Supporting Israel is not the same as supporting Netanyahu.

Biden and Netanyahu have a decades-long relationship that has at times been strained. At the Monday evening reception, Biden said he once gifted Netanyahu a photo and wrote at the top: “I love you but I don’t agree with a damn thing you had to say.”

“It’s about the same today,” Biden said, adding he’d “had my differences with some Israeli leadership.”

Sounds like he's criticizing Netanyahu.

From a utilitarian point of view, it probably makes more sense to attempt to minimize suffering rather than opting out of the decision and thereby passively enable greater suffering.

But hey, it's the trolley problem all over again, and people hate even thinking about that one.

Oh, corruption is going to thrive under Trump. Did you not notice that last time around? Did you not notice the fake charities, the tax payer money funneled into Mar-a-Lago, the hundreds of millions going to Trump PACs, the money going to the Trump hotel in Washington DC, all the corruption and bribes and schemes?

And the fun thing is that now that Trump knows how to do all of this, how to funnel millions into his own pocket, a second Trump presidency is going to be corruption on steroids.

The only thing that's going to crumble are democratic norms and human rights in the United States.

Ironically, so is supporting the Hamas position that Israel shouldn't exist.

And don't get me started how you condemned October 7th as a terrorist attack even though it's perfectly legal to take a military action against a foreign occupier.

Can you spell that out a little bit more?

How is it legal to commit mass murder on hundreds of civilians? How is mass rape legal? How is murdering children and babies legal? How is kidnapping, torture and sexual violence legal?

it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

You know, that's exactly what people said about Roe v. Wade and about banning abortion.

Turns out that you can keep losing on an issue for 50 years, yet winning only once will drastically change the trajectory of the entire issue.

That's because they like the idea of a Trump dictatorship. They simply assume they'd be on the side that's going to do the dictating.

It's hardly possible to do worse

There are about a million ways to do worse.

For example, a U.S. president could send American ground troops into Gaza. Or recognize Gaza and the West Bank as Israeli territory. Or increase military aid to Israel tenfold. Or launch a preemptive military attack against Hezbollah. Or launch a ground attack against the Huthi rebels for firing rockets at Israel. Or increasing tensions with Iran for funding Hamas. Or round up suspected Hamas supporters in the U.S. and deport them. Or round up suspected Palestine supporters in the U.S. and hold them in indefinite detention. Or create a House Committee for Un-American Activities. Or bring back "enhanced interrogation" for questioning Americans suspected of un-American activities.

The possibilities are really unlimited.

This is like arguing that voting for Hitler as Reichskanzler wouldn't be so bad, because at worst he would be doing the exact same thing as Kurt von Schleicher.

But that's the thing: things can always get worse. And Trump has proven time and time again that he's willing to make things worse.

Which is why they released women for the other 7 days. Love how this article contradicts itself in the first sentence.

Here's the entire sentence:

Israeli official says Hamas doesn’t want to release remaining women because it doesn’t want them speaking publicly about what they endured on Oct. 7 and in their time in captivity

which clearly implies that Hamas was fine releasing female hostages that were treated okay, but is refusing to release the remaining female hostages that have possibly been abused, raped, sexually mistreated.

You obviously don't have to agree with that analysis, but where exactly do you see the contradiction?

Yeah, but see: she worked incredibly hard to

• defeat hate crimes prevention legislation
• prevent extending disaster aid to Kathrina victims
• prevent the expansion of the Voting Rights Act
• prevent the Armenian genocide from being declared a "genocide"

and she firmly stood her ground in telling everyone that Obamacare was a danger to the nation bigger than any terrorist attack on America ever could be.

That's a lot of hard work, you see?

Also Kevin McCarthy. And Chris Christie. And Rex Tillerson. And Omarosa. And Steve Bannon. And Scramucci. And Reince Priebus. And Mike Pence. And Michael Flynn. And John Kelly. And Sebastian Gorka. And John Bolton.

There are literally hundreds of people who swore allegiance to Trump, only to be thrown under the bus.

That's because every single person who slights him even the tiniest bit was obviously always his enemy, and he obviously always knew this. Probably a RINO, a secret Democrat, a stealthy undercover deep state fake Republican. Very bad person, could not be trusted, in fact Trump barely knew them, they begged him for the job, but they simply weren't up to it.

Even if he praised that same person to high heaven just the day before.

Evidence: the 263 people he hired and fired in the last administration (with the firing usually done via Twitter, when they were far away from wherever he was tweeting from).

Judges simply shouldn't be nominated by one single person, particularly if that person is the de facto leader of his political party. And confirmation of judges simply shouldn't be possible purely based on how many seats that same party holds in the Senate and, in a worst case scenario, without any kind of bipartisanship purely along party lines.

Because that essentially means that Supreme Court judges are nominated and confirmed by the political parties.

Apart from maybe a president being able to single-handed determining Supreme Court judges, almost any other system would be better. Including - as shitty as that would be - direct election of Supreme Court judges by the entire electorate.

You'll never completely eliminate all possible bias from human beings serving on a nation's highest court, but out of the things that could be done, the United States is doing exactly nothing.

Not at all.

If you're just whining about the Democrats because you think they're too far to the right instead of whining about the Democrats because you think they're too far to the left, then you can always vote in primaries, support better candidates, run for (even just local) office, campaign, phone bank, lobby your representatives, join one of the thousands of political pressure groups, work for a think tank, or do literally anything that's more than just whining on the internet.

The Affordable Care Act isn't something that only happened once in the distant past. Hundreds of thousands of people in North Carolina will benefit from Medicaid starting December 1st 2023, thanks to the ACA.

That said: you can always vote Republican.

I hear Trump wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something absolutely incredible this time around.

"Achso dieser Terroranschlag. Ja das waren natürlich wir"

"Die Terroristen sind natürlich Helden. Und übrigens rufen wir noch zu viel mehr Terroranschlägen auf Zivilisten auf!"

Why should Democrats want to permanently do away with the filibuster when they only ever had a razor thin majority and were facing an opposition hellbent on destroying the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and leaving 40 million Americans without health insurance?

Last time voters gave Democrats a significant enough majority, they got the Affordable Care Act. If voters want Democrats to act decisively, all they need to do is give them a decisive majority.

Voting for Republicans and then whining that Democrats get nothing done isn't going to achieve anything.

How many out of those years did Democrats have the White House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House?

If your answer is "zero," then you're just admitting that the last time Democrats had a viable majority, they actually got shit done.

One party got Obamacare done and is responsible that 40 million Americans who otherwise wouldn't have health insurance are covered by the Affordable Care Act.

The other side has sabotaged Obamacare in any kind of way possible, has blocked the Obamacare expansion to uninsured people in their own home states, has sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to eliminate Obamacare, has campaigned for 10 years against Obamacare, and came to within one single vote of eliminating Obamacare without any kind of replacement whatsoever.

And here you are, telling us how both parties are the same.