I wish all I needed to tell me what to trust is a simple graph. According to that, I should be relying a lot more on CNN & NYT. If a majority of Americans don't know at this point that MSM media outlets & politicians on both sides are highly influenced by the Israeli lobby, then they might as well start sending their taxpayer dollars to Israel themself.
I never read that Israel represents all Jews, nor how opposing genocide is antisemitic. I'd strongly argue that a country committing genocide while claiming to represent all Jews are actually engaging in antisemitism, especially since those they are genociding are semitic people.
You're leaving out the most pertinent details, their bruh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
If you're going to steal land & displace a million people, don't be surprised when they revolt. The whole world sees Israel as the colonizing imperialists they've always been, and the colonizing monarchy that claimed back then Zionists could steal the land have ragrets.
First, if you actually believe Trump has violated the constitution then this is how you do it, in court. Trump does not have the ability to impeach judges, and it requires 2/3 majority of Congress.
While the Supreme Court may overrule decisions in some instances, they've shown at least some indication that they have a redline that he's too stupid to realize. All I have to say at that point, is good luck attacking your own appointed Supreme Court Justices. See how that plays out for ya.
Legal judgements & opinions—even the ones that are based on flawed theories—are not a simple waive of the pen. I imagine even with significant corruption, that a process of keeping it almost entirely secret while trying to warp law into something else entirely is such a significant undertaking, that it isn't sustainable.
The second & most important part however, what Trump is asking is that they instead not even try that, but instead ignore even basic judicial standards. While that might fly in some red states where he's got a majority of support, once any faith is lost in the Supreme Court by District & Circuit courts, then you'll see how a breakdown in the judiciary would take down Trump. Congress would not have the votes to impeach. There is no disciplinary action if the District & Circuit courts decide to no longer rely on Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court only hears about 100 to 150 cases out of the more than 7,000 requests it receives each year. It is not structured to hear every single case of defiance from lower courts. If they altogether stopped relying entirely on Supreme Court precedent, the Supreme Court simply has no authority other than reversal. Furthermore, this would create such a breakdown that Republicans would immediately be pressured into impeachment of the President, knowing that they wouldn't have the votes to amend the Constitution or impeach the judges.
LOL... this is a new argument I've been noticing more & more. It goes something like this... "Hamas made Israel commit a genocide." If I was paying $7,000 per comment on social media, I'd be asking for a refund for such low effort Israeli propaganda.
It isn't an entire side. You can't just see people in black & white. Many of these people are like past versions of ourselves, the ones that need people to guide them. You can't force everyone to see things from your point of view. A lot of times they just need good examples. If they aren't arguing in good faith, then try a different strategy or call them out. Or change the discussion to how you feel they're not being honest, and ask them why they feel the need to lie. Just be genuine but violence doesn't solve things. It will hurt the causes you care about more than anything else right now.
The not arguing in good faith goes both ways, but people on the left & right can have good faith arguments while still disagreeing. Debates aren't about making someone else agree with you at the end. It is about challenging each other's ideas.
Why is it a problem for you to condemn political violence? Either you oppose it or you don't, end of story. If someone asked you condemn sexual assault, would you do it or claim the prob with condemning it is people still voted for Trump?
Not here on Lemmy apparently, or at least not in this community especially.
TYT didn't coopt the entire progressive movement. They are a voice in the progressive movement, which anyone is capable of doing, including yourself. You claim Cenk is one of the biggest frauds on the entire internet but don't provide any evidence to support that. Cenk has been consistent, honest & fair. He has shown strong moral character & that seems to make you mad.
The Hitler comparison actually proves my point - Hitler was a dictator who invaded countries and orchestrated genocide. Kirk was a campus activist who held debates. Who despite having ideas we opposed, still engaged in dialogue. If we can't distinguish between those two things, if every political opponent becomes 'literally Hitler,' then we've lost the ability to have proportional responses to actual threats.
My concern isn't about protecting Kirk's memory - it's about what celebrating political murder does to democratic discourse and how it hands ammunition to people who want to justify their own extremism. When the left cheers assassination, it makes every accusation about us being violent radicals seem credible.
97
UnitedHealthcare lawsuit accuses Guardian of trying to ‘capitalize’ on CEO’s killing
(www.semafor.com)
view more: next ›
Yes... Democracy Now for example, but they'd probably be considered even more left for reporting the truth.