I've posted on social media about how it's fucked up that more money is going to Isntreal than to hurricane relief, and libs are saying that's a "right wing talking point" without explanation. Why?
I've posted on social media about how it's fucked up that more money is going to Isntreal than to hurricane relief, and libs are saying that's a "right wing talking point" without explanation. Why?
I don't watch cable news and I don't pay attention to Jeff Teidrich or whoever so I don't know where this bullshit is coming from. At least one person responding is nominally anti-genocide, so I don't think that's the reason. Another came back with something about the funding bill for FEMA as if it's a gotcha.
What's their logic?
There's a simple explanation, it's because the hurricane hit red states. It might even be an organic thing, libs have no compassion.
A total absence of class consciousness has led to libs having insane regional resentments, all premised on the idea that the poorest southerners are the ones that really hold power in the US and need to die.
It's not even regional resentments, TBH. Though that (and regional chauvinism/"enlightenment," and also while they won't admit it racism) also plays a part.
Libs are racist, classist, shitty people. That's the inherent core of their belief and how it plays out in practice, the only difference between them and open conservatives is that they fetishize a specific kind of poverty (while the conservatives fetishize/celebrate another, the "good ol' boy, poor rural redneck etc" poverty). All the "liberal strongholds" in the west are not paradises for the poor and disenfranchised, rather the opposite and simply looking at the conditions of any of them will show just how blatantly that is the case.
Libs wash their hands of their guilt through their fetishization/etc, but the reality is that their status and livelihoods are entirely predicated upon racism, classism, and all the other same things conservatives' are. They put on airs about how diverse they are (tokenism by-and-large) while gentrifying neighborhoods, harboring immense and blatant resentments against those minorities who compete with them and thus challenge their historical (and remaining) privileged race-caste, they actively engage in all of the same brutal policing, prison slavery, exploitation and theft of indigenous lands and of non-white peoples' lands abroad, etc... while voting blue and at most, donating pittances as their indulgence for the crimes they participate in.
I've lived rural and urban and in various provinces (not USA, Klanada) and this is what I've seen, I'm not sure if I can even say what is worse sometimes. Libs are just as racist and hateful (and classist) as their counterparts can be, and wherever you go the hatred and racism tends to be towards whatever minorities are most populous (natives, blacks, or Latinos depending where you are in rural Anglo North America, Asians, blacks, Latinos, etc. in urban Anglo NA, etc).
They haven't been "led" to resentment, they created these resentments to justify their own "superiority" and exploitation, it's the same story each and every time. Their class interests (or pretensions/ambitions towards such class interests) all but require that they make up the chauvinism after (this same mechanism also goes for conservatives- two sides of the same coin really)
Sorry sweaty, you're just helping Trump win if you point out the U.S.'s thirst for blood overrides any concern for collapsing infrastructure or the well being of the population.
Sorry sweaty
You can just say "no offense" and then say something offensive
Any Critical statement about decisions Biden may be involved in are a vote for Trump!
The window for being critical of Biden’s administration was after the 100 days and before the critical 1,290 days prior to the election!
You can only cheer in joy for the blue team, anything less is doing a fascism.
If Republicans say something, that means that it's wrong and anyone who says it got it from them and is essentially spreading conspiracy theories.
There is money tree for murder, there is no money tree for literally anything else.
Anything I don't like is right wing maga Russian propaganda!
The question most of us are faced with: do you want change? Not a little bit, unraveling heaving world-historic change?
And libs said, no, they just want things to be a little bit better (preferably for them). You are getting in the way of the mindscape that let's them think that the system can produce limited small "good" change. They don't want to think about the genocide in Gaza, or the invasion of Lebanon, or countenance that their support for blue MAGA could mean an attempted invasion of Iran - or at least an unlimited bombing campaign. They don't want to think about the people outside the wire, especially if those people are there political "enemies" they've identified as citizens in the south. What they want are Pell grants to people creating small businesses in undeserved communities for 5 years or student loan forgiveness after 15 years of service as an underpaid teacher. They don't want to think about the faceless masses living coterminous lives of suffering on the exact city streets they invisibly occupy.
When you had to confront that question - you said "yes I want change, I want the wars of imperialism to end, I don't want people to be genocided and I'm ready to take apart the means of that genocide"
Anything other than enthusiastic and uncritical support for Harris is seen as helping republicans.
I do rather enjoy seeing the USA criticize North Korea with the claim that they are ruled by an unelected leader and then defer to Dear Leader Kamala who was of course elected to represent her party by...?
because "politics" in america is dead and the country is fucking cooked
Right-wingers do commonly say "there should be no foreign aid given until we fix our problems". The problem is, there's a difference between giving aid to another country that just had a really bad natural disaster, vs giving money and military aid to help another country commit a genocide.
Also worth noting that foreign aid isn't done out of the kindness of their hearts, it's usually used as a tool of US imperialism. Trump and his base are just too stupid to realize that.
Thought-terminating cliché. If you just proclaim it to be a "right wing talking point" you can dismiss it out of hand without having to engage with the statement. They don't want to have to defend their policy of funding genocide while their own people suffer at it's own merits.
Just reply "Sending money to isntreal to commit genocide is right-wing"
Literally any criticism of the Biden admin is a "Russian disinformation" to them.
Trump and Co. were talking about how the money for hurricane relief was going to transgender migrant surgeries but not about israel i think. There was a separate thing going around about how FEMA is short $9B, and we just approved that amount for israel. Though they didnt literally take it from FEMA, they should be giving additional funding to FEMA and are choosing to not do a damn thing except genocide
In my opinion:
Short version:
Republicans don't want to talk about how they denied the funding to help Americans impacted by disasters, so they are attempting to shift the narrative.
The longer version:
First, because the point does not include of how Republicans voted against funding FEMA while taking no action to restrict the transfers of arms to Isreal (unless there has been a resolution that I am not aware of). This makes it something of a disingenuous argument attempting to spread the narrative that "Democrats support genocide more than the they support struggling American citizens".
Second, it is an attempt to tie two unrelated events together to keep topics damaging to the Democrat election machine alive while the news cycle has shifted to a topic that could hurt the Republicans election machine.
Third, it offers no suggestions for how to correct either situation. Nor examples of failed / blocked attempts from either party to remedy the situation. Attempts like the Democrats attempt to increase funding to FEMA which was blocked by Republicans.
This makes it something of a disingenuous argument attempting to spread the narrative that "Democrats support genocide more than the they support struggling American citizens".
Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people
it is an attempt to tie two unrelated events together to keep topics damaging to the Democrat election machine alive while the news cycle has shifted to a topic that could hurt the Republicans election machine.
The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much
Everything is connected and not in a
wayAttempts like the Democrats attempt to increase funding to FEMA which was blocked by Republicans.
Did they try when they had a majority and could've pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren't serious about passing anything that helps people
Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people
I totally agree. The current political climate is very much one of "why try to solve a problem when you can profit off of it."
My issue is in the choice of language. Trying to make it seem like one party is to blame when both are.
The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much
There is a difference between direct and indirect connections. In this instance, the aid sent to Isreal has no direct or immediate impact of federal aid to the communities impacted by the hurricanes. It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.
Did they try when they had a majority and could’ve pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren’t serious about passing anything that helps people
I am very confused by this argument. Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities? Please, can you expand on what you mean by this?
Ok so what I'm hearing is that it makes the Democrats look bad. Which I'm fine with, they suck.
Third, it offers no suggestions for how to correct either situation.
I thought that was pretty obvious: stop sending money and weapons and troops to Israel, and send emergency aid to communities hurt by the hurricanes.
stop sending money and weapons and troops to Israel, and send emergency aid to communities hurt by the hurricanes.
Unfortunately, these are two completely separate pools of money. The USA could stop all military aid to all countries across the globe tomorrow and the freed up money could not be redirected to the communities impacted by the hurricanes without an act of Congress which, thanks to Republicans, just said no to doing that.
Permanently Deleted
Because Democrats are president right now and the lib guy is responsible
Because both parties donate to Istrael, and both parties deny relief to poor Americans. The problem for the democrats is that their base isn't toxic enough to enjoy the deprivation of others for its own sake, while republicans have done away with any facade of being decent and will (mostly truthfully) imagine that the aid is being denied to black people and other non-white people
more broadly the liberal wing is a bunch of rich people who want to pretend to help other people, instead of rich people who want to openly kill people