534
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
534 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19239 readers
2119 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I said this a week ago and got downvoted to hell, but I'll say it again: this issue will fuck him next November
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.
To go against voting is to go against democracy itself. It blows my mind that democrats don't want to vote when republicans will.
Democrats can be really dumb sometimes. Too many would rather stick to idealistic principles because at least then when they lose they can claim the high road and a persecution complex.
Maybe it's not much of a "complex" when that persecution actually then happens (like the Dobbs decision), but if Democrats would just shut up and vote with the best option available instead of not voting at all, maybe we'd win more. Trump wouldn't have been elected in 2016 if Democrats had turned out in the same numbers they did in 2008 but instead 4 million Dems just didn't show up.
If Democrats won more, we could at least start to implement changes like Instant-Runoff Voting or doing away with the Electoral College. Republicans don't want any of those changes, because they know it weakens their position. But so many liberals just refuse to vote because there's no "good" option and refuse to vote for the option that even enables a "good" choice, while any conservative will do anything they can to vote for anyone willing to put an (R) next to their name. It's so fucking juvenile and I'm still ashamed to admit I once used to believe it too.
Don't get me wrong, both the AOC and the GOP are pure evil and there are both good and terrible people in those organizations, but when people say that "a vote is a waste" it makes my sight turn red.
The only reason not to vote is if no candidate has even a single policy that you agree with, otherwise, vote ffs.
And another thing, the voting mentality of the states is the reason we are stuck in a duopoly here. If someone truly does not want to vote for either party, at the very least vote for a third option so that party may potentially get seats and actually partake in the next election. As I said, the only way to waste a vote is precisely to not vote, and all a party needs to get seats is 5% of the popular vote.
I hope we can get someone better in the primary
As much as the democrats want to believe this, it isn't the only alternative. Maybe it will just make some people stay home on election day
"Silence is Violence"
Anyone who doesn't vote for Biden could be complicit in a 2024 Trump Regime. Don't like that? Get him primaried by someone who will also be able to beat Trump.
Now is not the time to be an accelerationist.
Yeah I get it. But "get the incumbent president primaried by someone who goes on to still win the election" is not a fantastic option for a potential voter is it? If you just don't want to support someone who is standing by while what you consider to be a genocide is happening, this is your only viable option?
It is shit. The best solution is for Biden to take action before the number of dead mounts even more. Call out Israeli crimes as strongly as you call out those from Hamas. This is what any self respecting progressive president would have to do on this situation.
But if that doesn't happen? No consequence. People are supposed to dutifully line up and say "more please" because the political system is so fundamentally broken.
I'm not American, but if I was obviously I would still vote for Biden. I just don't like to see the demonization of this quite understandable (imo) position. If you can't stomach doing that, the problem isn't you so much as the whole system. You should vote Biden and then the VERY NEXT DAY be out on the street demanding electoral reform.
Apologies for the length but I think this sums up my point: what would Biden have to do to make it not worth voting for him? What could he get away with?
Short of something Trump-level, Biden is going to win the Primary. There's no maybe on that. The incumbency advantage might be beatable in the General, but it's monumental. Quite certainly him representing the **majority ** Democratic take on the Israel war is not going to lose him the Primary.
Israel was attacked by Palestine. They were attacked by Hamas, but Hamas rules Palestine. Based on internationally agreed-upon rules of engagement, they get to bloody Hamas back. We both know the problem isn't Israel hitting back, it's them not really caring about civilian damage and their desire to simply take over the West Bank. Anything we do strongly against Israel is going to be against most of our allied countries and cost us the Israel alliance. Interestingly, the running trend in the US has been isolationism, something both parties have started to agree on, and everyone's favorite Bernie Sanders as well when he ran in 2016 and 2020. But now we're mad Biden took a fairly Isolationist "but please don't wipe them out" point of view?
What do progressives want? Do we want isolationism or do we just want to pick and choose our wars based on personal opinion? I don't like Israel, but we're supposed to be committing to getting less involved in international politics. For some, that just seems like it means "let's support our enemies and not our allies". Why can't we just support NEITHER side, like everyone has been demanding Democrats do?
I'm assuming you don't actively support Hamas, right?
Ahhhh... I should've read before I started replying. You're missing something. One of the few things Trump and Bernie agreed on in 2016 was the desire for the US to stop trying to police the damn world. Our progressive wing, until very recently, wanted us to stay out of the Middle East until we no longer have a choice. We thought that meant not supporting Israel, but if we're being honest it means also not condemning them until they go well past "following the rules of engagement".
The position of letting Trump win in protest for Biden doing what a majority of his voters want? He very much admonished Israel not to occupy Palestine and not to take action with excess civilian casualties. He's insisting Israel hold to a stricter set of rules of engagement than most countries would if another country led an unprovoked attack against civilians. We cannot forget that Hamas is the ruling party of Palestine. At the very least, Israel is entitled to try to step in and replace Palestine's leadership with someone who won't attack Israel. Except we don't trust Israel, and Biden doesn't trust Israel, to do that in good faith.
I don't think I could criticize the length of your reply considering my own :)
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.
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.
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
A leftist that glosses over Hamas' attack on the 7th
I don't care who you accept as human
I'm sure hamas found retribution for Palestine in killing innocent civilians. I hope in 100 years when Israel exacts their revenge for the 7th, they'll have some idiots defending them with claims of "dEcAdEs Of GeNoCiDaL" behavior.
So let me get this straight: every country has a blank check they can cash to justify violence because of history?
You're not real. There's no way 😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well yeah. Welcome to the president problem. You're always making a lot of people mad, no matter what you do.
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.
“Progressives” will elect Donald “Muslim Ban” Trump then. Morons.
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.
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.
Sure, but things got a whole lot worse for world politics in the 20th century.
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.
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.
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).
It won't but I like to remind actual voters to stop being complacent.
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.