YOU are the one causing the division! JFC, dropping in, saying “no women” and then complaining about division is just incredible.

The “they’re just sexist, that was the problem” isn’t just some random observation from people trying to just figure out what works. It’s an intentional campaign to scapegoat women for losses caused by the political class who keep trying to run the same campaign and failing.

They’re not coming with hyper-cautious analyses saying “no women, no abandoning the base, no campaigning with Republicans, no timid neoliberal policies”. They’d still be wrong, but at least that would seem like a legit attempt by a simple mind to avoid anything that might possibly be a weakness. Instead they just stop with the first. They’re looking for a scapegoat, because all those other factors were getting pretty unpopular in the party and they desperately needed some other explanation.

Cut her some slack, it takes a long time for donor approved political consultants to run all the focus groups to be 100% sure that saying a negative thing about an establishment figure won’t have any negative impact on their priorities. You can’t just rush into a new messaging line.

Well unless it’s correcting course away from some accidental progressivism. You can get that ready in a day. You’ll come across as fake and corrupt and lose the election, but that’s not what’s most important.

Weird how you guys always focus on the ladybits as the unifying factor between Clinton and Harris losing and not their shitty campaigns to the center and inability to have a single authentic moment.

It’s a convenient excuse that means the establishment, with its 20% approval rate and record of abject failures both electorally and in countering Republican messaging, doesn’t need to change a single thing that might upset the donor class that has caused them to inexplicably cling to positions 70+% of the party do not hold.

Ah, one of those “principles” that needs to be updated whenever one of your allies violates them.

He should team up with Mitch McConnell to investigate how the Republican party could have gotten like this.

Someone at the FBI should tell Kash.

International law itself doesn’t mean anything. There are no international cops and no international consequences. Whether two senators say “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” has zero actual difference in how the United States must or even will act. This legalistic critique of the extreme minority in the debate who are on the right side of the issue is sus as hell.

I do, but it you’re asking why I think they didn’t, I already answered that in the comment you just replied to.

If a majority of politicians say “it’s ethnic cleansing”, things will happen that are not meaningfully different than a majority saying “it’s genocide”. That’s the hurdle, not whether two senators who are on the right side of the issue (albeit after far too long) are using specific terminology.

I don’t think legality has anything to do with the choice. There’s no obligation from a handful of senators saying something. It’s not like Warren calling it a genocide obligated the Senate to adopt that position.

In reality, it just feels like a serious charge that doesn’t have to explain that genocide can exist without full Nazi death camps. None of their voters are going to think “it’s only ethnic cleansing, they don’t have to do anything about that”.

A couple politicians calling it genocide doesn’t have any legal implications. Warren did it already and nothing changed in the legal implications, nor would they kick in if 3 (4 now) were doing it instead.

He’s not the first.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/08/israel-gaza-war-elizabeth-warren-00151120

And Van Hollen and Merkley called it ethnic cleansing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/democratic-senators-gaza-ethnic-cleansing

The direct proactive statement proclaiming it a “genocide” rather than answering a question or using “ethnic cleansing” is significant step though.

What kind of a dumb vote is that? Were Democrats boycotting? Why? Who stayed? Which Republicans didn’t support the fake nominee?

Maybe someone at the Guardian could do a tiny bit of journalism to answer the obvious questions for a weird vote total.

Landau also told Park that the two allies should try to use the incident as an opportunity to further strengthen their bilateral ties and improve relevant systems where necessary, according to the ministry.

We should take this time we fucked your citizens over to strengthen our ties. We’re so sorry that we took a week to do anything about it and you now get an apology from an underling.

American MAGAs also don’t really want American greatness if it involves immigrants, minorities, or liberals having a good life there. Their love of America and goals for its greatness are VERY selective, all the way to founding values like freedom of speech, separation of powers, and separation of church and state.

It’s really just fascism. And fascism, for all its claims to be country-first, is an international reactionary effort.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/dallas-express-bias/

Yeah, he was probably reaching through a window or grabbed on because he just couldn’t stomach the thought of an ‘illegal’ getting away.

It’s what Charlie would have wanted, don’t focus on his death, carry on his life of racist hate.

We just need to keep on 'em and they’ll keep bumping off right-wing grifters. It’s win-win.

He also showed a little bit of rebellion on Epstein before snapping quickly back into approved messaging.