Bernie Sanders to voters skipping presidential election over Israel: ‘Trump is even worse’
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
您正在查看单个线程.
I just don't get how people are looking at Harris' stance as being pro-genocide. Biden is the President and historically, foreign policy during the tenure of the President by the Vice President doesn't veer too far off from the President. That said, Harris has absolutely called for investigation into the suffering of civilians in the conflict.
Congress sets the budgetary amount of aid to direct to Israel and the President distributes the money via their diplomatic channels. There are very few options for the President to just suspend funding, which Biden has done twice for weapons under the rules established within 10 USC § 362 (a)(1)
Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
But outside that, there's very little the President can do once Congress approves funding and that funding has been signed into law. This is why an independent channel investigation is required and is exactly what Harris has called for. This would allow the the US Government to establish their own inquiry into the human abuses. This would give the required evidence to cancel funding under Title XII authority. But none of that can happen overnight. It's not an easy path to override the will of Congress.
On the opposite side, Trump has indicated that he will absolutely turn a blind eye to the whole thing and allow Israel to determine solely the "best" course of action for their current conflict. Trump has literally stated in his rallies:
From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel's hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire
Trump would not see a cease-fire as a required condition for the on-going conflict.
Harris and Democrats historically have called for a two-state solution. Trump's plan which has been broadly adopted by the Republican party in general would:
Trump has all but given up completely on a two-state solution. Which means, he's for a one state solution. And people are fooling themselves if they believe that Trump would seek a "peaceful" one state solution. He has told Netanyahu directly, "Just get it done quickly". Now we can play a game as what manner is used to "get it done quickly" means, but only idiots are the one's thinking that doesn't give a tacit nod to ethic cleansing.
I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don't think they are thinking at all. You have one solution that is long, stupid, and required because we are a nation of laws. And you have the other solution that is "fuck it, firebomb them all and call it done". It is difficult to imagine that there are truly people this blind and ignorant to this reality. But yet, here we are.
The notion that we might get a 3rd party into office like twenty years from now if we start today, helps nobody if the people we're trying to help are all eradicated over the next four years. Going down this "third road" only ensures an outcome where we are fifteen years too late to help.
I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don’t think they are thinking at all.
They live in cloud cuckoo land where Biden/Harris can just tell Netanyahu "Fuck off and shove a grenade up your arse, you genocidal maniac" and that would actually work.
Most of Israel's weapons come from the US. It's very well possible for the US congress/government to say "no more weapons if you use them for agression".
Biden tried just slowing weapon shipments earlier on and Rs and some Ds rammed a bill through saying nope, no slowdowns on these shipments allowed.
The Joe Biden administration also stated that Israel would receive "whatever it needs". Which is pretty much what has happened so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
Biden tried just slowing weapon shipments earlier on and Rs and some Ds rammed a bill through saying nope, no slowdowns on these shipments allowed.
When you have a racist right-wing party, and a right-wing party that supports killing innocents, I am not as enthused to vote as I would be if there were a clear choice between them.
Oh so you support racism?
Wow, stoned people really do say ridiculous things.
You said there is no clear choice between. A party that supports killing innocents and racism. And a party that supports killing innocents. It’s not hard math.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there more dead on the Gaza side? What's the math of that?
I mean, if both are killing innocents, but one is killing innocents on top of being racist, it's pretty obvious that the racist one is worse. A kindergartener could check that math.
It's interesting how you have to resort to being dismissive when I say that I don't like seeing innocents killed.
You say you're voting for 'harm reduction'. But, factually, supporting Israel is increasing harm, not reducing it. You might be upset with me because you're rationalising painful reality.
I have no choice, due to autism, but to accept reality for what it is. And it's not nice, because living in a world where it is politically expedient to support killing innocent people sucks. I want nothing to do with it, and I would swap with someone in Palestine so that I could die, instead.
They are both shit. Don't support or vote criminals.
That’s what this entire post is about. You’re accomplishing jack shit by not voting.
Wrong, supporting criminals with blood on their hands is evil and make things worst. If the red and blue party start to lose votes they have to go in damage mode and actually change their policies to get their votes back. As long as people support and vote for them they don't really have to change anything, they cycle in power.
It’s more like a racist right-wing party that supports killing innocents, and a right-wing party that supports killing innocents.
You're right, I just thought "racist" implied "supports killing", as I am aware of the history and practice of racism.
wow you just ignore that biden wanted to give them the weapons anyways. you see its a little thing called providing cover. Biden didn't fight against it because he wanted to give isreal the weapons.
That bill went through with a veto-proof majority of all Rs and enough Dems.
Biden is a zionist, however, he's also a politician who understands that the genocide was not and is not super favorable domestically. It's also not a good look for the ceasefire negotiations to be as unsuccessful as they've been. If the opposition wasnt the orange turd this election could have easily gone R just like Reagan v Carter with Iranian hostage crisis.
oh wow! a veto proof majority! its too bad biden controls the military and can just know you. not ship them. invoke leahy. etc.
biden has no one to blame but himself for gaza. go read the article of the israel/gaza timelines. there was no need for whats happening to happen. biden just had to... not ship weapons. he had all the legal cover he could have possibly wanted if his goal was to end the genocide.
It’s also not a good look for the ceasefire negotiations to be as unsuccessful as they’ve been
lol. they have not even happened. bibi has 0 interest in a ceasefire. the biden admin knows this. if they don't then we definitely need to get rid of them all.
Nooooo!!!!!! Anything other than perfect support at all times for everything Netanyahu does is Trump support from Russia! Every lemmy genocide supporter says so!
In really it's probably a mix that totals to around 90% of the people making these pronouncements are either bots, paid trolls from enemy nations, nihilists, or the equivalent. The remaining 10% probably have a genuine belief that voting for Harris makes them complicit in the genocide the Israeli government and its military are committing. They're incorrect, on many levels, but that is probably their genuine belief.
We must always vote for the lesser evil because that's what the real world is, from the most negative point of view: reducing evil and suffering. We know some of the things we're doing today will be seen as evil by our progeny. We don't know others.
A Harris administration will be the most likely to reduce the suffering of Palestinians, the most likely to force the Israeli government and military to end the genocide, and the most likely to make real strides toward middle east peace.
We must always vote for the lesser evil because that’s what the real world is
Ah, the world is always things getting more evil, the choice is just slower or faster? Sounds shit to me, you can have it.
Woosh
Yes, that's the sound of things getting worse.
So get off your computer and do something about it instead of lording your morality over the rest of us here.
Get involved with an organization and go physically help in Gaza. Go volunteer your time for your local pro Palestine congressperson. I’ll wait.
Oh no but you’re sitting here pushing propaganda talking points, which you somehow believe is helpful but actually tacitly supports the literal Nazi candidate who calls people vermin. Because that’s the thing that is really helpful.
Oh no but you’re sitting here pushing propaganda talking points
"Killing innocent people is bad" is harmful propaganda? Okay.
If that makes the Dem party look bad, you can't say it's my fault. I didn't conjure up the moral rule that killing is wrong, and nor did I ask any Dem politician to support it.
So get off your computer and do something about it instead of lording your morality over the rest of us here.
You seem to think that saying 'killing innocent people is bad' is a ridiculously lofty moral position, one so far out of touch with reality that stating it is in some way worthy of disgust.
And that's exactly why I say it. Because people need to hear it, because they react to it with disgust, indicating that people don't really care about the issue.
I do, though. Because killing innocent people is wrong. What I do about that is that I have never killed anyone. And, when it happens, I disagree with it. And I keep saying it, even when people get angry that I'm making such a big issue out of something so normalised.
You come off as someone who had the protocols of the elders of Zion read to you in your sleep every night without your knowledge
In really it’s probably a mix that totals to around 90% of the people making these pronouncements are either bots, paid trolls from enemy nations, nihilists, or the equivalent.
All you're missing is that one magic word
Your world view is pretty self defeating dont you think?
Whereas, and forgive me if I'm mistakenly assuming you're advocating not voting for Harris, your worldview is just defeating. Every candidate but Harris will ensure that Palestinian suffering increases. Not voting will deny Harris a vote, therefore necessarily increase the odds of someone else winning and Palestinian suffering increasing. Palestinians are saying to vote for Harris. Votjng for a third party (all choices there, by the way, either actively endorse Trump (RFK Jr.) or are funded by Russia (Stein) so supports the genocide of Ukrainians) remove a vote for Harris and increase the odds of Palestinian suffering increasing. There is no scenario where if you're an American citizen you can be a neutral bystander.
At this point, if you don't vote for Harris, you're voting for ethnic cleansing and genocide, quite possibly at home as well as abroad.
All I'm advocating is for people to vote for whoever fits their values best, whether thats third party, democrat, republican, or not voting at all if there really isnt any valid ones.
The problem is people who have the perspective that you vote against the worst candidate rather than for the best one, in my opinion.
The problem is people who have the perspective that you vote against the worst candidate rather than for the best one, in my opinion.
Have you somehow not heard of "first past the post"? The people who have that perspective, with regard to the US presidential race, have the correct perspective.
Third party votes don't matter in FPTP. Until that changes, a vote for third party works in the Republican candidates favor, thanks to FPTP, plus the electoral college.
Sort of, its a self fulfilling perspective to believe the two party system is about picking the least worst of the two.
If the majority of people would vote for their best party/candidate then things would change from getting worse to getting better.
Im of the opinion peoples perspectives need to change before policy or regulation will, but I wouldnt say not to try and change it through election reform.
Every candidate but Harris will ensure that Palestinian suffering increases.
Harris has not said anything concrete about holding Israel back. Or stopping shipments.
Trump has affirmatively said he will ensure Israel is able to do whatever it wants.
Except she absolutely has.
She's called for the investigations needed to legally stop the funding.
Because there's a full legal process that needs to happen to overrule Congress on allocated funding.
Trump was impeached over fucking with funds allocated by Congress to a foreign government.
A Harris win means a push for a cease fire. Especially if Democrats win the House and Senate.
A Trump win on the other hand... Well. He's actually on record as pro-genocide.
A Harris win means a push for a cease fire.
Biden has used none of the levers they have available to get Israel to the ceasfire table. When asked, Harris defaults to the Hasbara answer playbook, starting her answer with Israel "defending itself" from the Oct 7 attacks.
We need the weapons shipments stopped. They are already a clear violation of US law. They are a crime. Harris has been asked point blank if she would stop the shipments and she said no. So you are just parroting empty marketing and lies. Other presidents have gone further than merely stopping weapons shipments and stopped this same exact pattern of violence with a simple phone call. We arent even asking for that phone call.
I’m torn on how to approach this, i’m left with a couple of options:
A) so Trump would somehow be even less self defeating?
B) are you suggesting we should all spontaneously rise up and overthrow the military industrial complex?
C) if you think this world view is self defeating then:
C.1) you owe some clarifying thoughts as to how you see a measured response to the existing democratic systems as self defeating
C.2) you appear to be making yourself out as someone who idealizes violence and oppression
C.3) you appear to be using contrarian language with the explicit purpose of dragging down the mood of the conversation. Quit that shit
D) Good ol' not feeding the trolls.
Tell me more about myself please.
I'm trying to understand how this system works and came across this article from Al Jazeera which, if I'm reading it correctly, is saying that the US did determine gross human rights violations but the Biden administration is refusing to apply the Leahy Law. Doesn't this mean that Biden does have the authority to stop sending military aid but isn't, or am I misunderstanding something? Also, aside from Leahy Law why can't he veto the military aid?
Oh man, this is a doozy. You aren't wrong but I've got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.
The thing is the Leahy Law doesn't put the power directly in the President's hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I don't know how familiar you are with how the Executive Office works or not. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel's aid.
There's Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but there's the whole "what if" Blinken quits given an EO and then we have to get the Senate involved which is currently 50-50 on Republicans and Democrats. Which that turns it even more complex and Senators can delay confirmation until after the election or if they're really bitter, until next year. Which means that everything that requires a Secretary of State would get put on pause.
I get that everyone thinks the President gets to have the final say, but the President orders people around on EOs, which the various Secretaries can just quit if they don't want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. That's kind of a built in protection in our system of Government to prevent a President becoming a dictator. If a President wants XYZ done and the Secretary thinks that's bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.
There's way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published, unless the President does so since the President has unilateral authority on classification markings (except for anything related to the name of spies and nuclear bomb designs, that is one of the few things that requires both the President and Congress to sign off on, there's a few other exceptions as well but I won't go into them).
But anyways, Blinken is the one who can stop aid. The President could order him, but he could also quit, which means the Senate would get involved, and I can explain why all of that would be messy if you need me to.
why can't he veto the military aid
The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President "has" to carry it out. There's a ton of background on "Executive Discretion" and any time the President wants to exercise discretion, Congress can sue, which then brings the matter into the other branch, the Judicial. Plenty of States that would sign on, to a Congressional suit (which that's a requirement for Congress to sue the President, at least one State has to join in).
So Biden could use Discretion to delay funding, and he's done that quite a few times, but he can't just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a "Reviewing Executive Order" and it requires a department to "review" ((insert whatever the topic is)). That's a delay, but it isn't a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, "we provide $xxx to Israel's Iron Dome", we have to send that money to them at some point.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion. There's been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but that's been on things called Continuing Resolutions (CR). Republicans in the House (who are the ones who control what the US Budget is) have been using CRs to get choice things enacted. That's because Republicans in the House have passed rules on how a budget may be formed in the House that are impossible to comply with (which that's a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.
Anyways, that's been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldn't have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I don't know, because if the election isn't kind to Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they could block Harris' Sec. of State unless they specifically pledged to support Israel. Now they could absolutely lie about that, but then Congress could also impeach them, but that would cut off aid to Israel for some time as that's not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.
This comment needs no be posted and stickied everywhere. I mean everywhere. Thank you for your detailed response and explanation of how the executive works. I'm saving this comment.
If you want to keep up with daily events in the Executive, the Federal Register (Fed. Reg. or FR) cannot be beat. It contains all of the FOIA request, every public inspection requirement, CFR proposals, Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations, and so forth.
If you want something more specific to rule making, you can find that here. Rule making makes a bit more sense when you think about it. Say Congress passes a law that says "build me a road between Texas and South Dakota". The law will usually say who (department) is in charge of that and then that department will take the money and begin rule making. Rule making is basically laying out the path the road will take, what kind of materials will be used, what companies are allowed to bid, environmental guidelines, etc, etc ,etc... Once those rules have been made the who is going to do it is determined. Like Highways in this case, the Federal Government provides the money and the States are the ones who select the labor and make minor course corrections to the highway (like if it's about to pass through a cemetery or something).
Rule making is also sometimes called regulation. Because the agency put in charge is regulating the action being done to ensure compliance with what they think the law is asking for, because Congress is very NOT detail oriented until they really want to be. Also with rule making, Congress can "ask" a department to come in and meet with them if Congress thinks some of the rules don't mesh with what they were thinking.
There's also override laws, which Congress passes like a normal law. These laws, remember the Constitution requires laws to be applied equally if they involve the public so these override laws are written as such so that they only apply to a executive department, specifically smack the department over the head and "corrects" where the rule making went wrong. These don't happen often, but we did have one back in Trump days over the FCC. The FCC had made a new rule that required ISPs to get permission to sell customer data, and Congress plus then President Trump overrode the FCC, explicitly banning them from ever creating such a rule. It's still open if the FTC could make such a rule. But that's an example of an override of regulation.
Oh also my whole comment didn't even touch on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which is what would happen if a Secretary quits. Very, very, very long story short. The Deputy Secretary automatically gets to become the "acting" Secretary BUT they cannot do any "exclusive actions", which that Leahy rule is indeed an exclusive action. The "acting" Secretary can only maintain "status quo" until the Senate Confirms that the acting secretary is indeed the actual secretary. But an "acting" position can only last for 210 days, after which the office is then considered "vacant", but none of that matters anymore because Congress uses "pro forma" sessions to prevent recessed appointments. But typically, if a position is "vacant" and Congress is not in Session, the President can make a recess appointment.
If you ask me, what we really need is an Amendment to the Constitution that provides the President a way to declare Congress as absent and if some threshold of Congress doesn't become present, then the President can then call Congress not in Session. The whole "pro forma" sessions of Congress really needs to stop, like in a really bad way. Sort of like how Filibuster should return to requiring a person physically speak for the entire duration of the filibuster and must remain on topic.
Congress has gotten really soft on everything and that's allowed them to permit a lot of bad faith actions in Congress to happen. It used to be that it was "gentleman's agreement" that Congress would behave and act in good faith, but boy have we really fallen down on that since the 1980s.
Anyway, I'm rambling.
Dude. This is awesome. We need to make this into YouTube shorts or tik tok. Anything to get civic education out. We are extremely in need...
Not the person you replied to, but just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to write up such an informative answer. I learned quite a few things from it.
Hey, professor, where do I sign up for the next civics lecture?
I've been needing some better gov't education since long before high school.
it'd be a poor course it empirically incorrect on a number of counts.
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.
Blinken stated here:
In speaking with him the other day after he made his decision about not seeking re-election, what he’s intensely focused on is the work that remains over these next six months to continue the efforts, the work that we’ve been doing, particularly trying to bring peace to the Middle East, ending the war in Gaza, putting that region on a better trajectory
However, as you said earlier:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.
Regarding:
There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published
I would like to hear more on this.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion.
I did come across this where apparently Israel secured funding through a deal with the Obama administration.
I'm not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isn't stopping the military aid which I would like to hear, but it seems to me like both the Obama and Biden administrations are the ones that pulled us into the genocide and that Blinken is playing the "we are working toward a ceasefire" card while not stopping the genocide, and figures like Harris are also playing the same card while pushing the same anti-protest rhetoric as Zionists. This article does suggest that Harris isn't going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like there's at least some chance she might deviate from what Biden is currently doing; however, the article also suggests that she will have a similar approach to foreign policy as Biden. Aside from that, with the track record of Democrats historically supporting Israel and siding with donors against the interests of people along with their recently having dropped multiple progressive issues, I don't think people are convinced that Harris (and many Democrats in general) is going to stop the genocide (not saying that Trump who openly supports Israel is going to be any better).
lol. entire wall of text predicated on a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed. someone didn't pay attention to trumps presidency at all.
but lets hit on the misconceptions you're spouting.
Once something becomes law, the President “has” to carry it out
incorrect. Presidents have refused to enforce/carry out laws repeatedly throughout history. that's one of the powers of the executive branch. its not explicit but there is no enforcement mechanism. Your assertion that congress can sue is 100% true. what you're missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years. Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism. You may have learned about this little system in grade school: The honor system. which is entirely useless. There are historical instance of this such as worcester v georgia. abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus and more recently Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But Harris likely wouldn’t have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT.
biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role. not like he has a lot of time left there'd be no time to confirm a new individual anyways. Blinken simply isn't the issue, biden was until we got rid of him by not supporting him. Now Harris is, she's the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken.
You're entire 'civics' lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs. especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing.
Ugh. This is why I hate summary because there's always someone who is like "you didn't explain EvErYtHiNg so you're wrong!" While you're trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didn't because it increases what needs to be talked about when what I originally said was correct.
entire wall of text
I hate this term because it shows that people are trying to oversimplify something that is in itself complex. Additionally, you're trying to point out things but you didn't cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. You're basically trying to make an argument of "you explain too much" and "you didn't explain enough". It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't argument that you're trying to make. I'm calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. I'll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, I'll just block you. I don't have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you don't stop beating around the bush. That's all there is to it.
a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed
That's not correct. I'll point to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 5 USC § 3345. You seem smart enough, you can figure out why Sec. of State quitting and the deputy becoming acting would trigger such a response.
someone didn't pay attention to trumps presidency at all
Again, I'll point to the many failures on exclusive authority during that term. Namely you can see the multiple failures along the regulation of coal that failed exclusive authority. Acting has only nonexclusive duties for the 210 day period and the extended period of 300 days on inauguration. Hence the failures on rule making.
what you're missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years.
Yes, this is why enjoining an EO exists as a measure for the courts. Immediate relief is something the claimants can seek when bringing the issue up to the courts. That's why you hear emergency relief often with controversial orders.
Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism.
The enforcement is via Congress at that point. If a just rules something as violation of the Court order, that's easily handled by Congress.
worcester v georgia
Just so we're clear the Nullification scandal, Jackson indicated he was ready to march troops into South Carolina and shooting the government if need be. That was with eye to Georgia daring them the exact same thing. We'd revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.
So just, so we're clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. I'm not sure the argument you're providing holds a lot of water here in that "they can do what they want to do with no ramifications". Clearly getting shot at by the Army is a ramification that at the time neither party wanted to try out. But we did give it a go a bit later.
abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus
Yeah. Thing called the Civil War.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Was kicked to Congress, like I said it would be. Was mulled and Congress decided to take a pass. But that's not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. You'll note how many of them didn't last. CCC still a thing?
biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role
Again see FVRA.
not like he has a lot of time left there'd be no time to confirm a new individual anyways
Again see FVRA, carry over has a lot more impact in the first 300 day period than having an acting position.
Now Harris is, she's the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken
That is just plainly incorrect.
You're entire 'civics' lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs
And you covered zero of them either. I've provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that "the historical realities of EOs" is a complex issue. But apparently you don't like walls of text.
especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing
I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesn't do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, he'd still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.
Lol, all of it comes down to enforcement as you well know and the fact is there would be none. Everything you cited are either) insanely unlikely or not a function of our branches. Getting shot at by a member of the military? Lol. Please. Not remotely relevant.
Impeachment today is essentially toothless. Particularly in biden's case as hes done with office anyways.
So as i said: in the three months remaining of bidens term he could 1) absolutely dump blinken and replace him, not an issue. 2) can absolutely withhold weapons see leahy. 3) the history of the president defying judicial orders is well supported.
FVRA
Id give a shit if it actually meant anything. You clearly confuse words on paper with real world consequences.
I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesn’t do.
Correct it has bearing on what biden can do. I.e. fire him and replace at his leisure. Which is why you're trying to place the blame on bliken because as you know biden has many options on the table for gaza he is just unwilling to use them because he is a Zionist.
You'll note that in you 2nd wall of nonsense. Not once have you managed to identify how the judicial branch can hold a president accountable.
Yes congress might, though as we both know they almost certainly won't and essentially has never happened. oh no impeachment, poor 2 timer trump has suffered zero consequences from it. And that was after trying to overthrow the government. Lol @ congress taking a pass not equaling consequence free. But i see your issue you think someone filing paper work is a consequence. 😂 Identify material consequences a president has suffered as a result of defying congress or a judicial order? You'll find very few.
And it amuses me you claim harris isnt culpable for the genocide, she absolutely is and you know it which is why you won't expand on in detail as you're so very happy to do.
The fact biden is a Zionist is why gaza is continuing it literally has nothing to do with blinken. There are many paths biden can take to deal with him. He can fire him, countermand him, or execute him thanks to scotus.
Stop wasting everyones time by trying to argue the indefensible. You're clearly one of the dunces who thinks rules on paper matter even though people break them constantly in the real world with zero problems.
can absolutely withhold weapons see leahy
He can't legally, and Republicans in the House would absolutely jump at the chance to impeach Biden and have it carry over into the next session as Democrats did with Trump's second impeachment. It would literally be the train they ride till midterms.
Gosh you are really bad at this.
You clearly confuse words on paper with real world consequences
I don't think you've ever worked for the Government. You are insanely bad at this.
I've given you plenty of opportunity and you're just spewing "nothing means anything anymore!!!" Gosh, it's not like I haven't met countless numbers of you types.
Not once have you managed to identify how the judicial branch can hold a president accountable\
Enjoined. You clearly aren't reading anything, I'm not typing any more. Consider yourself blocked, you are a waste of time.
snicker oh no! republicans impeachment! whatever will we do. it'll take them longer to run the impeachment trial than he has time left in office! rofl. OH NO! biden will be PUNISHED with.... wait for it.... removal from office. THE HORROR.
your coal example: sigh lets talk about how they were rolled back during biden's term. Why? because biden agreed with the courts and didn't like the policies to begin with. but the courts most certainly didnt force trump to roll them back.
you really dont get how to wield executive power. 90% of it is doing what you want letting people challenge it and by the time it gets through the court you've already accomplished what you wanted. my entire point has been there is 0 negative outcome for a president to exercise flagrant violations of law. israel is a prime example of this in fact.
You're simply dense and can't see the facts through your rose tinged glasses of your belief in law and order. fucking gaza is a straight up example of this. Those who control enforcement control which laws are upheld and there is jack shit courts can do about this. trump abused the fuck out of this.
selective enforcement please read up on it. it applies here.
Enjoined. You clearly aren’t reading anything, I’m not typing any more. Consider yourself blocked, you are a waste of time.
is like your version of congressional impeachment? oh no.... whatever will I do. only reason I was responding to you was so everyone else knows what a load of nonsense your shit was.
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.
Because they are, USA is currently fueling a genocide in gaza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.
"Now that you know I don't listen to fuckall outside of my own bubble, sit down while I lecture you for several pages"
The two-state solution is a boondoggle.
There can only be a one state solution.
So make a choice: Israel or Palestine.
So make a choice: Israel or Palestine.
You say that like the choice hasn't already been made without the input of the voters.
What should happen to Palestinians if Israel is chosen? What should happen to Israelis if Palestine is chosen?
I'm not who you replied to but I like the idea of a single new country for both Palestinians and Israelis. I think this would avoid the ethnostate issue.
Ultimately I think the only way forward is to aim for peaceful coexistence between the two groups.
Great idea! Maybe we could look to history to find the last time that Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together in a single state, and name the new country whatever that is.
Hmmm... Looks like in the 1900s there was a country called Palestine where Muslims and Jews live equally. Let's get rid of Israel and Palestine, and replace them both with Palestine.
I think another main component of it would be religion being taken less seriously across the board.
It should be allowed to exist but it should be thought of more as superstition. Sort of like horoscopes or tarot cards.
Then it becomes pretty absurd to commit violence over it. I'm not really sure how to get to this point but there is technically room for both cultures.
This is the larger problem, in a nutshell. The fact that we have nations being led by people who believe in their own fairy tales, so much that they believe everybody else is inferior. This isn't just a problem in Israel/Palestine, obviously, but having two of these groups so close to each other really puts a magnifying glass on the danger of non-secular governments. Israel literally believes it has the support of God itself, and its a powerful fuel to their genocide.
I think if we are to survive as a species, one of the humps we need to get over is the existence of all these fairy tales, and the division they create. The fairy tales may have been useful at one point in history, but they have long overstayed their welcome.
Judaism used to be a polytheistic religion, and Islam used to be Judaism. There is no law against polytheism in the Torah. The first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me", allows for other gods who are revered less than Elohim. Judaism and Islam do not need to be violent religions. Putting violence in them was a choice that humans made.
The Nakba is not the result of Judaism. It is the result of men like Winston Churchill, who was an agnostic raised Christian. Generations of Jewish Israelis since then have allowed an outsider to define their religion, and tell them to be violent. This is not an issue of religion, it's an issue of human politics.
I do agree however a country that is based on religious participation is fundamentally flawed. I dont think it holds up in that regard. But yes it does have a place in smaller community and in personal life, although I'd argue far less than is shown now.
There has never been a country called Palestine. What are you talking about?
There are more Arabs living in Israel than there are jews living in all the current Arab nations combined.
In other words : it's not so simple to solve
Palestine,[i] officially the State of Palestine,[ii][e] is a country
Your comment was about 1900. Did we already move away from that? Specifics matter in the context of history and geopolitics. Or do we just not care about specifics?
Also, why don’t you address the full comment instead of snipping parts?
Isn't the issue of a single country that the Palestinian population is much higher than the Israeli population, so if there were a single democracy, it would mean that Palestinians would basically be fully in charge?
I think this is why a federated or two state solution is often suggested. Both parties need at least some level of autonomy.
Isn’t the issue of a single country that the Palestinian population is much higher than the Israeli population, so if there were a single democracy, it would mean that Palestinians would basically be fully in charge?
Should we segregate America just because some minorities are outnumbered?
The idea is ultimately that the people mix and there is no real barrier between the two groups anyways. There should still be places to worship for everyone although I think religion needs to be taken less seriously all around as part of that. Religion creates division just like race does.
I think the state I'm envisioning is after the part you are talking about though. Its likely there will be a period of imbalance but that does not mean that the bigger group cannot be fair to the smaller one.
No, Gaza+ west bank are a little smaller than Israel in terms of population
Israel has made it clear that it wants to exterminate Palestinians, and is literally in the process of doing so right now.
Palestinians are not genocidal. They don't want to exterminate Israelis. They just want to be able to go home and stop being killed and starved and tortured.
Israelis can assimilate into Palestine and stop trying to make a Jewish ethnostate. Palestine can be one multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious democracy.
Palestinians are not genocidal. They don’t want to exterminate Israelis.
Even if some or most do wish to exterminate, this is arguably understandable. How many bombs would have to fall on you and your family before you were extremely angry? Maybe even, we could say, rationally angry?
Palestinians have entire documents and conferences on what to do with non-useful Jews. As for the useful ones, they will not be allowed to flee Palestine. Doctors and such will be prevented from emigrating.
There are no angels in this conflict. Both sides have desires for a genocide.
Certainly there are factions within Palestine that are genocidal. They're not in charge of anything, though, and don't represent the mainstream.
Meanwhile, the Israeli genicidiers control the government and are a mainstream cultural force.
They are not the same.
The conference was hosted by Hamas.
Hamas isn't lead by the people it was lead by even a decade ago. Their more recent 2017 charter is pretty explicitly not genocidal, they are anti-Israeli and explicitly not anti-Jewish.
Said conference was held in 2021. But I guess maybe a couple of years is enough time to reform a genocidal group.
Maybe Hamas leadership changed their tune towards murdering regular Jewish people sometime after that?
Certainly an analysis of their actions since that time will show their more peaceable trajectory…
That only the Israeli govt is capable of carrying out their genocide tendencies doesn’t mean Hamas doesn’t have genocidal tendencies.
I never claimed they're peaceful. They want to kill settlers and IDF goons and they want to destroy the Israeli occupation. Hardly peaceful.
But that's not genocide. That's just people's war.
I say we find land for each of them someplace in the US, build infrastructure and housing, evacuate Jerusalem and bulldoze it.
The two-state solution is a boondoggle.
Better tell that to China, or do you know better than an AES state?
What do you think "critical support" means?
I think it's one of those weasel words some leftists use so they can ignore their own hypocrisy while they moralize like the evangelical Christians they were raised as.
So you don't know what it means.
Critical support means supporting AES countries against the capitalist hegemon despite still having criticisms of some of their decisions. I don't have to think every single decision they make is perfect because I don't moralize about my politics.
What you're talking about is dogmatism, i.e. taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation. Mao harshly criticized this in On Contradiction and On Practice.
No decision can ever be perfect, is my point.
taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation
Lol I've been to Hexbear and old chapo chat, I have no idea how you can say this with a straight face.
Mao harshly criticized this in On Contradiction and On Practice.
Cool, was that before or after struggle sessions were implemented in China?
Okay, that's about following the Party line and the strategy of democratic centralism. What the Party decides is what the membership must respect and uphold.
I am not a member of the Communist Party of China. They wouldn't want me anyway lol
i.e. taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation
What the Party decides is what the membership must respect and uphold.
Hmmm
It's strategic, not moral. The Communist Party of China has 99 million members. Without democratic centralism it would just be a big club of communism fans, not a Party.
Once there's an agreed upon decision, every Party member must uphold it for the strategic advancement of the Party agenda.
You honestly think citizens should be publicly punished and shamed for purely strategic reasons? I somehow don't believe that.
every Party member must uphold it
Sounds like a moral imperative to me tbh
But honestly this is just more examples of trying to weasel out of hypocritical positions like evangelical Christians do. Change some words around and act like it's a different thing even though the real world effect is the same, which is funny for a group that claims to deal in material conditions.
"I don't HATE you, I just think you deserve to go to Hell."
"We don't denounce deviation because deviating is immoral, we denounce it because it would be bad game theory not to."