The poll found 50% of Democrats approve of how Biden has navigated the conflict while 46% disapprove — and the two groups diverge substantially in their views of U.S. support for Israel. Biden’s support on the issue among Democrats is down slightly from August, as an AP-NORC poll conducted then found that 57% of Democrats approved of his handling of the conflict and 40% disapproved.
It’s especially hurting him with the demographic he’s always struggled with:
Majorities of Democrats younger than 45 (65%) and nonwhite Democrats (58%) say they disapprove of Biden’s handling of the conflict. Most Democrats 45 and older (67%) and white Democrats (62%) say they approve.
"Knowing that our tax money could be paying for the weapons that are murdering children by the thousands over there, it’s getting harder to be supportive of our president and our country in general,” said Brie Williamson, a 34-year-old Illinois resident. Williamson said she “couldn’t see voting for a Republican” but would consider other options next year.
And being forced to pick between this and trump will depress turnout, and depressed turnout is how Republicans become presidents.
And I know Biden’s supporters will say “he’s still better than trump” and that’s true. But it doesn’t change the fact that this is a fucked up situation where voters do t have a say in this issue because the only two options for president both support this genocide.
no. running shit candidates is how they lose. no one is entitled to someones vote or support.
dnc wants to win? then look at what your base wants. their approach has always been “you take what we give you” and that resulted in donald fucking trump.
If a moderate dem wins, they win.
If a Republican wins, moderates get to be even more moderate and claim they have to, knowing whoever they run next time will probably win just because they’re not a Republican.
The only way moderates lose, is if a progressive manages to win. Because then they lose the main reason lots of people vote Dem: anything is better than a Republican.
That’s why they fight progressives harder than Republicans. Republicans aren’t their enemy, they’re the rationale that lets moderates in 2023 act like Republicans in 1980 and still win elections
We could have had Bernie, and sure, he’d be 83 in 2024 (Biden will be 81), but at least he had the idea to use Israel funding as leverage to get Netanyahu to calm the fuck down.
Instead, we get Biden, who does seem to have a good economic policy, but he was all too eager to jump to a known war-crime-committer’s defense.
I think the most “conservative” thing that has happened in the last couple of elections is the DNC’s pick to lead the party.
Ah America. Where we have the great options of genocidal maniac or other genocidal maniac. You see, we’re better, because we have the freedom to choose!
Ah America, you offer the same choice as France and the UK.
And we can’t vote for anyone else, or the wrong lizard might win!
But it doesn’t change the fact that this is a fucked up situation where voters do t have a say in this issue because the only two options for president both support this genocide.
Biden does not support genocide. Biden has definitely been blind to the fact that Israel is an apartheid state that has been intentionally inflicting collective punishment on the Palestinians since Oct 7th.
The Republicans under Trump will green light a complete genocide of the Palestinians. If you want the Palestinians to have a chance then vote Biden. The Democratic party can be reasoned with. The Republican party is controlled by fascists who will establish death camps in American prisons at home and actively support death camps abroad.
I want to see Hamas destroyed, but it’s become clear to me that Israel’s government is committing war crimes. And yes, so has Hamas, they’re a terrorist organization. Israel is supposed to be a freedom loving democracy, that comes with standards.
Since Israel has proven to be unable to conduct this war properly, preserving the lives of civilians is the only important objective now. We need to make it clear to the Democratic party that we want a ceasefire for the sake of Palestinians and Israelis. Given enough pressure Biden can be persuaded to change his mind. The same cannot be said of Trump or the Republican party.
Bro this ain’t a Mad Max movie, no NGO is going to stop a war without questions of Wagner hitting the news headlines
Bro this ain’t a Mad Max movie
What? I haven’t seen these movies. Only clips Colbert uses. :|
no NGO is going to stop a war without questions of Wagner hitting the news headlines
It could easily take another ten months for the IDF to clear out Hamas from the tunnels under Gaza City. That is with taking into account a disregard for the safety of the hostages, which I’m sure the IDF is doing. If the death count continues at the current rate of ten thousand people a month, another one hundred thousand people will be dead. And if you take it from other people, this war could take years.
We should pressure the US government to demand a ceasefire no matter how unlikely Benjamin Netanyahu or Hamas is to listen. Too many lives are at stake to let this war to continue the way it is currently being waged.
Removed by mod
She’s not a republican, but she was doing mental gymnastics to justify not voting democrat.
I hate to break it to you but she’s a republican already.
When every choice sucks, and the alternative is akin to throwing a vote away, both parties start looking more alike.
Except for one key fact: only one of the options is pushing for things like total abortion bans, LGBTQ criminalization, government funded religious indoctrination, etc. Don’t buy into Horseshoe Theory.
They’re only similar in that they both suck, are politically right, and are funded by corporate interests. But that’s where the similarities end. All garbage stinks, but it doesn’t all stink the same.
All garbage stinks, but it doesn’t all stink the same.
Or, as I’ve seen before, both speeding and murder are crimes, but certainly one of them is worse than the other.
Yeah but see total abortion bans and queer criminalization don’t affect the lives of the brocialists that are the consistent source of the anti-recognizing-FPTP-is-a-thing narrative, so really have you considered that this mysterious base of the party that consistently underperforms turnout even for their own fucking candidates should have been pandered to more by everyone who isn’t them doing the revolution for them?
And that’s what baffles me. They often know all this history, are generally well-read, have these great reasons why Candidate A and B both suck, but because they can’t seem to countenance one of them being a single step towards the goal rather than being the goal itself, it’s somehow not worth talking that step at all.
honestly I’m just happy someone appears engaged enough to even do any research at all. and you’re not wrong, we have 2 right wing parties in the US. the rich old white republicans, and the rich old white democrats with an African themed robe on.
I wish you weren’t getting down votes. This situation is pushing more people into that space. Or just suppressing enthusiasm which will turn into fewer votes.
I get that this instance/Lemmy doesn’t like that, and I get the sense this instance is entitled to votes from any non-white, non-male, but… Reality is more complicated and everyone gets agency. That’s part of the foundations of treating people with respect, I thought.
They’re getting downvoted for the last sentence. After all the infighting, the insurrection, trying to remove people’s rights, defending criminals, etc if both parties look anywhere close to the same to you then you are not actually paying attention.
Why would they worry about the lives of us poors when they can be smug about “both sides”?
Down votes persuasive value is often 0. Sometimes even negative.
A thoughtful response goes much further.
Lemmy aspires to be more wholesome version of other social media. It often fails.
Well duh it was founded by tankies, their “more wholesome” is not banning people who think “the libs get the wall too” is a reasonable position even among the far left.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Okay, it’s been a few hours and I think the thread will be quieter now.
Read or don’t. I know you owe me nothing.
My thinking, and I think the down votes bear this out, is there is a very large gap between experiences and perspectives.
If a person is comfortable and believes either the institutions will prevail, bad dem behavior can’t go unpunished, or fascism may benefit them - or not harm… all of these allow for a more easy path to considering not voting for a Democrat (or at all). It need not even be consciously thought.
Meanwhile I’ve seen some Lemmings lose their mind about things they are entitled to. Like YouTube without ads, FOSS (where their version of the F is literally free), apps for lemmy, and politics. There is a vein of entitlement to free things and to others’ votes.
It’s not everyone, it’s not close to everyone. But it is disproportionate to my life outside of this space.
And instead of discussing the urgency of the situation, the role of empathy in seeing that fascism is bigger than just whether it directly harms you or not… Its a dosing of down votes for not aligning.
For me, this is putting me off sympathy for those struggling - even if I am one. It just looks entitled and not like a cry for help. Even if that’s what it is underneath it all.
Raw, near panicked desperation that the country and the world will all fall to pieces and the elders and privileged won’t even give fuckall. They got theirs, you get yours.
It’s complicated. Or maybe I just think this wrong. But I’ve never seen so many people lose their minds so easily as I see it here. This place breeds anxiety and anger.
I’m evaluating the wisdom of using lemmy, personally.
Here’s how I see it - we’re all fucked, as a species, and yet no seems to feel any urgency. There’s no compromising with reality, but the Democrats do nothing but compromise between the rosy picture the populace generally believes in, and the imaginary world Republicans paint
Many Republicans are quite literally fascists. They’ll tear down the system to extend their time in power. They’ll pick one enemy after another, and impose their way of living on us.
Biden is progressive for a neo-liberal. That means he’ll occasionally do something good, but mostly just keep the status quo.
We need to be making large, sweeping changes. IDGAF about YouTube - I care about what it means. YouTube blocking ads is no different than my grocery bill going up by 30%, or search results sucking so bad knowledge becomes unfindable.
It’s late stage capitalism - we’re being pushed into the age of techno-fuedalism. Instead of physical ownership, we’re being locked into virtual fiefs where companies tax us and control the information we’re exposed to.
That’s the issue here - free access to information is a big fucking deal. If YouTube shut down, I’d be sad… But it’s not nearly as big a deal as YouTube demonstrating disdain for both users and law.
IDK… This is all very interrelated in complex ways. This probably comes off as a rant, but these things are intimately interconnected. Basically, these are all symptoms of the same existential threat to our species.
I can’t explain it all briefly - you have to think systematically, and that’s more of a college course than an essay, let alone a comment. But if nothing else, remember how systems die, from computers to a human body… They sputter, and then collapse all at once. These are sputters. The global just-in-time supply chain snapping will be the collapse… Whether it comes from a natural disaster or because too many workers become desperate enough to fight, this is a civilization level problem
I with you on a lot of this. I can’t expect a free service of… Anyone. It’s part of my zen. I can be delighted that things are available, that I can afford certain things but despite being 50, my experience has been Millennial and I am Not even where I “should be” at 30.
I like Dark Brandon and wish we saw him more often. When he fights for us, I’m more than pleased. The union wins are a celebration and I hope begin to set an expectation back to actual living wages.
And I want those vehicles to be green, with great batteries and range. That’s only one piece of the puzzle, but it’s my main direct carbon contribution and I WFH.
Appreciate the discussion. It’s helpful.
Sure, and I’m with you there. It sounds like your values are in the right place, but marketing affects everyone, and nearly all of our media is owned by billionaires who have repeated the same narrative until we internalize it.
Electric cars and working from home are great, but they’re not a solution - they’re a compromise between reality and the status quo. Just like recycling - it’s a way to sell personal responsibility, but it’s entirely ineffective. They don’t even pretend to recycle anymore, they just throw it into the dump, because it was never a solution to single use packaging, it was marketing.
We have to stop the carbon at a system level, by realigning incentives to make companies feel the hurt for the damage they do, and then deal with the consequences.
But back to the topic at hand…I guess if I had to sum it up, it’s not about being entitled to free things.
It’s about the deal being altered unilaterally in a very hostile way for short term profits. These things were free because that’s how the numbers worked out… This isn’t about profits or revenue, it’s about investors
Look at unity - they killed their own company, and damaged an entire industry. And for what? They couldn’t even answer basic questions about how their wild licensing scheme change would work. A small group who knew it was coming made a lot of money, but far more value was destroyed
YouTube is the same - the numbers have been worked out. This action makes ads worth less because it’ll lower conversion, makes the experience worse for everyone, and shrinks the pie for the creators that make a living on the platform.
At the end of the day, this is logging companies cutting down the whole forest and putting themselves out of business. The investors make more money at first, which they can reinvest in the next thing. Meanwhile, we have a bunch of loggers out of a job, a destroyed forest, and people still need wood. They can move on to destroy another forest with a new company, and make even more money if they own the shipping too.
From the owners perspective, it’s taking the lump sum instead of the annuity.
That’s the issue here - companies are destroying value. It’s extremely profitable for a small number of people, but the whole pie shrinks.
In the case of a marketplace (or platform) you get enshittification, in the case of an industry you have endless acquisitions and downsizing.
The key driving force is the same - it’s late stage capitalism. We have to suppress these lose-lose situations systematically, because chopping down the forest and reinvesting is always the more profitable choice so long as it’s on the table.
This kind of went all over the place because to me this is all about looking at misaligned incentives in our system, but there’s a Enshittification essay that is an approachable starting point to break down the YouTube and Reddit issue we started with
That’s the issue here - free access to information is a big fucking deal.
“So anyway, I block YouTube ads” lol
…Do you think that’s a contradiction or something?
Removed by mod
Reddit is my reference point, but I understand only those who think in specific ways were likely to jump (e.g. Moral clarity around API, spez, moderation/permitted acts).
So it was a subset of reddit (not representative) that joined lemmy, which is also not representative.
What I think I see is what I’ve described elsewhere: white males realizing the tide went out for them, too. Then, not realizing that they have unchecked privilege, acting out and acting like they can tell people how to vote or to vote, how to run their app, run their service, etc.
It is either entitlement, privilege or both. It’s, for me, the most off putting thing since I joined. Not simply this thread, but many others.
Let me add, I’m not Mr Lawnorder. I just think, historically, complaining and demanding doesn’t change things, nor is it persuausive. And the specifics of the acts matter. Strikes work. Boycotts may. Streaming around ads… Will not work except to provide content for free to a user for a while, at the detriment of YT and the content creator. I believe it also hardens an attitude that seeps into other parts of life.
Removed by mod
They don’t want to hear it and don’t want that narrative to gain traction.
The response with Horseshoe theory in it is a good one and a better response than mine, or down votes.
What do you think this has to do with the horseshoe theory?
I was referring to this this comment.
The thread was much less crowded then.
It’s Biden vs trump, and there’s zero chance I’m voting for a waste-of-carbon republican traitor. Now or at any time in the future. I don’t like our stance on Israel/Palestine, but that is immaterial to the choice I must make.
deleted by creator
They already have nukes
Yes, but you see… That doesn’t matter. Trump would’ve done it, claimed to be the whole supplier, and his believers would eat it up.
Furthermore, the Christian religious nuts would LOVE that because it’d get them soooo much closer to their twisted appocalypse. Insane Christians (and that is WAY more than any Christian would ever admit to) WANT to see, “a blinding light rise in the east” and yadda yadda…
Doomsday cult is not a joke. These people LITERALLY want the world to end just so they can justify their sick fairy tales and feel special.
This also explains why they don’t care about the environment. They believe it literally doesn’t matter and Jesus will come and fix it all.
It really is that simple. I’ve seen it from the inside.
Yep! Even on a smaller scale, they don’t think about things because it’s just all part of god’s plan. Religion is quite literally a mental virus that reduces someones’ ability to think.
Faith is required to live sanely since no one can learn everything. The problem arises when they (always) use faith instead of rationalization. Religious people view rationalization as if its root word isn’t “reason”. As if its only definitions are the shortcut idiot ones. They replace rationalization with faith, which in many cases, results in them completely ignoring fact in favor of fantasy.
Religion is literally mind poison, training people to favor what they want to be true over what is factually true. It should surprise no one that intolerant extremists come from all religions.
And as I hinted: faith is intrinsic to human experience. Even many atheists still use faith in place of reason (just look at any atheist tankie), and many people use faith outside of spirituality. The problem arises when you use faith to justify things instead of reason, and ALL religion teaches faith over reasoning.
Religion is literally thought cancer. It distracts and eats up your mental resources until your logical brain dies and you beleive anything an authority says so long as you have faith in that authority. Religion is literally the devil as described by their own religion.
Rationalising things kind of demonstrates dogma as much as a religious faith would though so you’re basically just complaining about religious nutters
No, rationalizing’s FIRST definition is using logic and reasoning to understand things. You are doing the same thing as religious nutters by treating “rational” as if its main root word AND first definition are literally the opposite of what they are.
Rationalizing is ONLY bad IF you are taking shortcuts and making assumptions. You are choosing to completely and utterly miss the entire point that religion produces the mental justifications for the bad kind of rationalizing. Religion trains people to dismiss using logic and accept easy answers.
Stop doing the same thing against religion. Stop dismissing analysis just because nutters exist. The nutters aren’t the only ones doing utterly stupid things like ignoring climate change and cheering on religious apartheid in Israel and the US.
If the would all just get lifted up into heaven I’d be so damn happy
deleted by creator
Nah, because religious nutjobs would use it as a sign and REALLY start trying to take control because it’d be proof they were correct. Doesn’t matter that Jesus didn’t show up right after. God’s time isn’t your time!
Do not hand death cults death. That’s literally feeding the worst kind of troglodytes actual blood.
deleted by creator
Dude calm down
Some members of the GOP genuinely do seek to trigger the end of the world. They are, however, a small minority.
Yes but what about second nukes?
Im with you. Honestly im not sure there is a possible stance I would be happy with. Its like being happy with the strategy used in viet nam.
you could vote for literally anyone else.
Yes, and I could also shoot myself in the dick.
vote for a genocidal politician. what do i care: 1/3 of america has already decided they’re going to.
As opposed to what? Voting for an authoritarian cunt who’s going to set up interment camps on day 1 and will gladly slaughter people the world over? Fuck outta here.
personally I’m leaning towards Cornell West. I’m also looking at Jill Stein.
If it’s a choice between one geriatric who endorses genocide and another geriatric who endorses genocide, why should I be voting for either?
I still haven’t decided but atm I’m leaning towards 3rd party
This “lesser evil” thing is smoke and mirrors.
Unfortunately when you have to pick between two lesser evils, even deciding not to choose is a lesser evil. Inaction can sometimes lead to the greatest evil.
Refusing to make a decision doesn’t absolve you of culpability for the consequences.
Incorrect. The culpability lies with the moronic corrupt DNC and Democratic party for allowing Biden to run again. He is not electable, not coherent, and barely a hold your nose better choice than Trump.
The same assholes who cheated and broken their rules to put Hillary on the ballot are now forcing Biden to appear for some unknowable reason.
The lesser evil choice was forced by these people.
Frame it however you want, you’re not even wrong. It still remains true that, if elected, Trump is going to try to end democracy and replace it with a fascist dictatorship. Biden is Not going to do that.
That’s literally it, that’s the only relevant factor to consider when deciding if you’re going to vote for Biden. I hate him as much as everyone else, but I don’t hate Biden more than I hate the idea of getting put in a camp for being trans at some point down the line, and if you do you’re shortsighted and you value your ability to feel Morally Pure over actually doing anything.
Biden is Not going to do that
the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy
choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt
we’re headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. You cannot stray far from The Narrative
the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers
we need to wake up before it’s too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.
i wish orwell was around to see it
Refusing to make a decision doesn’t absolve you of culpability for the consequences
in deontological ethics, the ethics are in the action itself. ontological ethics imply that the ends may justify the means, and that is not something most people will sign.
i didn’t say i’m not going to vote. i’m leaning towards 3rd party.
if enough people voted 3rd party, we could break free from this quasi one-party state we have
in the early 1900s we actually had a socialist/communist presidential candidate get over a million votes
it’s possible if people stopped towing the democratic party line. they are not our friends. they will do the bare minimum necessary and oftentimes they won’t even do that, just promise to do it. i’ve been waiting for immigration reform my entire life. NADA is the total value of what has come out from Democrats beside’s Obama’s DACA which was a stopgap measure. we’ve had democratic majorities multiple times since then. how many times could they have put abortion into law? how many times could they have gotten in universal healthcare?
it’s a joke. they don’t actually want to do anything. we have 1 party and 2 factions. business faction A and business faction B.
and now Biden goes out and gives Netanyahu a big hug after Israel announced to the world they were about to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians?
What world do you live in where this is OK? What kind of men does our country breed? It’s ridiculous
how many times could they have put abortion into law? how many times could they have gotten in universal healthcare?
This right here tells me you haven’t been paying attention to the details. There are 0 times in modern history where this was possible. The closest was the first few months of Obama’s term, which is when they hammered out Obamacare. And it would’ve had a public option if not for needing Lieberman for the 60th Senate vote. It was removed in return for his vote.
There were not 60 Democrat senators at the time willing to overturn the filibuster. Some of those senators were further right than Manchin. This is also why abortion couldn’t be signed into law – you didn’t have 60 senators in favor of abortion.
That was the only time in modern history where Democrats had 60 Senate votes, and they used it to pass the furthest left healthcare policy possible at the time. And Democrats were eviscerated in the following midterms because it was seen as too far left.
Aside from all that, there is no serious third party in the US. None of them are actually trying to win. It’s a grift, they just want your money. If they actually wanted to win, they wouldn’t spend so much on the presidency. They’d be building up a powerful ground game to win local across the country, and then take state legislatures and governorships, and then take Congressional seats, and finally the presidency. A president without any allies in Congress is powerless, and all the third parties try to do is win a presidency without any allies in Congress. And then you have their ridiculous beliefs, like WiFi causing cancer and vaccine skepticism.
Third parties align much more closely with Republicans culturally. They trick voters so they can get money and power, they adopt feel-good phrases and policies they’ll never enact, and they give anti science conspiracy theorists a platform.
This reply sort of makes the point for the OP though – the American system appears to be broken at levels so fundamental that it’s not worth engaging with, much less saving. It’s amazing the evil that people are comfortable shrugging at.
You’re not wrong. Our government is inherently conservative in how difficult it is to change things. It’s a flaw by design, unfortunately. Still, as broken as it is, there’s people I still care about a lot. There’s a lot of good people worth fighting for. So even if it’s fundamentally broken, I’m going to keep maintaining hope that we can fix the fundamentals. If I’m lucky, maybe my grandkids will get the government that I wish we had.
Not to mention, liberals in the past struggled against worse odds to get just basic dignity. Things must’ve seemed more hopeless for women’s suffragists and civil rights marchers. But through tenacity, they succeeded. Abolitionists succeeded, gay people succeeded – and then for some fucking reason Republicans decided to bring it back up again when it was seemingly settled. But LGBT rights will succeed once more.
I guess being almost 30, talking about how things were when I was kid isn’t quite as impactful as it used to be, but still over my lifetime, a lot has changed with gay rights. In middle school, gay jokes were all insults and slurs. It was all “I love you dude, no homo”. Now though? Gay jokes are homoerotic insinuations that you and the guys are all banging. We say “I love you dude, full homo” to laugh at how ridiculous the “no homo” era was.
Where I’m going with this, we’ve lived to see real progress. And it’s progress that was previously unimaginable and just a dream. Civil rights, voting rights, they all seemed like much more hopeless causes in the past. What we face now is no less serious, but certainly less difficult. And we owe it to our forbearers to keep carrying their torch.
Well one endorses genocide, the other wants to enable and cause genocide in our own country. I’d prefer my existence to not be criminalized.
what, are you gay or trans or something? newsflash
you have it 1000x better than the tens of thousands of palestinians getting mutilated and killed. i don’t see tens of thousands of gays being mutilated.
you even have it 100x better than the millions of illegals and asylum seekers in this country, of which both candidates flashes their wrinkly middle fingers to
you lose credibility when you exaggerate like this. yes, gays and trans should be treated better. yes, the republicans are more hostile than the dems. but it’s not genocide, not even close. if you care so much about genocide you in theory should not be voting for someone who is actually endorsing genocide
first they came for the jews, and i did speak cause i was not a jew… etc
When voting between two parties that support genocide the only moral option is not to vote.
Fuck the stupid lesser evil thing. You are choosing and supporting genocide the moment you vote for it
You’re supporting genocide simply by paying your taxes. Grow the fuck up.
One is a choice, the other is not. Read a damn book. Lol /s
If you’re voting in the US you’re living on and benefitting from land that was stolen by a full on genocide. Unless you’re voting for someone that wants to vacate the land and hand it back to the Native Americans, then you’re already voting to support genocide. So I wouldn’t really hold onto that argument to rationalize giving the bigger evil a better chance
Self reporting Americans be like "we did genocide in the past, we should stick with it with pride. Keep bombing women and children and steal their land!"Fucking mask off moment right here.
Shows how strong the moral backbone the west has always been. Whine about Putin for 3 year and then do the exact same thing without shame. Then put a little rainbow flag outside and cry about abortion rights. Then back bombing kids.
If you’re in the US, with a two party system, not voting for the less evil is actively enabling the greater evil.
You think Trump or any GOP candidate wouldn’t do the same? Or worse? They’re certainly not going to do anything better than Biden.
Voting on principles is for the Primaries. Try and get the best candidate possible that you actively believe in into the race. Election Day however is when it’s time to put your adult pants on, accept the world is messy, and vote for the least worse option possible, because otherwise you’re just abetting the worst option.
You guys are just trolley probleming but you can add a third rails that says “if enough people pull this lever nobody dies”.
You have roughly equal amounts of people pulling the lever in the “kill one person” direction and the “kill many people” direction.
The only people interested in pulling a lever that adds a third rail are the “kill one person” crowd. The moment enough of them let go, the lever goes in the “kill many people” direction because that crowd has no interest in a third rail, they quite like the “kill many people” option. You’ll never get enough people to join the third option from both crowds simultaneously. No third party has seen any real form of success in nearly 200 years within the current system. Changing the system is necessary but taking out hands off the lever is a disaster.
You genuinely think Biden pulled back the israel support? There would be no difference between him and Trump.
You’re never gonna change anything if you’re not willing to take your hands off a kill lever.
Also you are actively pulling the kill lever instead of the peace lever by voting for the “lesser evil” it’s because of this that a third party isn’t taking off.
Of course Biden didn’t, but I genuinely think Trump will be way worse. Anyone who thinks Trump, in control of our military as President, wouldn’t be making even worse choices, clearly wasn’t paying attention last round.
And it’s not just Israel/Palestine. It’s Ukraine/Russia and China/Taiwan. Biden isn’t changing the status quo, but he’s not actively making the situation worse. Trump adores the military and sees himself as a strongman (admittedly not when licking Putin’s boot), and is going to immediately want to flex the military. He’ll pull Ukraine support entirely. He’ll antagonize Iran or maybe actively bomb Hamas targets in Palestine. He’ll antagonize China or maybe recognize Taiwan’s independence. That would be a disaster.
I want change. I want a better system. I desperately want us to take our hands off the lever. But that change needs to be better and lasting change. It needs to be done such that when enough Democrats take their hands off the lever, the lever does get pulled hard in Republican’s favor. I will actively pull the lever in the “kill people” direction because if we let go at all it will be yanked in the “kill everyone” direction, and when it comes to ideals versus practicality, I go with what actually results in less harm.
I get the ideal, but the practicality of American politics and the electoral college is just shitty. I’m genuinely curious what you think would happen in 2024 if people don’t vote Biden? I’m assuming you’re advocating for the Green Party, whoever their candidate ends up being. Trump doesn’t need huge margins to win. Biden had over 6 million more votes but the margins in many key swing states were less than 25,000 votes. Anyone farther left of Biden isn’t pulling votes from Trump, they’re pulling votes from Biden, and when the margin is that small, it makes all the difference. A Green candidate taking even 3% of a given state is enough to give it to Trump.
I believe enough change from the inside is possible that it can invalidate the lever. There are progressives within the Dems, that could get us to a point where there’s no electoral college, or a voting system that isn’t first-past-the-post. States are independently joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Once such systems are in place, then it doesn’t matter how hard the Republicans pull the lever, we have a bunch of working levers. But we’ll never get to that point in the first place if the Republicans get to pull the lever all the way. The party that actively wants to destroy our democracy is not gonna give us a second chance at any lever if we let them pull this one further.
Your democracy? You’re supporting genocide because you can’t vote for the other guy. What the fuck are you on about. Might as well call Russia a democracy now. Wake the fuck up. Your morals are flushed so far the drain I’ve seen North Koreans less brainwashed.
not voting for the less evil is actively enabling the greater evil.
no, it’s not. only the people voting for the greater evil are actively enabling it.
Well then you’re just casting a vote for Trump by default. You still have made a choice.
It seemed to me (looking in from the outside) that he merely kept on doing what the US had always done.
Apparently it’s the public opinion that has changed, while the diplomacy plodded on in it’s usual well-travelled trail.
Who knew that Millennials would hate casual genocide?
Millenials are killing the casual genocide industry, what’s next the military industrial complex??
I mean, that’s kind of the biggest complaint about Biden and the whole moderate wing…
They act like nothing ever changes and they don’t have to react. There’s a shit ton of urgent problems they just won’t address because they don’t give a shit.
They don’t honestly have any goals or things to accomplish other than being elected.
So why are we still electing them? The only positive to electing a moderate Dem is a Republican doesn’t win. It’s why America has been steadily backsliding for decades, and if we keep electing them it’ll keep happening.
Best case scenario, politicians like Biden are a “pause button” on America’s collapse. And for the people who still have decades of life left, that’s just not good enough for us.
That’s why I voted Biden. I voted Biden in the general election (but voted Bernie in the primaries) because I wanted everyone out of the nightmare circus that was Trump and the Republican regime. A regime we haven’t seen so devastatingly retarded since the Bush era. Right now, it’s way too dangerous to allow Republicans total control. It’s like, look what they do when they’re in Congress. Look what they do when they control state governments. They are totally in another realm of reality far off from what we classify as normal today.
I wish we would’ve ended up with Andrew Yang at least if we couldn’t have Bernie. I like Democrats because with Democrats, the worse that they can do is just make small mistakes but mistakes that can be repaired. If we elect a single Republican, that’s 4 more years of irreversible damage we’re not going to recover from and it’ll take over maybe several terms of presidencies to fix maybe a handful of problems.
I mean, so am I.
But I also don’t get drunk at bars and then drive home. Lots of other people don’t make that choice, even though it seems super obvious.
We can pretend those people don’t exist, we can complain that they should know better, but they’re still going to make the same decision if we do either of those things.
So why not try running candidates that will actually try to do the right thing once elected instead demanding they vote for whoever is less terrible?
For some people, voting is a huge hassle and positive motivation works better than the threat of a potential negative
The Trump administration made Bush II look like FDR
From out here, we don’t follow US politics all that closely. But it seems that the extremes (republicans and religious, they go hand in hand I suppose) in your country are so wild that it’s probably also quite difficult to get anything done.
the extremes
What exactly do you mean?
Like, the far right obviously.
But whose the other extreme? The progressives wanting the same shit every other developed country already has?
Since you said “from out here” I’m curious what you meant.
But whose the other extreme? The progressives wanting the same shit every other developed country already has?
You have a choice of extremes, nazis, christian extremists, republicans that want to destroy the planet “just because”, a variety of other lesser far rightwing political subgroups… And no, progressives aren’t a part of it. As elsewhere, the troublesome ones are all on the right.
I’m not in the US, I don’t know the intimate details of what goes on over there.
“Out here” is the wasteland that isn’t the US, as seen by US people.
I think I see the confusion. Nazis and Christian extremists are the modern Republican party. The only two parties we can support are rightwing extremists or milquetoast centrists. They’re a united front of crazy.
I don’t have any hard data on this but I felt like the 2014 Gaza War was a turning point. It’s the first time I really remember a narrative change in America. The traditional media, government officials, etc. were as pro-war and pro-Israel as ever but civilians in Gaza were sharing dramatic photos and videos on social media.
Europe has always been much less radical on that issue. But I remember that around 2010 or so, the Palestinians definitely ramped up their communication efforts towards the international media. So that probably had an impact.
I have a very strong don’t blow up kids policy, that doesn’t care what religion or political party you subscribe to or even race. If you do blow up kids, we feel strongly that you should just fuck right off and we should do whatever we can to stop those killing kids.
“The terrorists are using schools as shields though!”
Guess you shouldn’t use artillery strikes and bombing runs then.
“The terrorists are using schools as shields though!”
“Oh damn that’s a genius strategy. Better just give up every military advantage I have and send in my soldiers to be ambushed.”
Is it still called an ambush if you know they are there?
Nope, by definition isn’t.
Still more dangerous for the IDF and less vengeance-effective than just raining death on thousands of civilians on the off-chance that you might also kill a handful of terrorists that Hamas can easily replace.
Yes, and that touches on the core problem, unequal regard for human lives.
Yeah, to quote Rashida Tlaib from right before they censured her for speaking truth to power:
I can’t believe we have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable. We are human beings just like anyone else. Speaking up to save lives no matter faith, no matter ethnicity should not be controversial. The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinian children sound different to you all.
I don’t know it’s unequal. Hamas clearly has little regard for Palestinian or Israeli civilians. Their MO for two decades has been rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. And if they cared about their own civilians they wouldn’t use hospitals and schools as artillery bases. They know Israel doesn’t care either though and will bomb them anyway, which is basically what Hamas is banking on.
Both forces care little for civilians. The difference is when Israel doesn’t care it’s a 500 lb bomb through a school. When Hamas doesn’t care it’s a 40lb rocket that probably gets shot down by the Iron Dome anyway.
Equal disregard for civilian life on both sides. Unequal force willing to be exerted by one side.
Equal disregard for civilian life on both sides
I disagree. Equal disregard for Palestinian civilians maybe. The Israelis care deeply about their own and would never employ the tactics Hamas do.
I mean that, within the corridors of power - the U.S., Israeli, the U.K., etc. - there’s systematic policy of unequal regard for Palestinian lives, below that of Israeli lives. That creates an environment where extremely disproportionate attacks on Palestinians, like we’re witnessing now, are characterized as acceptable. This, of course, creates the conditions of systemic apartheid, the conditions for the hostilities in the first place.
And in regard to the point you bring up (to be sure, not what I was talking about) - whether or not either side of the conflict has equal or unequal regard for human life - I don’t think it’s simple to make that kind of calculation. The facts we have to contend with are the current situation are the result of a movement since the late 19th century seeking to move a population into Palestine, militarily seize control of the entire territory, and militarily occupy, oppress, blockade, and expel the local population for land acquisition. In the context of that, we have to contend with the reality of the civilian casualties:
which have never been equal. It does not prove equal disregard for human lives, but it’s a very strong indicator towards it, that Israel disproportionately and recklessly slaughters Palestinians, on the order of 10 to 20 times as many, in retaliation to any Palestinian attack, or vice versa.
In regard to Hamas itself - we have the evidence of the rocket attacks themselves (unguided rockets, just going wherever in a general direction), which took a total of about 40 non-Palestinian lives between 2004 and 2014. And we also have the exact evidential record of October 7th - through which we have to filter out atrocity propaganda, deaths that were attributed to Hamas but should properly be attributed to the IDF, etc. (look into this yourself, it’s a doozy), and that military vs. civilian casualties seem to have been underreported by Israel. Those attacks are in the context of trying to achieve a prisoner swap, bring attention to the situation of the Gaza strip, or most cynically, to empower Hamas itself for the profit of its leaders - while on the Israeli side, the explanations ranging from trying to disempower from Hamas, to trying to continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, either to nullify them, to gain control of territory, etc. - armed with all the military tools, all the knowledge, all the human rights theory, of Western nations, but choosing to use them to purposefully target civilian facilities, destroying the entire city, destroying the civilian infrastructure, starving the entire civilian population of food, water, electricity, fuel, medicine, the essential needs for the entire civilian population - coupled with open statements of genocidal intent - not coming from anger of perpetual oppression, like that of Palestinians, but coming from anger resulting from resistance to that oppression. I think that strongly suggests Israel’s disregard for human life of the Palestinian population reaches extremes that are not reciprocated by the Palestinian population as a whole, or probably even by Hamas itself.
That’s just me thinking through it in response to your comment. We see greater numbers of casualties. We see what seems to be a far greater percent of civilian casualties from Israel. We see explicit attempts to justify the targeting of hospitals - which they cannot even substantiate. We see open statements of dehumanization and incitement to genocide. I don’t think the disregard for human lives is equal, I think Israel as a state has proven that it’s only concerned with its own interests, completely disregarding all human lives that stand in the way of those interests, while as a result of that, the Palestinian population has perpetually been in a posture of defense. And my understanding of international law, that it places the defensive right with the Palestinian population on the basis of their 56 year long experience of occupation, not with the occupying power - I think mirrors precisely that.
Still more dangerous for the IDF and less vengeance-effective than just raining death on thousands of civilians on the off-chance that you might also kill a handful of terrorists that Hamas can easily replace.
Do you feel your description matches the reality of this Palestinian dentist? Are the described actions consistent with callously raining death on thousands of civilians?
This may be tough to understand but there’s a ton of still completely-intact, dense urban environment in between the border and the school in your scenario. So on your way to the school, you can be ambushed.
Or hey, maybe thinking strategically even a little bit, maybe the school, or the road, or any of the surroundings are booby-trapped! Maybe they’ve planted IEDs or mines on the path there!
It’s very far fetched, I know. Humans haven’t been waging war for forever, there isn’t a giant history to pull from.
This may be tough to understand but, war crimes are still war crimes, even when they had strategic value.
Fucking mind-blowing, it’s ok though, it won’t ever be your kids.
Reeee I love bombing children reeeeeee
Child killers are on both sides though so who are you to speak?
The issue isn’t holding a moral high ground or playing into ultimatums of mutually assured destruction since they’re already there.
I am not funding Hamas, my tax dollars are going to Israel and they are killing kids, nuff said. At this point, I think the world is looking at Hamas in a whole new light thanks to Israel and the media.
So what did you do to stop the US killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan?
An estimated civilian death toll in the hundreds of thousands, and millions displaced.
What are your plans to prevent or oppose the mass deportation of millions of those Afghan refugees as just announced by Pakistan?
There’s just a bit of morbid irony in anyone from the US acting like they are on a high moral horse here when their own country has exported an order of magnitude more harm around the world largely to crickets within the country, particularly in comparison to the opposition to something like the Vietnam war.
The US is still currently active in its bombing and involvement in Syria. Thousands of civilians killed by coalition forces, hundreds of thousands fled the country as a result of the conflict. Have you even done anything about that one?
It’s just wild when civilians in the US get riled up by the foreign policy conflict of the week, take their sides typically along partisan lines, and pat themselves on the back for taking their stand. “We’ll hold our politicians accountable.” Meanwhile the actual joint military and intelligence branches have their hands in a half dozen conflicts around the world and are directly responsible for much greater harm that’s just far less publicized in Western media because of press relations forged in the wake of Vietnam, and stories like this don’t get picked up past the investigative groups researching them.
The US routinely blows up kids and has a long history of refusing to submit itself to international courts.
But no, Americans don’t focus on changing the policy and scope of their own government’s actions (the thing they in theory have greater influence over). They just get worked up over the actions of other governments allied with the US - and then either are upset about funding Ukraine if Republican or upset about funding Israel if Democrat. At least this week. I’m sure in a few months we’ll have moved on to a new Kony 2012 people are “very upset about and not going to forget about until something is done.”
(Seriously, the idea the current events will have any real impact on an election a year from now is laughable.)
I’d even be willing to bet at least 95% of all the Americans complaining about foreign governments bombing things couldn’t even point on a map to all the places that their own government has bombed children in just the past decade.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]
The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified.
So you are qualified to discount anyone related to a subject, that you don’t have any access to their research or the education to know about it? I certainly don’t, so I just listen to what they say and not attack them or who they are related to.
I opened with a question.
What have you done to stand up for or inform yourself regarding similar priorities with your own country’s behaviors overseas?
Go ahead and give me your qualifications there that make me think your attitudes regarding foreign government behaviors aren’t hypocritical and simply a partisan fad.
Sorry new app, this was related to another discussion of dismissing science and going into research with bias. Sorry about that.
I have a very strong don’t blow up kids policy,
How about take an adult version of that and support actions that stop the blowing up of kids in the long run? I.e. the destruction of a terrorist organization.
How about understanding that more killing doesn’t bring the “destruction of a terrorist organization” - it brings more terrorism.
That doesn’t always hold true. For instance, the number of nazis was brought down very significantly around the end of WW2. Even though there’s been some resurgence, the number of them is still pretty low compared to peak.
When the terrorists are armed with US weapons and blow up Tel Aviv we will talk then. When doctors and the nurses and Americans are blown up by Hamas in Israel we will talk then as they level Synagogues and hospitals and the fleeing refugees. Israel has lost all their moral support at this point, took a tragedy, and highlighted their history and evil racist beliefs and supremacy as the “chosen people” not unlike the “master race” before them.
deleted by creator
Ah, the Libertarian position.
In the long run that would be probably a good idea, but in the short run that would create power vacuums all over the globe that would probably be filled with all kinds of fucked up people.
I’m sorry I wasn’t aware that Hamas is using infants?
No, but the did kill a lot of them intentionally and have stated their goal is to do so again and again until all the Jews are dead.
You know, Israel could single handedly dismantle Hamas non violently by accepting a two state solution where the two sides work together for mutual benefit.
Just saying, hamas has whatever support it has purely as a resistance movement against Israel for their apartheid regime. Their support would fizzle away if Israel were to do the right thing and try to actually improve the material well-being of the Palestinian population and give them the freedom and state they’ve wanted.
The problem is, right now what Israel is doing is only going to hurt them in the long run, not help them. The ideology of Hamas is that, an ideology. You can’t kill an idea with bombs, that only makes it stronger. And Israel is only digging their own grave by constantly killing civilians at this level, because every Middle Eastern Nation around will never try to work with them again and probably start warring with Israel again, and I’m sorry but Israel isn’t gonna survive that. They were so close to finally getting some sort of peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, and now that’s nothing but a pipe dream again.
You know, Israel could single handedly dismantle Hamas non violently by accepting a two state solution where the two sides work together for mutual benefit.
That’s news to Hamas.
Weren’t they on the cusp of a two state solution before Arafat pulled out?
Yea.
Arafat’s negotiators on the Palestinian side were serious about wanting a two state solution and wanted to come up with a deal with the Israelis, but something stopped Arafat from going through with it. He told clinton he didn’t want to give up Jerusalem as it’s a holy site to muslims (it is for Jews and Christians too, so ngl I don’t think anyone wants to not have Jerusalem. But that’s Arafat, not all Palestinians. Yes that was their leader, but yk not every leader has unanimous support from the people.
He basically was willing to discuss all the areas where the Israelis were making concessions. He wasn’t willing to discuss any of the areas where the Palestinians were supposed to make concessions. So it seemed like he had just said no.
But what I subsequently learned - about 18 months ago, I had a dinner with a former Palestinian negotiator who’d been part of the delegation. He said the whole Palestinian delegation had decided among themselves they should accept it. They went back to Arafat, and Arafat said no. I subsequently heard from another Palestinian on that delegation who said Arafat thought he could still do a better deal under Bush because he thought maybe Bush will be even more forthcoming.
Holy shit, so Arafat alone basically blew the best chance we had.
Jerusalem should just be made a UN protectorate or independent third city-state at this point as part of a two-state solution (like the Vatican).
And yeah, I know everyone will hate that idea, but hey, at least then everyone will hate the idea.
No, until Israel goes away. Israel != Jews.
It’s ironic there’s a commentary right above you arguing that Israel could get Peace by simply offering a two-state solution we’re both States exist.
At this point if Israel goes away it be genocide. There’s whole generations of people that were born and raised in Israel. There’s really nowhere for those people to flee to where they’d be safe other than maybe the US.
The country is not the people. Saying you want the country gone is entirely different.
Without the country who will protect the people who live there?
Disagree, possibly. I will ALWAYS vote for Democrat over Republican. These issues aren’t black and white. Too many other important things to consider in an election.
I hope nearly everyone realizes that. I can’t tell if the psyop bots have made their way here already, or if people are really this unbelievably idiotic, but either way, I can’t write off Trump winning and doing far more nefarious bullshit than ever before. He will make Florida look like a leftie sanctuary.
I guess the mountain of bigotry, corruption, destabilizing geopolitical decision, dismantling of key government institutions, massive wealth transfer to the .1% during 2016-2020 along with the attempted coup, stacked courts, and Roe V Wade somehow wasn’t enough to convince some people that allowing Trump to win will speed run us to Gilead.
I find it extremely difficult to believe anyone who lived through the Trump years who isn’t an idiot or a bigot could ever allow that senile madman back in office. Which is why I have to wonder if there’s some psyop shit going down. But if he does win, what little shred of hope I retain for this country will be gone and I will need to look into living elsewhere, somehow for the safety of my family.
No they understand that letting Trump win is a Gilead speed run, they’re counting on it.
They would like us minority and queer folks to kindly shut up and die so they can cosplay as revolutionaries and “avenge” us.
“First Hitler, then our turn.”, a common chant of the Weimar Communist Party when justifying not forming an electoral coalition with the SPD that would have beaten the right and kept Hitler out of power in the first damned place.
Yeah Lemmy has a lot of “power user” posters who flood the site with stuff that supports certain narratives, upvote each others posts consistently, reply to a lot of comments with copy pasted answers, and all downvote views which don’t match their agenda.
It’s hard to tell whether it’s coordinated astro turfing, or if it’s just the kind of platform that attracts certain viewpoints and people who have way too much time on their hands. It makes it quite pointless to try and engage in most political threads because it’s just exhausting.
Yeah I know there has been a lot of tankie traffic in the past but my instance blocked them. That crowd, in general, is fucking exhausting. This batch of “don’t vote for Biden” feels like something different. More like a good ol’ bot farm trying to swing the vote. Idk. But it may also just be like you said, where the site attracts certain views.
I said this a week ago and got downvoted to hell, but I’ll say it again: this issue will fuck him next November
The problem with Presidency. More people approve of his decision than disapprove. Either choice would have fucked him next November.
Lucky for him, Encumbants get a huge leg-up on the reelection bid and need to basically be guilty of treason not to win.
That’s what I’m saying, it doesn’t really matter what he does here. Unless he abandoned 70 years worth of American diplomacy, he simply cannot sell this as an appeal to the more progressive wing of his caucus (which he desperately needs). Progressives are already skeptical of his progressive bona-fides, and this is just another reminder that he’s a Neo-liberal democrat at heart.
It really depends on how things shake out in the next year, but this is certainly the most likely thing (right now) that could sink him. Even if he doesn’t loose, it certainly makes things way harder down the ticket. He could either end up loosing house seats or he could have to contend with a far more polarized congress, and either way that’s bad news.
I’m not sure a progressive president would have done much better in this. Ultimately, we hope the President does what’s best for the United States first, then the world second. A large number of progressives aren’t isolationists, and Israel is a large part of our displomatic positioning in and around the Middle East. Not because they’re “the good guys”, but they’re the ones that don’t actively hate us. I’d like to see that change, and I think it could, but we’re not there yet.
Agreeing that Israel is justified in attacking Hamas. Insisting diplomatically that Israel should limit its actions to enemy combatants. It’s a complicated situation. And ironically, if someone is isolationist enough to throw out our alliance with Israel, they woudl also be isolationist enough not to care about the Israel/Palestine conflict. It’s sorta lose/lose for us due to past decisions and actions.
It depends on how you define progressive, but largely I agree not much else could have reasonably been done, regardless of how progressive they are.
But Biden’s situation is unique to him and his campaign. A Bernie incumbent wouldn’t be needing to defend his progressive alignments and policies, but Biden is very much fighting an optics battle. He is pitching himself as “the most progressive president in a generation” because his survival depends on that demographic. Whatever your opinion is on what he’s actually done, his polling numbers clearly indicate that the progressive base does not believe he is sufficiently progressive. This conflict fucks his messaging, and the progressive caucus seems fairly animated by this issue particularly.
Again, it would be pretty hard for him to loose reelection (though I would strongly caution against assuming so), but that doesn’t mean he can’t still be put way on his back foot for his second term.
But Biden’s situation is unique to him and his campaign. A Bernie incumbent wouldn’t be needing to defend his progressive alignments and policies, but Biden is very much fighting an optics battle. He is pitching himself as “the most progressive president in a generation” because his survival depends on that demographic
Is he though? This feels like everyone expected Obama to be a progressive despite years of media calling him a Moderate. Even Trump accused him of being a “radical moderate”.
Biden agreed to give Progressives a small seat at the table, which is the best we’ve gotten since at least Clinton, if not Carter.
Whatever your opinion is on what he’s actually done, his polling numbers clearly indicate that the progressive base does not believe he is sufficiently progressive
I’ve learned from Trump that “how you poll” and “how well you’re doing” are two very different things. Trump should’ve polled a 0%, and yet he hit almost 50% on multiple occasions. And his highest approval was throughout 2020.
I’m not speaking to whether Biden is winning progressive votes, only to whether he’s doing his part. I don’t think Bernie would be doing better than him on any of these things, but as you say, progressives would give him more lenience because he didn’t come in as a moderate.
This conflict fucks his messaging, and the progressive caucus seems fairly animated by this issue particularly.
Well yeah. Welcome to the president problem. You’re always making a lot of people mad, no matter what you do.
Again, it would be pretty hard for him to loose reelection (though I would strongly caution against assuming so), but that doesn’t mean he can’t still be put way on his back foot for his second term.
I never expected anything more than 4-8 years of back-leg after Trump, from any president. But we still have to support him if we don’t want Trump.
If so, that’s fucking ridiculous. Jesus fucking Christ democracy will die because Joe Biden didn’t force Israel to stop their genocide and only told them to stop instead???
Fuck this goddamn retarded existence just fucking kill me already Jesus fucking Christ
FUCK THIS GODDAMN PLANET
Tankies aren’t humans. They hated voting for Biden the first time but did so because Trump was the literal devil. Now Hassan Piker has riled up his masses of dumbasses to completely turn on what is the best president we had since Obama (I’m only speaking economically, so shut up).
Please vote. No matter what anyone tells you, vote. Get your idiot friends to vote. Remind them of what’s at stake.
Tankies aren’t humans.
What a strange moment to make this statement.
Meh I use Tankies as a term for the “far right” of the left.
Might not be the most accurate term but these Israel hating leftists are almost always Tankies. But the rest of the comment is pretty clear and I’m glad you were able to focus on something benign. Typical tankie.
deleted by creator
What is an “Israel hating leftist”
A leftist that glosses over Hamas’ attack on the 7th
I don’t care who you accept as human
deleted by creator
Benign, maybe in an irrelevant way? But certainly not benign by its content though, right?
I just found it to be a strange usage because presumably the criticism being cast against Israel is for their judicious use of force against unarmed civilians, and as far as I know ‘tankie’ was originally used to describe people in support of the state’s judicious use of force against unarmed civilians.
I would have thought the word would have been more appropriately used to describe Zionists in this situation, but I wouldn’t pretend to know.
Hamas attacked innocent civilians on the 7th. Didn’t see any lefties coming out to denounce any of it
How?
The vast majority of American Jews are Democrats and seem to be supporting Biden’s response.
Most pro-palestinian Democrats know that the Republican Party will not advance their cause in any way and not voting will only support the Republican Party.
deleted by creator
It’s that antisemitic trope where people conflate all Jewish people with the apartheid state and then turn around amd call other people antisemitic if they ever criticize the many atrocities committed by the government enforcing the apartheid by committing genocide.
There’s outrage but when people think about what Trump would do… Geezus. Trump would declare war on the whole Middle East.
The question is will this event get the Republican voters out and keep Democrats voters home? Just for them to regret their protest non-vote again.
Considering that the protest non voters have responded to Dobbs by answering criticism over it with “Well I wasn’t pandered to enough!” and “Rights are a fiction anyways!”
The other guy has a much worse record though and he’s counting on that.
What I think will happen is trump will go to jail then the Republicans will pick someone else like Nikki Haley and Biden will be in trouble. I don’t like her but she’s much more palatable than Trump so she may have a chance.
i mean what do you want him to do? any action through the un would likely be vetoed by uk or france, he has no control over the israeli military, the media has taken the propaganda hook line and sinker, and congress controls monetary relief (unless you want him to withhold aid which has been apportioned for relief already which is exactly what trump did that got him (rightfully) impeached).
Yeah. And it would have been this way no matter if he did nothing, attacked Hamas directly, or bombed Israel.
The conflicts in the Middle East is very devisive. Folks have been fighting over that area since before we have written history. No matter what you do someone is going to want you dead.
I think his approach of guarding without direct invasion is probably the right one, but neither side will be happy with it.
Folks have been fighting over that area since before we have written history
Sure, but things got a whole lot worse for world politics in the 20th century.
Yup.
People seem to think I’m saying he’s made the wrong choice and he’ll loose because of it, but really I’m speaking very broadly.
What I think is unique to him in this election is his target voters. His caucus is significantly more progressive than they were even 12 years ago, which is why his whole message thus far has been ‘the most progressive president of a generation’. And the Palestinian conflict in particular has seen a huge swing in sentiment. It used to be that the Democrats could reliably run a pro-israel campaign and their base would at least tolerate it, but that’s not the case now.
The Republican base could not be more different, and honestly I think someone like Trump could campaign on even an anti-zionist position and not loose much support.
That the conflict flaired now is a disaster for him, because there is no way to handle it that will net him more votes. In particular, Biden would never be the one to change what has been the American diplomatic position for the last 70 years. And I think Netanyahu knows this, and will press the issue well into 2024 to rally support for his own goals.
People also forget how brutal war is. Civilian casualties are the rule, not the exception, esp in urban engagements. Ceasefire is also a laughable proposition, if you think either side would actually do it I have a bridge to sell you.
Really all we can do is see how this goes. And I know that even if the Israeli govt. is awful, if it’s a choice between them and Hamas controlling the area in the end, I’d rather see it be Israel.
I doubt international affairs affect many votes at all unless it’s something that involves significant deployment of American soldiers.
Voters really only care about the things they think affect them.
It won’t but I like to remind actual voters to stop being complacent.
Its possible, but how smooth brained would someone have to be to vote for Trump over this?
Many just won’t vote.
Which is still absolutely absurd, because any Democrat who doesn’t vote for Biden is implicitly granting his Republican opponent a vote. This opponent may be Trump, but even if it isn’t, it’s still a Republican whose position on Israel and the conflict will make Biden’s response look measured.
Many people are angered by Biden’s response, but for pro-Palestinian supporters it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face to not vote this cycle for Biden. You’re actively allowing an even worse option.
I love how the headline sounds so negative, and yet looking at the Numbers they could have easily just said “more Democrats approve of his handling of the crisis”.
I mean, almost half the members of his own party disagree with him, not the nation as a whole. If this doesn’t go away, it is not good news.
The old adage come to mind that, “The left fall in love, and the right fall in line.” The right will more reliably vote for “their guy”, but I’ve seen so many losses on the left because of disenchantment.
That’s part of the problem, though: the left never fell in love with him. He got elected by a small margin in a few key states similar to that of Trump 2016 mainly due to not being Trump rather than any merit of his own.
It might not work a second time since voters have ridiculously short memories and “not the other one” tactics are much less effective for incumbents.
I agree. It was an anti-Trump vote, not a pro-Biden vote.
The amazing thing is that the anti-Trump ticket should be much stronger now than it was then. Why the fuck is it not? After all, the previous time USA voted, Trump hadn’t yet tried to overturn a presidential vote.
Voters are shortsighted. I still think Biden has an edge in 24, but people have quickly forgotten exactly what a disaster Trump was and have started saying “at least he did something”.
All because the press finds most of Biden’s successful-but-moderate presidency to be too boring to headline. Trump was in the headlines 5 days a week during his presidency. And for some people no press is bad press.
Well he promised a lot and hasn’t delivered on it. For example, he hasn’t even mentioned a public option since the election. His handling of the student loan debt thing seems like he’s purposely dragging his feet, and the latest report I heard about that makes it sound like he’s trying to cut back even further.
He hasn’t been as bad as I thought he would be, he’s definitely the most pro-union person of my lifetime at least, but that doesn’t take away that some of the key campaign promises that he made he either hasn’t delivered on, hasn’t seemed to try to deliver on, or actively seems like he doesn’t want to.
Dragging his feet on student loans? I feel like that’s the only campaign promise he’s been making a consistent effort on. He literally got shot down by the Supreme Court and has kept trying different strategies. The only times he’s reduced the scope of the proposed relief is once he’s been blocked at every turn.
Even as someone with student loans, I’ve almost been frustrated that he’s been putting as much effort as he has into student loan relief while bigger issues see no action.
Not to mention some key progressive campaign promises have not materialized or were straight up broken.
Which ones? The ones I followed, he invested more political capital in than I ever expected.
EDIT: My own research, looks like the big one is healthcare. He’s constantly talking about it and constantly “doing something behind closed doors” about it, but nothing has manifested yet. I wonder if it’s because it would never pass the current congress, or if there’s bigger (or more dishonest) reasons.
At this point, there’s not many things that more than half of Democrats agree on. We’re the entire political spectrum of “everything that isn’t fascist”.
Yeah there’s more intellectual diversity on the democratic side. When I meet a right winger, it feels like I know what 90% of their opinions are going to be. Whereas Dems have everyone from pro-corporate neo-liberals to European style lefties.
That said, I doubt there’s “not many things that more than half of Democrats agree on.” Abortion rights, Trump being guilty, taxing the rich, universal healthcare, climate change, protecting voting rights, etc. enjoy overwhelming agreement. As in 70-90%.
There’s disagreement too of course: defunding the police, trans rights, reparations… but even these have 60-70%+ support amongst Dems.
I honestly can’t think of any other topic that Democrats disagree with each other as strongly about.
Fair enough. Perhaps my take was slightly hyperbolic.
Gun control is a great example of something Democrats can’t agree on. We have gun-grabbers, background-checkers, and even a few NRA-hawks. Details on Healthcare. Reparations are a 50/50, too. The thing in all of those, I think, is that we’re willing to compromise.
Actually, looking at some of your bullet points, I see them as party compromise points. Prior to Dobbs, there was a LARGE percent of Democrats who supported what they called “reasonable restrictions” on Abortion, and many still do if tapered by seeing how slippery the slope really was. And going back 10-15 years made it even more of a mixed bag. Pew couldn’t get more than 63% of Democrats to agree abortion should be legal “in most cases”. Back when Roe was precedent. The thing was, we could all compromise on which cases, and agree that “in no cases” should never be the law of the land. The more anti-choice Democrats were willing to compromise on some propaganda, parental shame forms for underage, etc.
Ditto with healthcare. It’s a sad truth, but most Democrats didn’t want to see a Public Option in the ACA. It looks like the trend of “Public Option” being fringe flipped in 2020. Probably not a coincidence. I can’t find party-split polls pre-2020 right now, but a 2019 poll showed fewer than 25% of Americans wanted a Public option. Even if it was mostly Democrat-leaning voters that said that, we’re still looking at less than half. Now, admittedly, we’re approaching 70% of all voters who want some sort of public option.
I honestly can’t think of any other topic that Democrats disagree with each other as strongly about.
FPTP Voting, details of abortion rights/restrictions, details of how to handle healthcare. Lots of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech disagreements that just don’t rise to the level of “headliner issue”. I’d say any copyright/dmca question is “it’s complicated” to Democrats who are informed enough to even speak of it. I can’t find numbers on the wealth tax, but they seemed mixed back when Warren was pushing it. Topical to the above discussions, military isolationism vs “world police” attitudes. These are all fairly contentious issues within the United States. Biden seems to represent the plurality view on most of them, which I give him credit for despite my having very different opinions.
EDIT: To clarify, it’s a bigger gap for a bigger reason. Almost exactly half of Democrats are neoliberals. And our progressive caucus, almost as big as the neoliberal wing, is diversified between capitalist-progressives, socialists, and other incompatible but good-faith groups. On the big issues, we’re either all in compromise or in agreement on a few large bullet points. But on the less-highlit issues, there are fundamental foundational differences of theory of government within our party. The biggest families of issues on that are:
- The nature of money and which economic attitude to hold on things like supply and demand
- The type and amount of regulations, or workers rights, that should be enforced vs limitations on businesses (or neither/both).
- How much power a president should be able to hold, and in what domains
The list goes on. For object example, I’m a passively-anti-union progressive. I think Unions are band-aids. I think they should have all the rights and protections they have, but they are a sign of capitalism remaining dominant with regards to worker laws, and our goal should be to make them useless by making them unnecessary. There’s a lot of Democrats that would vote anti-union, but despite my position, I’d vote pro-union as a compromise for my real wants. However, given the option between writing a union protection or a worker protection into a bill, I would fight tooth-and-nail for the worker protection. Many Democrats would fight for the union protection instead.
I mean, what does Means-testing look like WRT welfare in the Democratic party? We’re all over the place. People like me say it should be available to everyone regardless of means, where some Labor-friendly neoliberals are happy to leave in “employed” clauses, but want to loosen the income restrictions so that hard-working Americans get the greater benefit. Obviously I am sympathetic to that position as much as I disagree with it.
The headline is supposed to reflect the story. “More than half of Democrats support Israel” is “Dog Bites Man”, there’s nothing surprising. The fact that almost as many are opposed is the “Man Bites Dog” part.
Or they could have been brutally honest and said “more than half of democrats approve of enabling genocide”.
And before you say “but Trump and the Republicans are much worse”, yes that’s obviously true but that’s besides the point.
If we’re truely being honest then the majority of Americans think Isrealis are all descended from holocaust survivors surrounded by Bin Ladens who hate freedom.
American education is extremely hyper focused on itself and itself exclusively. A US student only learns about other countries through the propaganda version of armed conflicts it personally participated in.
As an American high school student in the early 90’s I was taught that Israel was a great friend to the USA and always being attacked just because other countries didn’t like Jews.
I have a better understanding of things now but it does help me understand why Israel gets so much support from my and older generations.
One turtle tells me news that I like to hear and let’s me forget about the bastards over there that we keep supporting
Or they could have been brutally honest and said “more than half of democrats approve of enabling genocide”.
Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like “more than half of democrats think Biden’s making the best choice in an all-round shitty situation”. None of us approve of enabling genocide.
Some people actually think “pushing Israel to set rules of engagement” is some of the best we’re going to get if we can’t get the entire world on-board. Nobody wants to invade Israel to stop this (do they), and Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not “destroying Palastine” might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.
I’m a fence-sitter on this issue, but I think the majority that supports Biden’s plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with “enabling genocide”.
I get that you want us to condemn Israel. And I’m sure it’s been considered. I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it won’t necessarily save a single Palestinian life.
Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like “more than half of democrats think Biden’s making the best choice in an all-round shitty situation”. None of us approve of enabling genocide.
That’s a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the “best choice” is objectively enabling genocide by unquestioningly supporting the government committing it while punishing those that speak up against it.
Some people actually think “pushing Israel to set rules of engagement” is some of the best we’re going to get
It isn’t, though. Israel has been setting their own rules the whole time and that’s the majority of what caused the whole thing.
Nobody wants to invade Israel
Of course not.
Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not “destroying Palastine” might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.
That’s not being done, though. Unless there’s consequences such as withholding military (but not humanitarian) aid and possibly targeted sanctions, the apartheid regime is going to continue committing atrocities.
I think the majority that supports Biden’s plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with “enabling genocide”.
Yes and no: I believe that most of the people who supports his genocide-enabling are under- or misinformed enough to not know that they’re indirectly supporting genocide.
I get that you want us to condemn Israel.
Of course. Anything else is being complicit.
And I’m sure it’s been considered.
Probably not seriously, no. The neoliberal Dem leadership depend too much on bribes from AIPAC and others like them.
I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it won’t necessarily save a single Palestinian life
I guarantee you that no longer getting the financial and political support of the US would force them to be less aggressive, which would save thousands of lives.
That’s a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the “best choice” is objectively enabling genocide
I think objectively doesn’t mean what you think it means. But more importantly, even if you’re right about there being a better response than Biden’s (and you might be; it’s a complicated issue), that doesn’t mean people who support Biden’s position agree that you’re right. Which means, NO, objectively, they do not “approve of enabling genocide”. Just look at literally the other reply to me that agreed with me at length. And if there are at least two people who support Biden’s decisions in this thread alone that do not “approve of enabling genocide”, then I bet you any money there’s at least 2 more out in the US. “Perhaps more than that!”
I called you on your bad-faith accusation that Democratic voters “approve of enabling genocide”, and nothing in your reply to me reduces the accuracy of what I called you on. You’re just getting into the weeds arguing politics now.
If you want, I’d be happy to join that conversation as well. As soon as you concede that the “approve of enabling genocide” thing was excessive and bad faith.
It’s a fact that the tack Biden is taking amounts to enabling genocide. Whether you know that or not, saying you approve of his handling of the situation is saying that you approve of enabling genocide no matter if you know it or not.
In other words:
-
Biden’s plan is objectively enabling genocide
-
Some people who don’t consider themselves in favor of enabling genocide support Biden
-
The thing that those people say they support is enabling genocide, no matter how ignorant of reality or in denial they are.
Curious who made Viking Hippie the sole arbiter of truth. How many experts disagreeing with you makes it less “we’re all objectively enabling genocide”?
What if I think Viking Hippie is “objectively enabling genocide”? It’s a fact (ok, it’s just a thought experiment). That means I get to say anyone that agrees with you is “objectively enabling genocide”, right?
3 days to come back with “you’re wrong because it’s arrogant to be confident that you’re you’re right when people are paid to be wrong”? Damn, you’re really bad at this! 😂
-
They need to follow up and ask what their opinion is of Trump and if supporting Israel is enough to convince them to not vote.
Disapproval on it’s own, means nothing.
I disapprove of a lot of what Biden has done. Does that mean I’ll vote Trump? Fuck no!
It’s the difference between 40% disapproval vs. 120% disapproval.
Very few people switch between the two parties…
But around a third of Americans just don’t vote.
And stuff like this makes people not vote. And when turnout is low, we end up with republicans in office.
Getting people to show up to vote is kind of the most important thing in an election…
For some reason when it’s a moderate dem candidate, it’s no longer their job to get votes. It’s the voters job to be the adult and vote for someone they dont want who will do things they do t agree with, because the other option will do things they don’t agree with
Do you honestly not understand how this is a terrible strategy and maybe, just maybe, wed be better off running good candidates that will try to help?
Not just about this, but with pretty much every major issues facing America today.
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s a ‘strategy’, it’s just reality. Better candidates don’t get the votes, especially in the dnc primaries
Because the moderates running the party don’t want them too…
And like their lawyer told a judge, they’re allowed to interfere as much as they want in primaries because they don’t even have to abide by the results.
Primaries are an illusion of choice. It’s not voters deciding, it’s a survey and they can ask all the loaded questions they want to get the responses they want.
They are the problem, and they’re fine letting a Republican occasionally win as long as they’re still the only other option in four years.
Partly because the same insanely wealthy people donate to both parties.
You think when Trump was giving the DNC millions of dollars that he never asked for anything in return?
You think he just gave away that money for nothing?
As long as the better candidate doesn’t manage to top 40% consistently, there’s no real pressure for any change. If most people are only willing to invest the absolute minimum (or less) in time and energy in the democratic process, that makes it extremely easy for others to get in power. The US has a shit system but the easiest first step would be a popular majority within the own party.
Genuine question: other than the speech right after Oct 7 happened, what has Biden even done besides require Ukraine and Israel funding to be in the same bill? I keep seeing posts about Biden’s response but I still don’t know what it is :c
In my post history, I was leaning towards Israel in the beginning until I learned about the atrocities they committed/are committing. At this point, I’m firmly of the opinion that Palestine needs justice.
Biden hasn’t done much other than secure their funding, which is by no means a small amount btw, but he has made a lot of statements about it that people disagree with such as
"This attack has brought to the surface painful memories and the scars left by a millennia of antisemitism and genocide of the Jewish people.
So, in this moment, we must be crystal clear: We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. And we will make sure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself, and respond to this attack.
There is no justification for terrorism. There is no excuse.
…
The loss of innocent life is heartbreaking.
Like every nation in the world, Israel has the right to respond — indeed has a duty to respond — to these vicious attacks.
I just got off the phone with — the third call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And I told him if the United States experienced what Israel is experiencing, our response would be swift, decisive, and overwhelming.
We also discussed how democracies like Israel and the United States are stronger and more secure when we act according to the rule of law."
Kind of hard to walk back a statement that basically boils down to “Killing innocents is wrong when they do it, but it is good when we do it.”
EDIT: some typos
Genuine question:
Aside from pressure and funding, which the US government has yet to manifest, what would your expectations be of the US government in this situation?
The response people expect from his is an immediate ceasefire which he still has failed to accomplish. Not only that, he has failed to outright counter the narrative that Palestine = Hamas that some news outlets are spewing and failed to approach the issue with neutrality. Blanket support for Israel has made him (and the US) complicit in a genocide.
People in his admin have quit over his stance and are apparently furious with how he’s positioned the US in this “war”. He/his admin also criticized Rashid Tlaib for speaking in favor of Palestine which caused dems and republicans to censure her.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/06/u-s-diplomats-slam-israel-policy-in-leaked-memo-00125538
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/11/9/23953902/rashida-tlaib-censure-palestine-statement
Basically, fuck Biden. And also, we’re fucked in 2024 at the hands of yet another geriatric asshole incapable of forming a coherent sentence, chose which flavor (D or R) you want.
choose what flavor (D or R) you want
You really gonna wrap up your shit take with a brain dead both-sides line?
Thanks for the laugh, moron
I really ought to call you a fucking idiot, but you’ve probably heard that all your life, so no sense for me to keep hammering it home.
I’m all ears for the genius take you have but being the fucking idiot you are, you’re probably going to have a stroke trying to put it down into words.
But sure, keep laughing. It’s likely good for your smooth brain.
This is one part of why it is even possible for him to lose. States that managed to eek out an extra brain cell last time may not this time. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Georgia, New Mexico, and Arizona could be in play for anyone with a heart beat that is not Joe Biden.
There had better be a strong Democrat primary in 2024. If the party capitulates to Biden, the base is going to heave a depressed sigh and probably stay home. The loud people online who swear Americans are too afraid not to vote for him are a tiny vocal faction. 2016 should have proven that. Many more people would rather watch it burn than continue the farce that got us here.
Pro-Tip - Nobody serious will primary him.
The history of primarying a sitting President is that if you do the damage, you won’t win, but the President will fail in the General.
How many times has that happened?
Once with Carter?
And wasn’t that the moderate establishment intentionally kneecapping his second term because if a Republican won they could say it was because Carter was too progressive and the Dem party needed to be more conservative? But if Carter got a second term, progressives would keep winning primaries?
I can’t think of another time an incumbent Dem president was primaried.
But I bet the next time it happens is after the first term of a progressive president. Suddenly party leadership will decide we deserve a say in their private event where they don’t have to respect the results.
Johnson was primaried, did poorly in VT and withdrew his nomination. Nominee lost to Nixon.
Ford was primaried, lost to Carter.
Carter was primaried, lost to Reagan.
H.W. Bush was primaried, lost to Clinton, but was also fighting Perot.So basically every time it’s happened in recent times.
Guess there was few more.
This article should help you:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2024-primary_n_6503225de4b0800d579d8f64
Tldr:
Saying primary challengers make incumbents lose is like saying getting a warning for speeding makes someone more likely to get a speeding ticket
Driving over the speed limit makes both more likely.
So in addition to my point about Carter, and this shouldn’t need to be said, but if a president is so bad that they have to fight a tough primary as an incumbent, they’re probably not going to win their general.
An easy fix is to normalize a primary. Strong incumbents get a second go, and we’re not running an incumbent no one likes in the general if they lose
I think there were legit weaknesses in Johnson, Ford, and Carter.
Johnson because of Vietnam of course. Ford because he pardoned Nixon, and Carter due to the hostage crisis.
Bush was more hurt by Perot than the primary. Buchanan got all pissy over the “read my lips, no new taxes” thing.
Of Biden foregoes a run (he won’t) and named an heir, we’d be in a better place than described. But it cannot look like Hillary Clinton on the way to a coronation. We lost that one.
Yup, that’s what I’m aftraid they’re setting up for '28 and Harris - “Her Turn 2.0”.
Biden is almost guaranteed to be the Democrat nominee. They aren’t going to do a serious campaign against their own incumbent.
The 2024 election is going to be Biden vs Trump unless one of them dies or goes to jail.
I do worry for 2024 because I can really tell that the Democratic party will still lean hard on Biden, regardless. I mean, they leaned on Hilary Clinton very hard even though there were actually better and more suited candidates running. Right now, I’m only hearing crickets as to what the Democrats can prop up as running candidates. This is really worrying, in an election that should be a given, because Republicans are busy eating at eachother. That should be taking advantage of, not resting on your laurels in hopes it guarantees you another term.
50/50 is probably about what you’d expect, it’s a volatile situation with a lot of emotion attached to it.
That’s of Democrats, not the nation as a whole. I can’t think of any other policy issue that has split the party so thoroughly. The split is deeper than in the past, which is potentially good for Palestinians, but bad for Biden, no matter what policy he chooses.
but bad for Biden, no matter what policy he chooses
We’re agreeing on that. D’s have been split on a lot, people will forget in a month because it doesn’t effect the US.
Nobody is a winner when it comes to holy wars, which is what this is all about. Everyone’s a loser. I mean, what the hell can you do when one part of a country wants to annihilate another populace based on belief?
At least he didn’t invite Hamas to the WH or Camp David like the Taliban was invited. 🤷♂️
He has to condemn the killing of kids, do I even have to say that…sad.
Yes, you do have to say that. Everyday. Loudly and repeatedly.
So, a majority of Democrats approve of Biden’s response? I see.
So weird that funding a genocide isn’t well received.
$260 billion US taxpayer dollars.
Israel has free healthcare, college, and war. How neat for them.
