I never said anything at all about Afghanistan.

You posted a meme about the current leadership of Afghanistan.

I think it’s terrible the state if affairs.

Then why would you post a meme smugly extolling the virtues of the current state of affairs? You can’t have it both ways.

I find this meme to be absolutely vile.

The good people of Afghanistan have been under violent US occupation for decades, and as their final move, the US looted the central banking reserves.

This effectively drained the savings of everyday Afghanis. They no longer have access to their bank accounts. The US stole all the money.

I often wonder, would the good people of Afghanistan be able to overthrow the evil leadership of the Taliban? I wish they could, but overthrowing the Taliban is much less likely when the US has left you in a state of devastation, poverty, and famine.

Then those same western chauvinists can post memes like this, delighting in the Afghan people’s suffering after causing so much of it. Disgusting.

I’m a little surprised that this comment has gotten so many upvotes.

Would you apply this same logic to the real world? For example, imagine if a manufacturing facility for Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics was bombed and thousands of working class Americans died. These people are building bombs that are being used in an ongoing genocide.

Would you consider this a heinous terrorist act, or a noble strike in the fight for freedom?

But what about the terror group known as IDF? They have unlimited free reign to spread their genocidal message and recruit followers. They also buy ads, and have a budget larger than all the terror groups you mentioned combined.

And the leader who preceded Hitler, and whose blunders helped Hitler gain power, was Paul von Hindenburg.

Von Hindenburg, running for his second term at 84, was widely regarded as being too old and incompetent. For the centrists and center-left parties, he was their only hope in defeating Hitler.

After Von Hindenburg’s defeat, Hitler passed the Enabling Act to assume full power.

History may not repeat, but it rhymes.

Corruption has been legal since 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United vs. FEC

To clarify, that case was thrown out becuase plaintiffs lacked standing.

To further clarify, the court threw out 2 of the claims due to lack of standing. The other 4 claims were dismissed on the merits.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, consumer law violations, and unjust enrichment failed on the merits and directed those claims to be dismissed with prejudice. The court held that plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty failed for lack of standing,

They may be referring to the Wilding v. DNC Services Corp case. DNC lawyers argued that they could overturn the democratic results of the primary if they so choose.

The DNC won that case.

This is false, the DNC has fought in court for the right to overrule the results of the primary. It was litigated in Wilding v. DNC Services Corporation.

Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders

Obvious he had a slight cold.

Also obvious he is sundowning.

If we want to prevent President Trump then the DNC needs to switch horses quickly.

I honestly think if he took his shirt off it would cost him the election.

Seeing the flabby, 78-year-old American physique in all its glory would be both a literal and figurative “emperor has no clothes” moment for many of his cultists.

Who is using it as excuse for the current genocide?

You did, when you said “Genocide is a US problem not specific to any president.”

When comparing 2 candidates, genocide doesn’t matter because they will both do it

This “lesser of two evils” logic only holds up when deciding who to vote for. The Biden administration does not get to aid a genocide criticism-free just because Trump would be worse.

Once a president is in office then you can protest decision

A president is in office now, aiding a genocide now, so I’m protesting now. If the US is still supporting genocide after the election I will protest then, too.

i’m not a trumper but biden is commiting genocide" is just pedantic and missing the point

I saw a shocking amount of upvoted genocide denial in the comments, so I felt the need to respond, even if its unpopular.

Yes we agree that other modern presidents have been genocidal as well.

Using that fact as an excuse for the current genocide is not some realpolitik, “adults in the room” level of thinking. It is moral depravity and the banality of evil.

I’m right here, this article does nothing to change my mind about how Joe Biden is aiding and abetting an ongoing genocide.

Yes, Trump will almost certainly be worse. That doesn’t change the fact that our current president’s support for genocide is deplorable, it hurts his electoral chances, and it damages the US standing in the world.

Burying Palestinian families alive under the rubble of their former homes is not a good use of my tax dollars. Joe Biden needs to stop.

So the difference is that Trump will drop a MOAB and kill hundreds…

And Biden will send 300,000 massive bombs to a genocidal warlord to kill tens of thousands?

I’m not trying to defend Trump, but I’m confused by your logic.

[Peace is] the goal that the Biden administration has been working towards

Yeah totally, the guy who has shipped 300,000 bombs to a genocidal warlord is actually working for peace! And anyone who disagrees just doesn’t understand the complexity of the situation. /s

And that’s exactly the benefit of having your aides leak answers instead of answering questions directly.

The Biden team leaks “one term president” to quell the narrative about his age. This creates a news cycle so that a slice of the electorate, people like commenter Bipta, are led to believe it’s a promise.

But theres a tiny amount of plausible deniability so that people like you can come in after the fact and mischaracterize it as “an unknown advisor” (the story quotes 4 high level advisors, which is a very high bar for these types of leaks) and then dismiss the story as if it was just a rumor.

Commenter is incorrect that he promised, instead he just strongly implied that he would stop at 1 term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise

According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.

“If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.”

Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term -Politico

Yes I agree, if we allow Israel to start a war with Iran the death toll would be in the millions, and as always the majority of victims will be civilians.

That sounds like a great argument for taking away the iron dome, then Israel would no longer feel protected enough to keep up with their reckless provocations against Iran.