- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
He may not be in office, but Donald Trump has been speaking with the powers that be about Israel’s war on Gaza—but it’s not in an effort to end the genocide.
Instead, Trump has allegedly been talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert a cease-fire deal, fearing that doing so could help Vice President Kamala Harris win in November, according to PBS.
“The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the Prime Minister of Israel, urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign,” said PBS’s Judy Woodruff Monday night. “So, I don’t know where—who knows whether that will come about or not, but I have to think that the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, and that’s to work on that one.”
Everyone who says “They’re both equally bad. I refuse to vote for either candidate because they both support genocide” can shut the fuck up now.
I strongly suspect most of the people pushing that particular line aren’t eligible to vote… in American elections, that is.
I don’t, I know what it was like to be an optimistic young adult. I understand the allure of holding strong to an ethical code while others’ compromises seem to make the progress all too slow.
The truth is that this shit takes time and requires a lot of pressure - and that’s a fucking bitter pill to swallow.
I understand what you’re saying and I want to sympathize, but I feel like we’re so far outside the norm here that some of this falls a bit flat to me. Like we aren’t talking about being swayed by a wolf in sheep’s clothing here, Trump is a an entire pack of wolves loudly shouting “the wolves have arrived, fuck all you sheep!”
I think there was a point what you say rang true, but I can’t help but feel like we’re so off-course at this point that if you haven’t seen Trump for what he is yet it must be because you are WILLFULLY evading that reality.
I find it genuinely difficult to believe that anyone touting the “both sides are the same narrative” still, today, about Trump, can possibly truly believe that. I genuinely think you are only hearing from the mouths of charlatans, foreign agents, intentional accelerationists, and the absolute most genuinely ignorant of people. Maybe I’m jaded, but the alternative is legitimately incomprehensible to me at this point.There is something to this; however, there are historical examples of rather quick progress. FDR for one (public work projects and infrastructure, financial reforms, regulations, social security, etc.), when old and young, the president, government employees, the whole general public (with some exceptions), held to popular principles of egalitarian fairness against the few unconscionably rich. A time of tasty pills.
Aren’t 70+ years enough time though? Those people are done. You can’t ask them to swallow bitter pills for that long of a time while also telling them to shut up because “you are enabling the enemy”. They have valid criticisms that some key people from the Democratic side are far too happy to ignore. Honest question…how do you compromise with an ongoing genocide in an apartheid state?
Honest question…how do you compromise with an ongoing genocide in an apartheid state?
Same way we compromised with the UK and France in WW1, or the Soviet Union in WW2, or Turkiye during the Cold War, or Saudi Arabia in the modern day.
When there are some 200 countries in the world, all with their own squabbles that affect their region and themselves, taking no sides is still taking sides - and no side is clean. The idea that there’s some ideal option where no one gets hurt is just not the reality of things. Not every conflict is like this - not every conflict will continue to be like this. We can make a better world. But not by sitting on our hands now in an attempt to keep them ‘clean’. Short of quite literally conquering the entire world, all of our choices are necessarily limited by the need to take a side in most conflicts, in which both sides are often pretty gruesome.
That being said, fuck Israel. Revoke everything. Side with Palestine.
We didnt give it 70 years. 40 years ago we had Ronald Fucking Reagan gutting the federal government like a fish, and we go back to that party like a pendulum every 4 to 8 years.
Some of them no doubt, a lot of them are younger voters that are just sick of their country never having been sliding down into more and more blatant evil for their entire lives.
Or ones who don’t understand propaganda when they see it
They could have also shut the fuck up at any point previous, but we’ll accept “now” as well.
THANK YOU. Jesus fucking Christ thank you. I’m so sick of this shit
What are you talking about? My close friend from Texas Oblast who owns a barbecuing shop says this all the time!
Ah yes, Texas-Oblast-Barbecuing-Joint next to famous warm water port, right?
Da. His Name is Alexejohn Smith
deleted by creator
One is supporting genocide, but the other is actually doing it.
Id prefer not to support the side that says “finish the job”
I’d prefer neither, and in any case I’d still refuse to promise my vote to a party before the election. If Harris wants my guaranteed support she’ll have to start acting like it.
Now is the best time to push the party left, and genocide is the one issue I absolutely refuse to compromise on.
Any vote not for Harris is a vote for Trump because of how our system works. You would be actively pushing closer to the final annihilation of Gaza by not doing everything in your p-
Oh fuck it. You fucking morons will never understand at this rate. I just hate seeing you pretend you actually give a single fuck about those poor people when you’re just using them to virtue signal
I’m not saying not to vote, I’m saying not to make yourself ignorable. If the DNC knows they have your vote they won’t have any reason to try and earn it.
In a perfect world maybe, but not how it actually works. Please vote for your best interests. A not vote is that same a vote against your own interests.
I’m not saying not to vote, I’m saying not to make yourself ignorable. If the DNC knows they have your vote they won’t have any reason to try and earn it.
You said you can’t garauntee you’ll vote for Kamala and that she needs to earn your vote. Also that you shouldn’t be ignored.
What are you saying? Are you saying there’s a possibility you’ll vote for trump? Because that’s the only other option… unless you don’t vote.
I guess I’m just confused about how are going to get these people to see you. How are you going to not be ignored? The whole no confidence vote already happened, and the next vote is the only one left
What are you saying? Are you saying there’s a possibility you’ll vote for trump?
If Trump was able to convince me that he’d stop America’s support for genocide then I would.
And until Harris can do the same, the Democrats do not have my fealty.
that’s the only other option… unless you don’t vote.
That is precisely the risk that the Democrat party is taking. If there is no option for voting against genocide, then people like me might not feel enthusiastic about getting out of the house on voting day.
I guess I’m just confused about how are going to get these people to see you.
The same as any organization, public opinion polling:
The party is well aware that the fraction of their base that wants to stay the course on America’s national support for genocide is a minority.
That they have not already changed their stance is evidence that they do not see a need to do so. They must be confident that they can win the election without the support of uncommitted voters.
Bet.
I’m really tired of Trump not being in prison.
I’m really tired of Trump not being in prison.
Yes, but I’m more tired of realizing he will never be in prison. There’s not a judge in the country that seems willing to do more than make him fork over a little of his pocket lint. And if it’s ever more than that, it’s still going to be an ankle bracelet and a 1% lifestyle.
One justice system for the rich and powerful, another for the rest of us.
If Trump were ever facing real jail time, he would hie himself off to Russia or Saudi Arabia. Which would be better than nothing, to be sure.
It would be great if nature took its course because the legal system never fucking will.
Merrick Garland is such a disappointment.
Assuming the election goes in a positive direction, this might be the feds just letting him make his own bed… and hopefully, they throw the book at him afterwards. It’s of course a moot point if he wins, for a lot of reasons.
Edit: fwiw I don’t disagree with the pessimism. Justice delayed is justice denied.
It’s also moot if he dies. I’m really tired of the feds just letting him make his own bed.
Yeah, I agree, the amount of pussyfooting is un-fucking-believable
what book? The supreme court just ruled that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for anything that can be considered “official acts.” So nixon wouldn’t have to worry if he were president now.
hopefully, they throw the book at him afterwards
This is the same genre as the people who insisted that Merrick Garland was just dotting his i’s and crossing his t’s before nailing Trump.
Oh please, 6they seem to be waiting for Trump to walk right into a prison cellt, lock himself in and throw away the key
This bs excuse has been peddled since 2016
If the election goes the right way we can have another 4 years of ccourthouse drama l. After which we will b back where we r today.
Oh fuck no that’s not it.
I’m tired of him not being in Hell.
I think the last Republican presidential candidate to sabotage peace talks to help his own campaign was Richard Nixon in the Vietnam War, so Trump is just continuing their tradition of killing innocents for personal gain.
Reagan sabotaged the Iran hostages deal
So it is rumored
And those are only the ones we know of; dealing in death is pretty standard fare for people high up in Washington
It’s not rumors anymore. It’s a settled fact.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43368900/reagan-iran-hostages/
It’s gonna be awesome in 20 years to hear of Reagans impeachment while the crops and natural world are collapsing. Progress!
Bruh. Reagan.
Throwback to Reagan’s team intentionally sabotaging negotiations for the Iran hostage crisis, so it would make Jimmy Carter look bad right before the election.
Also Nixon sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks.
Yeah, Nixon got the presidency for it when it should’ve gotten him the rope. I don’t think trump will get either out of this
With Roger fucken Stone lurking in the background in both situations.
Yhe gop needs to be banned.
How did that not get him insta-arrested for treason.
They didn’t jail Nixon or that shitbag kissenger for the same shit, doubt anything will be done about this. Hell, both of those asshats got to live out their years rubbing elbows and “advising” the political elite of both parties.
Nor Reagan
Thanks for carrying water.
If that’s how you view it, you’re welcome.
“Doubt anything will be done”
Because the vast majority of the electorate, like you, are clearly fine repeating the same lie
Didn’t Nixon do the same thing with the Vietnam war?
And Regan with Iran hostages. It’s almost like Republicans always pull this shit and never get in trouble for it…
Sabotaged the Paris peace talks that traitor, self-serving bastard.
Woohoo maybe this time there will be consequences since he is not president and it can’t be an official act …
How has that worked out so far?
Let’s find out in 5 years.
To spoil his legacy like this, he must be so ashamed.
Spoil his legacy? Like, if someone treads in a huge, perfectly formed, steaming hot dog turd? That kind of spoilt legacy?
And shame? The man is a weapons-grade narcissistic arsehole. He doesn’t know the meaning of the word.
Wow, if only there was something we could do about people crossing legal lines. Alas, we have tried nothing and are out of ideas.
If only we had, like, books or documents with laws written down in them, so we could know for certain when legal lines are crossed. That way headlines could just say “Trump broke the law”, instead of “Trump may have broken the law. We’re not sure, but yeah probably. We think. Maybe? Who knows?”
I mean they have tried a few things, republicans keep blocking it.
The Logan Act was passed in 1799. A grand total of two people were charged with violating it, and none were convicted.
Those fun facts are never going to change. Prosecutors should find something else to charge Trump with, it won’t be hard.
We can always change the traditions
One reason that it’s never used is that a lot of lawyers suspect banning negotiation with anyone, even a foreign power, violates the First Amendment.
And if it’s used against the Trump then the SCOTUS will surely agree.
In that respect, I don’t disagree with them. Though they’re right for very much the wrong reason.
The trouble with prosecuting Trump under the Logan Act is that, technically, the ceasefire would not be an agreement between the US and a foreign government. It would be an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Here’s the text of the act:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Now, I would argue that brokering a ceasefire counts as “measures of the United States,” but it’s not a slam dunk legal argument. Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don’t have any faith that he will be held accountable.
Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don’t have any faith that he will be held accountable.
While judicial corruption is a real risk, this sort of assumed helplessness just lets them implement it without actually doing the corruption and putting their credibility on the line. And it could be applied to literally anything. Once you assume the Court will always act corruptly, it doesn’t matter whether a legal question exists, they’ll do it anyway.
He probably won’t be held accountable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be initiating court cases for every violation of the law. They can die in the Supreme Court and be added to the list of reasons for why extreme reforms are necessary.
He probably won’t be held accountable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be initiating court cases for every violation of the law.
I agree with you completely, but also keep in mind that every corrupt ruling from the current federal and supreme courts is a precedent that must be later replaced if/when we get reasonable judges in place. Not only do we need to win, but we need the court to hear a case where a former president is charged with a crime and the “official acts” bullshit is thrown out. That, or the legislature passes a constitutional amendment. Until either one of those happens, presidents have immunity from prosecution.
or to defeat the measures of the United States
My first thought is that the US is trying to broker a cease fire, so that should definitely count as a measure of the US.
The founding fathers weren’t unaware of international affairs and that countries do things that are not in relation to their own country. So that last clause seems to specifically address those other things.
I agree with you, but I doubt very much that Trump’s judges will rule against him.
How about the media stop using caveats like “may have” when shit is entirely 100% clear.
There are laws on the books regarding things like this. There is no may have. It’s cut and fucking dried.
Because they don’t want to be sued.
It’s only libel if it’s not true. If he threatens to sue, grow some balls, call his bluff and make him prove it’s not true in court.
Threatening to sue, effectively forcing the media to back down because it would too inconvenient to deal with a suit is how Trump keeps getting away with his bullshit.
No, it’s about access. They don’t want to lose access.
There is the Logan Act, but he likely would not be prosecuted under it, let alone convicted. From Wikipedia:
Only two people have ever been indicted on charges of violating the Act, one in 1802 and the other in 1852. Neither was convicted.
The Logan Act gets talked about much more than it has ever been used. There’s also a debate as to whether the Logan Act is even unconstitutional.
Well from your own Wikipedia source, it’s never been used successfully.
Yup, that’s the point. The journalist who wrote OP’s article should know better. The Logan Act is functionally dead. As much as I hate Trump, it would be a bad thing if he was prosecuted under it because it would clearly be a case of selective prosecution.
Also trump is above the law so the headline is pointless
They really can’t say “has” because it’s possible he wins the case in court. It should be something like “seems to have” though. “May have” means there’d a chance. It should be something that means “it is likely.”
Sorry, but no.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t work that way. It’s a legal fiction imposed upon the courts and justice system as a means of (poorly) protecting the civil rights and liberties of those who are accused.
On that, it’s a very important “fiction”- don’t get me wrong.
What it does not do, however, is change historical reality. If Jackass murders a homeless woman, Jackass is a murderer- even if that woman’s murder was never properly investigated, and he was never suspected/indicted/arraigned/convicted for murder.
One’s guilt at having committed a crime does not, in fact, change based on the outcome of a trial. After all the officers of the court, and the jury, are all human and prone to errors. They get it wrong. Sometimes that means guilty people go free, and sometimes that means innocent people are convicted.
But the truth of that guilt is established when one commits a crime.
So I’ll say it: Trump is a mass murderer.
As president, he had a legal, moral and ethical obligation to act to protect Americans from harm during moments of crisis
This includes from things like COVID. He had a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to voice sound medical guidance like “hey folks, I know it’s tough and it looks a little silly, but we need you to stay home if you can, and if you can’t, wear a mask. A real mask.”
He failed us in that moment of crisis and as a direct consequence of his rampant bullshit; millions of Americans needlessly died.
There has been no consequences to his actions so of course he is going to do whatever he wants.
He’s got what, 34 federal crime convictions?
He’s still running around and the media is still treating him like some random dude running for president, oh look what crazy don said seven times today!
Shits ridiculous
No, a random dude would have been in prison years ago for doing a fraction of the shit this man has done.
Low level bureaucrats working in municipal government are subject to much stricter ethics rules. It’s absurd.
34 felony convictions for fraudulently interfering in the 2016 election that made him President.
You know, the guy who accuses others of stealing elections from him — and getting people killed over it btw — after he already committed fraud to help win an election.
Every accusation from the right is a confession in disguise.
Wouldn’t be the first time he has ‘crossed legal lines’.
However, wouldn’t it be great if it was the last time?
Just wait and see: all it takes is for a judge to tell him not to do it - ten consecutive times, THEN threaten with actual consequences, and THEN you may or may not see him become more circumspect about his transgressions in order to skirt the legal line a tiny bit less obviously!
After all: everyone is equal before the law!*
*Unless you bought the highest judges and make them declare you an absolute ruler immune to criminal law.
Netanyahu revealing which part of the US he’s really an “ally” of. Maybe stop giving blank checks to a foreign power destabilizing your country
while you only hand out loans and debt to Ukraine?First of all, there aren’t any blank checks. Foreign aid isn’t a lump sum of money just given to a country. We allocate it to a spending purse and they can choose to spend it on specific items the US agrees upon, which is usually weapons. We don’t just give them cash.
Second, which debt? The US hasn’t issued any debt to Ukraine since the war started, except for possibly private companies.
I agree with your sentiment, just not the facts.
I might be wrong about the loans and debt to Ukraine, just tried to double check it and couldn’t so I don’t know where I got that idea. I’m glad then if this isn’t the case. Thanks for the callout on that.
But I was aware of how Israel receives aid, and while calling it a blank check might be an exaggeration, that point still stands. The fact that they receive it as credit for offensive wide area weapons probably encourages them more to use said weapons with destructive consequences to their civilian population, and that Israel might say to the US that it will consider a two state solution while they condemn, accuse of antisemitism, and break ties who recognize those who would recognize the Palestine state says they are definitely being duplicitous at best. What is happening in the West Bank speaks for Israel’s true intent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqK3_n6pdDY
I appreciate your willingness to correct the record.
As for the aid to Israel, I agree that the nature of the assistance and how it’s used is a critical issue. I completely agree with your points and now understand your usage of “blank check”.
He’s been campaigning for Republicans since Romney ran in 2012.
nail him for treason