Democrats wrestle with whether to attend Netanyahu’s address to Congress as many plan to boycott
Democrats wrestle with whether to attend Netanyahu’s address to Congress as many plan to boycott
The last time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress, nearly 60 Democrats skipped his speech nine years ago.
You're viewing a single thread.
“I wish that he would be a statesman and do what is right for Israel. We all love Israel,” former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said recently on CNN about Netanyahu. “We need to help them and not have him stand in the way of that for such a long time.”
She added, “I think it’s going to invite more of what we have seen in terms of discontent among our own.”
-
We don't "all love Israel".
-
It's incredibly concerning leadership understands this hurts the party but won't even do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Hell, it's not even for the wrong reasons. As they keep saying, it's vital that we stop republicans. But for some reason that's not enough of a reason to stop supporting genocidal maniacs threatening WW3
Reasons don’t stop Republicans, a House majority does.
Dem majorities rarely do either, tbh.
The Dem leadership consider compromise for the sake of compromise the highest virtue and refuse to adjust that belief to the realities that
A) The GOP is now a literal fascist party,
B) The fascist GOP does not ever negotiate in good faith, and thus
C) any compromise with them will be unacceptable concessions in exchange for little to nothing.
Democratic majorities are rare. The last time Democrats had control of Congress we got the ACA and DACA.
Democratic majorities are rare
Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn't in the "Blue No Matter Who" cult of settling for second worst.
The last time Democrats had control of Congress we got the ACA and DACA
Which are both extremely watered down versions of what they initially promised. This due to the efforts of the very right wing Democrats the leadership keeps pushing over more progressive candidates whose policy positions are more in line with those of the population in general rather than the rich people, corporations and management side industry groups who donate a shitload of money to both Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn’t in the “Blue No Matter Who” cult of settling for second worst.
No, because land area determines the legislature and not population. The Republican Senate hasn't represented more than half the population in the US since 1996, but had control for most of that time. Every Democratic majority is a short-lived thing after massive uphill battle, because America leans hard to the right we value land area more than people.
In short: This is the best our government can do, because it's structurally deficient and Americans are pretty dumb.
No, because land area determines the legislature and not population
That's a big part of the reason too, yes.
AmericaAmerican law leans hard to the rightweit values land area more than peopleFixed it for you. And guess who's had ample opportunity to do something, ANYTHING, about that throughout the decades and have hardly even tried beyond empty campaign ad sound bites? Starts with a D..
This is the best our government can do
Ridiculous defeatism.
because it's structurally deficient
Which SOME people have the power to do something about but actively avoid addressing outside of fundraising appeals.
Americans are pretty dumb.
Some are, but NOWHERE near the majority. For example, the largest share of the population that ever voted for Trump was 20%.
Some are, but NOWHERE near the majority.
I disagree with a lot in this post, but this is what I disagree with the most.
So if you can’t get what you want, you’d rather have the opposite than settle?
Nope. That's both a strawman and a false dichotomy.
I'm saying that the Dems aren't good enough.
"Slightly better than literal fascists" is not a high enough bar and demanding more isn't the same thing as endorsing the fascists.
If that's still too hard to understand, let me put it this way: in spite of having done nothing to deserve it, you're being given the choice between being kicked in the head or stabbed in the liver.
Objecting to the lesser assault is NOT a request to be stabbed.
That’s an imperfect analogy. It’s more like defending yourself. You may still get stabbed, but you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing.
That’s an imperfect analogy
Of course it's imperfect. It was dumbed down for you to be able to understand it. Unsuccessfully, alas.
It’s more like defending yourself
No it's not. Saying that everyone being kicked in the head should stop complaining about the assault and in stead thank the assailants for not being the other, worse, assailants is NOT defending anyone.
You may still get stabbed
Yeah, that's the other thing I didn't cover: sometimes the kicking assailants will just straight up let you be stabbed anyway even if you elected enough of them.
They're being paid much more by the steel toe boot association and the combat knife manufacturers than anyone trying to make the assaults stop, after all..
you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing
Protesting inaction in the face of fascism isn't nothing.
Advocating for the rotten status quo that allowed the rise of fascism, though? THAT'S doing nothing.
Going so far as shaming dissenting opinions, lumping everyone who's not satisfied with negative peace (the absence of disorder) in with the fascists? That's WORSE than doing nothing.
-