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?
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.
Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people
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
way
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 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.
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.
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?
Yes, exactly. That's what I meant, but I think people took it in a partisan way.
Speaking for myself, if I was in charge of a political party that had just gained majority power, I'd have a plan ready to pass as much priority legislation as possible in that term, knowing that I could lose the majority at the next election. The Republicans understood this, which is why we're still dealing with a lot of Trump's executive orders and appointees.
What this lib said. They actually believe the obstructionist bullshit and think Biden would help if he could but his hands are tied. Fairy tale shit.
Moderate, not liberal nor conservative.
Hilarious.
Whatever, lib
You don't believe me?
Liberals, conservatives and moderates in the narrow sense that you are using those terms are just mildly different flavors of liberal ideology, in the original sense of the word.
What "narrow sense"? I literally just said "Moderate, not liberal nor conservative."
In the narrow, U.S. centric sense that you think those are categorically different things when in reality conservatives and moderates are also liberals ideologically.
Hmm, that was not my intent at all. Is there a more appropriate or accurate word you can suggest for somebody that does not fit nicely into either of the two popular US political Ideologies and depending on the topic will either side with a party (which party depends on the topic) or think that nobody has presented a good idea?
Independent voter or non-partisan I guess.
Your terminology is fine in the narrow context of talking to other American libs about mainstream American politics but you’re commenting on a forum full of communists so to us you’re a lib and calling yourself a moderate is meaningless hair-splitting.
Good to know. Thanks for the info.
Lol. if you think there's a functional (key word) difference between the two, beyond aesthetics, you're a
. Sorry, I don't make the rules. Take it up with the parliamentarian.
Did you just call Trump and the entire Republican party libs?
I mean, I would prefer to call them chuds, but yes colloquially they would fit as libs. Both parties can get their panties in a bunch over culture war theater all they want, but at the end of the day their ultimate goal is serving Capital and dismantling any aspect of government that isn't protecting private property or funneling wealth to the top.
Interesting. I have not had the word "lib" explained in such a way. I am more familiar with "snowflake" being used in that context.
I believe that most people associate the word "lib" with a political ideology and by using it you are, even if unwittingly, saying that you think one party is better than the other and should be in power.
I agree and share in your disgust of the current government of the USA. Neither party seems interested in helping the American people unless it profits them directly.
You can thank Rush Limbaugh for that. He spent his entire career using Liberals as an epithet meant to give the illusion of distance between the socially liberal Democrats and the socially regressive Republicans, but both Parties fell under the umbrella of Classical Liberalism in their Economic policies. We don't hold to such illusions here on hexbear. If you take a class based analysis you quickly see that the two "sides" are still moving in lockstep towards the goals mentioned earlier. Lib is especially insulting for us, as it's our politics they're wearing as a mask as they do evil shit. But no, you'd be hard-pressed to find a preference among us for which party should be performing genocide. Chud stands cannibalistic human under dweller, if you still have any misconceptions about how we feel about Trump and his ilk.
You may find the classic Yellow Parenti video interesting. Seems up your alley and I think you'd find it quite enlightening as to our views around here. Plus, Parenti is just a joy to listen to. Dude spoke at the Whitehouse.💁
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xP8CzlFhc14
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Interesting. Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at that link.
Welcome. Enjoy.
Ok so what I'm hearing is that it makes the Democrats look bad. Which I'm fine with, they suck.
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.
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.
Ok I get that they're different funds, different bills, whatever. I don't really care how the sausage of the federal budget gets made, just the results. Stafford Beer said "The purpose of a system is what it does." And right now the American system of government is to kill people in the Middle East. The same Congress said "meh, not right now" to disaster relief, and "hell yeah!" to genocide. I don't see a lot of daylight between the two parties on the issue of genocide.
I'm also inclined to agree with Eisenhower on this one:
To stay focused on your original question, this is why people think statements comparing disaster relief to genocide is a Republican talking point.
The conversation has shifted from who voted for or against providing federal assistance to how the US uses its military and the genocide being committed by Isreal. Without trying to take a side on either topic, this sort of misdirection is the purpose of such statements.
I was never talking about who voted for or against providing federal assistance
To keep this on topic:
You asked why people say that it is a "right wing taking point" when you say "it's fucked up that more money is going to Isntreal than to hurricane relief" and the answer is that you are using a topic Republicans don't want scrutinized as you counter point thus directing the conversation away from what Republicans are trying to avoid. You could have used health care, education, VA benefits, or something more ambiguous. Instead you use an active topic that could erode Republican support and steer the conversation away from a Republican sore spot and towards a Democrat sore spot.
That is why some people are calling it out as a "right wing taking point". I'm simply trying to answer your question.
"What can we do? The system we created and maintained only guarantees that we pay for war."
Generations of democrats have worked to bring us here. The century since the Russian Revolution could've been spent reorienting the economy away from supporting wars on behalf of private capital and instead towards elevating the lives of workers. Democrats chose to be part of the cold war instead. They're shooting misses at weather balloons and fabricating genocides in China. These are people that don't care if you live or die. They're not regretting that they can't do better emergency response. Grow up, nerd.