johker216

Biden did not "strike it down", he halted all EOs not in effect so their administration can review them (see: the first paragraph of the linked article). Instead of re-issuing an EO, something that can be withdrawn on a whim (see: your post), Biden did the actual hard work of working with Congress to help pass the Inflation Reduction Act. The $35 cap is now backed by law rather than by diktat. Trump took the lazy path and issued the EO in the last days of his Presidency - a Presidency he spent quite a long time using to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Try understanding the issue instead of spamming MAGA talking points.

No, Romney made that rhetorical statement and Blinken looked flabbergasted that the statement was even made.

Romney's statement was made in the context, ironically, that certain social media "news" is made in the absence of any historical context as appeals to emotions instead of facts. The fact that the Twitter poster made an obvious cut to give "context" to Romney's strange claim is an example of what Blinken said is wrong with certain social media news "sources".

TikTok ban discussions have been going on for a long time, well prior to Hamas's October attack, and it's a distortion of reality to claim motives otherwise.

Romney should not be a role model for anything other than uncompassionate conservatism. If this type of "news" article is indicative of how many people get their information, then reality really is fluid for a whole lot of people and that's scary. Though it's hardly unsurprising with the amount of obvious propaganda sites posting "news" about the conflict that people take as gospel.

He also knows Bubbles? Small world!

You need to understand that most people's understanding of the conflicts in the Middle East started on October 7, 2023.

^ this right here

Could it be in the realm of possibility that people in Michigan, and other states, view the conflict in the Middle East as more complicated than "Israel bad"? People are capable of viewing the actions of the current Israeli leadership as anathema while still understanding the rationale behind continued military support.

Using loaded language like "infested" only raises questions on other biases coloring opinions.

Which is more likely for underground tunnels that don't hold many people and are kitted for permanent subterranean living:

1. a safe place for a terrorist organization's leadership and inner circle to plan attacks with the easy ability to traverse the city unknown
2. temporary bomb shelters for the population of Gaza

At what point will people, who bend over backwards to defend a designated terrorist organization who exclusively target civilians, admit that the conflict is more complicated than "Israel bad" - when Hamas revives indiscriminate bus bombings of Israelis (or do they pine for the 90s/2000s again)? Netanhanyu needs to go, but Hamas doesn't even try to distinguish between military targets and civilians - all Israelis are military targets (genocide). The victims in this conflict are Palestinian and Israeli civilians and this needs to not be forgotten in their haze of Israeli bloodlust.

How appropriate, you fight like a cow!

And what Hamas is trying to accomplish is also genocide - but this is all besides the point. The larger question is this: what would it take for you to believe even a fraction of what the Israeli military claims?

Can it be true that the IDF is indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians as well as telling the truth?

Would you claim that Hamas is justified in their killing of civilians if the Israeli military also kills civilians?

Even further: what happens if all foreign governments stop sending aid to Israel and Lebanon/Hamas/etc. attack Israeli citizens with the intent of purging them? Would you suddenly support the IDF in it's struggle to protect Israeli citizens from these groups who have already made it clear that their primary purpose is the genocide of the Jews in the Levant?

Regardless of anyone's feelings on the IDF, it is incumbent on all of us to take the claims of Hamas and Israel with a massive grain of salt - you may not believe in the credibility of the IDF but you certainly cannot dismiss the engrained antisemitism of Hamas and others in the region and believe them at face value.

If you knew saying that word could cause pain in others, why would you say it and further celebrate it? OP may not have meant their question this way, but your comment is how I identify people with poor emotional intelligence.

So genocide is ok as long as enough time passes from the event? It's such an obvious dog whistle when those opposed to the current genocide are magically unopposed to the genocide perpetrated against a certain group of people "before 1930". It's not ok to perform acts of genocide against the Palestinian civilians today nor is it ok for the historical Jewish populations to have had acts of genocide perpetrated against them.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment clearly state that the federal government has more, read: supreme, power over the states. You may be misremembering that the phrase "nor prohibited by it to the States" exists in the amendment. Basically, a federal law today will immediately and automatically nullify a 200 year old state law - precedence nor time of the state law will survive a Supreme Court review even if all 9 Justices are Federalist Society lackeys.

Except these warrants aren't granted for "any reason" and I'm fairly sure you know that as well. Like I implied in my comment, the government is not some monolithic entity where all government employees conspire to deprive you, John Q. Public, of all of your rights.

My claim is only that no matter how well implemented a program may be, certain individuals will still claim corruption where none statistically exists. The whole point of our society is to implement laws, execute those laws, evaluate if those laws are having a positive affect on mitigating the problem it's meant to solve, and change the law to address shortcomings or unnecessary bits.

Of course we should all be skeptical of the process, but arguing against change because we don't feel like the results are going to be what we like is irrational. Past behavior is important to keep in mind but let's not exaggerate and wax hyperbolic. It's simple: If our elected officials aren't implementing and reevaluating laws based on evidence/results, then it is our responsibility to remove those officials from power. If the roadblock to removing those in power are your fellow citizens, it's your responsibility to help gain consensus in your community.

Tearing down, or dismissing, the system is not reasonable; that's partly how in US politics we've become so polarized. People don't have patience anymore for conversation or debate; they want immediate and immaculate change with 100% certainty and that's unrealistic. Change is gradual and is never going to get it right out of the gate.

So come on, if you're French, engage with your community and your elected officials to ensure that this law is implemented (or retracted) as honest as possible and stay engaged. Opinions without reasonable action is how fascism takes hold. I'm not sure how this law will turn out but I'm willing to be surprised that it gets implemented honestly. And if you're not French, well, then I'm pretty sure yours and my opinions on how that citizenry chooses to govern is none of our business (outside of gross universal human rights violations and this is nowhere near the same galaxy).

When people hold conspiracy theories about the government being some monolithic engine of evil, or people who don't believe government should exist because "muh freedoms", any time an arm of the government is used as a check they just don't care. It doesn't matter that their beliefs have no basis in reality - they will dismiss any evidence contrary to their beliefs because it's dangerous to their worldview. It wouldn't matter if 1,000,000 warrants are denied for every 1 warrant approved - the one approval is all the evidence needed to claim tyranny.

In the English speaking world, it is a slur regardless of whether or not you use it as slang for a cigarette. Do you really believe that using a word is more important than making sure others don't feel marginalized? Emotional intelligence is partly about empathy and using that to recognize harmful behavior. A sign of maturity and positive personal growth is realizing that your behavior causes others to feel unwelcome and correcting that behavior. It's fortuitous that, in a thread about signs of poor education, we are having this discussion. Criticisms are learning experiences, not made with malice; malice is purposefully saying something harmful and celebrating it. Will your life truly be ruined by substituting that word so you don't accidentally hurt someone?

How many years of Israeli occupation have to go by until it is no longer considered occupation and Israeli land? There has to be a dividing line between the expulsions 1400 years ago and that time where the land became Palestinian, no? Palestinians and Israelis (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, non-religious, etc.) have an equal claim to existence - many of those that want to disband the colonist state of Israel are also advocating genocide. Genocide doesn't always mean killing - it also means the destruction of national identity. It's obvious that a two state solution is necessary to stop and avoid future genocide of both peoples. "River to the sea" never meant coexistence and I think it's about time people stop advocating for a counter-genocide with that slogan.