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.
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 ® 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.
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?
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?
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.
It is shit. The best solution is for Biden to take action before the number of dead mounts even more
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?
I’m not American, but if I was obviously I would still vote for Biden
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”.
I just don’t like to see the demonization of this quite understandable (imo) position.
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.
Apologies for the length
I don’t think I could criticize the length of your reply considering my own :)
I hope we can get someone better in the primary
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
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.
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.
“Progressives” will elect Donald “Muslim Ban” Trump then. Morons.
It won’t but I like to remind actual voters to stop being complacent.
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.
Wow, this will lead to a huge bump in his primary opponents polling. What? He doesn’t have any? Well, then why the fuck would Biden care what democratic voters think? All he has to do is be to the left of whomever the Republicans nominate after Trump is thrown in jail.
This assumes that everyone actually goes to vote.
If someone is disillusioned, they may sit out that vote. I know I’ve heard a few republicans basically say “I can’t vote for Trump, but I certainly can’t vote for a democrat, so I’ll just leave that one blank”. This could be a similar situation here, that folks disheartened by support given to a country going too far in a military response and unable to vote for it with a clear conscience.
Logically, one would realize the alternative is even worse and vote for lesser of evils, but some folks don’t vote that way.
Depresses voter turnout in the general.
Its a failure of communications. A ceasefire without the return of hostages means that hezbollah strikes, the middle east erupts into war, and Gaza gets leveled by Iran. So a humanitarian pause is much more appropriate if you are trying to prevent palestinians from being killed. Theh have done a very poor job of communicating that.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
And more than half wish he’d support Israel harder.
deleted by creator
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.
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!
And we can’t vote for anyone else, or the wrong lizard might win!
Ah America, you offer the same choice as France and the UK.
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?
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.
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.
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! 😂
-
And of that half 95% could not point to Israel on a map.
