politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
According to this comment, the law requires an investigation, so yes, an investigation is a plan. If you want to say the law is delaying the ceasefire, sure. But Harris didn't write that law. Harris is following the laws she needs to follow in order to stop the genocide.
And since it says the genocide gets to continue, you uncritically accept the comment's interpretation of the law.
The Leahy law is a thing, but that's discretionary because it gets in the way of genocide.
If you'd like to present a critique of the interpretation, drag will listen. What drag will not do is be complicit in any way in genocide.
I already did, and you did not listen.
No, drag didn't understand. Your critique was one short sentence. The idea it's supposed to be refuting was several paragraphs. Drag doesn't know what point you were trying to make because you rushed it and used multiple ambiguous pronouns. Explain it properly.
The idea was one excuse buried in several paragraphs about multiple subjects. The Leahy law prohibits selling weapons to governments that we know are committing war crimes. Pretending that Netanyahu isn't committing war crimes and vaguely announcing that you support an investigation because that's the only way you can proceed is slow-walking compliance with a law that centrists don't want to follow and have no intention of ever following.
Frankly, I doubt you will accept any explanation that involves anything that might curtail weapons sales to Netanyahu before his genocide is complete and it's too little, too late.
Okay, the law says we need to know it's a genocide. That means Harris needs proof that it's a genocide. And the proof needs to be compelling enough to stop the MAGA SCOTUS from meddling. Therefore, investigation. Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing. You explained the law in a way that matches what drag heard.
The standard for the Leahy law is that the nation in question has to be credibly implicated in a serious abuse of human rights. The idea that any proof needs to be acceptable to genocide-happy MAGA is just an excuse to continue selling weapons. Any investigation would determine if we should resume arms sales, not a slow walk to delay ceasing arms sales.
Seems to me like anything that keeps the genocide going is considered by you to be the right thing.
You're making an ethical argument, and drag already 100% agrees with you ethically. If you want to disagree with drag, try making a legal argument.
I doubt that.
I did. You ignored it more than once. It's why I doubt your agreement with my ethical argument.