporters are the worst.

This place....
Click to expand...

I was surprised about that quality control too. As this poster is one of the worst posters, this is not his worst I have seen him saying and I don't see why it should have quality control
 
4bars said:
I asked that question one time. So as AIPAC are American Israel Public Affairs Committee is fine because they are american, if we would have another lobby group called ARPAC American Russia Public Affairs Committee, also american. It would be ok because they are american? So they could publicize how many candidates they support? would this candidates would boast support for Russia?

So they not only support it because Money, what the money is buying matters too because sure, some of them receive Russian money behind everybodies back but they don't publicize it at all like Israels interests
Click to expand...

A public pro-Russia lobbying group would only work if a significant share of the population held pro-Russian views. I'd liken AIPAC to the NRA in that respect. Reasonable people can scratch their heads as to why American politicians don't do more to combat gun violence, and many point the finger at the NRA. But the NRA mainly has power, because so many Americans really like their guns, and therefore they are NRA members, and the profits from them buying guns and ammo is partially funnelled into the NRA as well. It's the same with AIPAC - they can publicly flaunt their power, because their stated goals are inherently popular among a large share of the electorate.
 
4bars said:
I asked that question one time. So as AIPAC are American Israel Public Affairs Committee is fine because they are american, if we would have another lobby group called ARPAC American Russia Public Affairs Committee, also american. It would be ok because they are american? So they could publicize how many candidates they support? would this candidates would boast support for Russia?

So they not only support it because Money, what the money is buying matters too because sure, some of them receive Russian money behind everybodies back but they don't publicize it at all like Israels interests
Click to expand...
Unironically, that organization exists, it's called the GOP.
 
Mike Smalling said:
A public pro-Russia lobbying group would only work if a significant share of the population held pro-Russian views. I'd liken AIPAC to the NRA in that respect. Reasonable people can scratch their heads as to why American politicians don't do more to combat gun violence, and many point the finger at the NRA. But the NRA mainly has power, because so many Americans really like their guns, and therefore they are NRA members, and the profits from them buying guns and ammo is partially funnelled into the NRA as well. It's the same with AIPAC - they can publicly flaunt their power, because their stated goals are inherently popular among a large share of the electorate.
Click to expand...

There are a bit of discrepancies here then:

1.- You said that is about the money, but is about the society also. Publicized russian interest money it would not be a no go

2.- Then those examples are valid to a certain extense it seems as more and more democrat voters are against this genocide, so why the democrats representatives goes against their voters views?
 
4bars said:
There are a bit of discrepancies here then:

1.- You said that is about the money, but is about the society also. Publicized russian interest money it would not be a no go

2.- Then those examples are valid to a certain extense it seems as more and more democrat voters are against this genocide, so why the democrats representatives goes against their voters views?
Click to expand...

1. Yeah, it's about both. AIPAC and similar groups have the money, precisely because they represent something that is already popular and important to many voters (and some billionaires). But obviously it's the lobbying groups that weaponize the money. And unfortunately not all popular ideas have lobbying groups and billionaires behind them. Imagine if there were powerful anti-gun lobbies, pro-Palestine lobbies or pro-Medicare for all lobbies. Then it would at least be a fair fight.

2. Could be for a variety of reasons. Some of them are probably toeing the line set by president Biden, who is really pro-Israel himself. Some of them are scared of being primaried, which is something AIPAC is openly threatening. Some of them are themselves massive Israel supporters. And it still remains to be seen how much it will hurt Democrats in the upcoming elections. Maybe many of these representatives are simply underestimating the impact.
 
Mike Smalling said:
1. Yeah, it's about both. AIPAC and similar groups have the money, precisely because they represent something that is already popular and important to many voters (and some billionaires). But obviously it's the lobbying groups that weaponize the money. And unfortunately not all popular ideas have lobbying groups and billionaires behind them. Imagine if there were powerful anti-gun lobbies, pro-Palestine lobbies or pro-Medicare for all lobbies. Then it would at least be a fair fight.

2. Could be for a variety of reasons. Some of them are probably toeing the line set by president Biden, who is really pro-Israel himself. Some of them are scared of being primaried, which is something AIPAC is openly threatening. Some of them are themselves massive Israel supporters. And it still remains to be seen how much it will hurt Democrats in the upcoming elections. Maybe many of these representatives are simply underestimating the impact.
Click to expand...


Yeah, is a good analysis, several interests and unknowns that interconnects
 


Johnson went full Sherlock and examined the tents and found out that they match and thus the protests are orchestrated. Well done, what could we have done without your knowledge and expertise.
 
>2000 arrests in the US in 2 weeks
291 arrests in Hong Kong in 4 months.
 
Last edited:
Giggsyking said:


Johnson went full Sherlock and examined the tents and found out that they match and thus the protests are orchestrated. Well done, what could we have done without your knowledge and expertise.
Click to expand...

George Soros the anti-Semite Jew funding pro-Palestinian student demonstrations. He somehow missed mentioning the Bible there.
 
So Jews trying to attend classes on campus are deemed "agitators" and the mob stopping them and causing the unrest are all fine.

got it.

imagine if fee paying black people or LGBT were prohibited from entering parts of their university campus. Imagine the uproar. But if it's a Jew, no problem. They're Zionists so it's fine.
 
gfactor86 said:
So Jews trying to attend classes on campus are deemed "agitators" and the mob stopping them and causing the unrest are all fine.

got it.

imagine if fee paying black people or LGBT were prohibited from entering parts of their university campus. Imagine the uproar. But if it's a Jew, no problem. They're Zionists so it's fine.
Click to expand...

If a LGBT organization would commit genocide, I can guarantee that protestors would do the same that they are doing to jews attending school, that as far as I understand is not that much and they don't target them because they are jews
 
So bunch of posts regarding “quality control” label were deleted (completely understandable). But label itself remained, which is quite baffling.
 
gfactor86 said:
So Jews trying to attend classes on campus are deemed "agitators" and the mob stopping them and causing the unrest are all fine.

got it.

imagine if fee paying black people or LGBT were prohibited from entering parts of their university campus. Imagine the uproar. But if it's a Jew, no problem. They're Zionists so it's fine.
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to make this about jews/non-jews when loads of student leaders organizing these protests and protesting are jews and loads of people prevented from attending classes are non-jews?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.