97
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
97 points (99.0% liked)
Slop.
190 readers
357 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
The entity has been getting everything they want from the U.S. for ~~years~~ decades
So it's pretty galling but Eisenhower, Reagan (!!), Nixon (!!), and George HW Bush all pushed back against Israel in their own ways, much more than this current era of US presidents. I'd have to check the intervening Clinton era etc. but I'm pretty sure that the last time a US president decided to say no to Israel in any significant way was by George HW Bush. I guess that Mossad/Epstein ~~kompromat~~ dirt from running honeypots really works wonders to advance the interests of Israel (looking at you Clinton).
Y'know what's weird though? Seems like, at least historically speaking, Republican presidents were the ones who were willing to push back on Israel. It seems my non-voter/3rd voter position was wrong, those commenters are right. It's a two-party system. Given that Biden-Harris failed to even attempt to push back on Israel in any meaningful way, it seems like I should have been advocating for a Republican vote.
This is a position that is entirely consistent with their own internal logic btw. Blue MAGA cannot help but keep producing strategic Ls. They're gonna murder their own party's chances of ever getting reelected if they keep at it with their commitment to Pyrrhic victories.
Fwiw kompromat is a thought terminating cliche used to imply not that someone is being blackmailed but that specifically they're co-opted by Russia for Russian interests. Liberal disinformatsya if you will
Oh no shit, thanks for letting me know. Seems like that liberal in my head isn't quite dead, even after all this time.
When someone is co-opted by US interests, it's kkkompromat.
The last president to threaten to withhold military aid was George H. W. Bush. He didn't--because Israel gave in to demands for a bit.