this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
348 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39082 readers
3131 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The measure received 14 votes in favour, with the US the sole member to reject it. However, because the US is a permanent member of the council, it has the ability to veto any resolution brought forward

Unlike several previous resolutions regarding a ceasefire in Gaza, Wednesday's measure was brought forward by all 10 elected members of the Security Council.

The US has vetoed four previous attempts at calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, on most occasions being the lone vote against the measures.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 hours ago

Why are they even allowed to vote over their own war? Oh I meant Israel's. My bad.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Is there any future where the Security Council is abolished?

Like, where everyone gets tired of this shit from the U.S, Russia, and China, and Europe uses their weight to end it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The thing about the UN generally, and the Security Council in particular, that people don't understand it that its principal isn't to end war globally, but to end global war.

The Permanent 5 members of the security Council and their veto power are a huge part of why it's been sucessful. The veto prevents the UN from engaging in military actions against the interests of a nation that can withstand an extended military conflict with the rest of the world.

And it has worked remarkably well so far. While military conflict and imperialism are still around, the scale of conflicts have significantly decreased. The superpowers no longer engage in direct military conflicts that kill 50 million people, and when one gets uppity the rest of the world.engages in economic and diplomatic isolation instead of war.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

The UN has had nothing to do with contributing to the trend you have described. As unpleasant as it is, that is almost entirely a result of nuclear deterrence.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

So that "Ceasefire" talk under Harris was bullshit eh?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No way to know, she never will be president, nor have had say in any of it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

She is literally vice president, and also had Q&As with the population saying she is in full support of Israel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

The Vice President does have a powerful voice, but except for very specific situations they don't have any power. So while Harris may have more or less supported Israel's war, as a Vice President she can't do anything about it. She also won't become the president so this whole discussion is mute.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 20 hours ago

Anyone who can't see America's true colours by now is simply refusing to look

[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 day ago (1 children)

🤔

Bruh

Lame duck presidency and can't even do the right thing

Ducks aren't even this lame

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Shows he and the Democratic leaders never intended to end the genicide. Just another sign the democrats no longer support anyone but the oligarchy. Yes the Republicans are worse by alot but people that are anti genicide, anti oligarchy, anti fascism, anti authoritarianism, etc don't have a party to vote for. Only the level of oppression they will see in the next 4 years.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Imagine a person having to choose between losing 2 of their limbs or losing all 4 limbs.

Democrats are basically the ones wanting to cut off 2 of your limbs

Republicans want to cut off all your limbs.

Thats what is is. I mean I voted against the party that wants to cut off 4 of my limbs, but I'm just sad that there isn't a party (that can actually win elections) that is saying "we don't cut off any of your limbs".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Me: why orphan crushing machine?

You: because other orphan crushing machine driven by Nazies.

Me: but why don't we destroy orphan crushing machine?

You: because orphan crushing machine go burrrrrrrrr

Me:...........

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

Come back when there is an option that actually destroys the orphan crushing machines. Otherwise your just pouring more fuel into it and making it work faster.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

As long as you keep voting limb cutters, they have no motivation to stop cutting limbs. Not voting for limb cutters is the only way to make non limb cutting get on the ballot

[–] [email protected] 0 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

"I would only have the time to save 2 of the 4 childrens in the burning house so I might as well not save any of the children."

[–] [email protected] 13 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Now imagine next election one person is threatening to kill 4 children and the other team 6. Well obviously we should save 4! Then next election, we have to kill 6, so we don't vote for the person killing 8. And so on. That's how we got in this predicament.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The people who want to kill 0 children literally do not show up to primaries.

That's how we get candidates that want to kill 2 children in every election.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

harris had never gotten even thousand votes in the primaries where 10 million people vote. she only got to become vp by sucking up to superpacs who didn’t want a progressive like warren as vp

and since 2016 dnc uses primaries more for just pissing on its members.

the problem is not the voters but dnc which today is run by lobbyists.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 22 hours ago

That is a valid position if you intend to use that time to make it so that children don't need to burn every election.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

"Two limbs is just as bad as 4 limbs, so I choose 4 limbs!"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 16 hours ago

Not for nothing, but where is this two limb option? All I see is four limb options except one is grinning and clapping the other is just wearing a false look of commiseration.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You do realize that there is more than one election? Like every four years there is an election. Treating every election like it is the only one and never looking past the immediate effects for the next year is what brought this mess in the first place.

This is also why this comparison is bad. You can not only loose at this election, but the next one and the one after that amd the one after that. In fact one could argue Americans have been loosong every election to the neoliberals since a few decades. And why? Because you never made a point of getting one party to stop being neoliberals.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This election made me realize that political affiliation in the states for a lot of people is like being in a cult. Rather than accepting that your side has issues and needs a change, people just try to justify it by pointing how bad the other side can be worse. Like 90% of lemmy democrats don't get that I'm not motivated to vote for being waist-deep in shit vs chest-deep in shit. Yes, one is worse than another, but I prefer to vote so I don't have to be in shit at all. But all they will say back is hurr durr trump bad.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 20 hours ago

I feel like we need to normalize that demanding more from representatives is OK and necessary for a functioning democracy. The party needs to respond to the demands of those they are supposed to represent. This election made it clear that they only care about the demands of the donors and that needs to change

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 day ago

What absolute pieces of shit. Can't even bother to do the right thing when it doesn't even matter anymore.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 day ago

Wtf is wrong with these people. I only voted for them bcz the alternative is a fascist piece of shit. I fucking hate this country.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 23 hours ago

And so every third party voter is vindicated.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not a US citizen, but I can understand why some people didn't wanna vote this time.

Even though Trump might be worse than Biden when it comes to this conflict, how can anyone vote for Kamala knowing that the death of more innocents will be on their conscience?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 15 hours ago

it's like the trolley problem. would you rather have more people die or a smaller but still sizable amount of people die? unfortunately in America there are only 2 viable candidates.