State Department official resigns after Biden administration says Israel not blocking Gaza aid
A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.
Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.
The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.
The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons "inconsistent" with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.
When the genocide is this obvious, and the ongoing consequences for the democrats and democracy this serious, it really makes me wonder what's the political calculus behind it.
Is AIPAC really that big of a threat? Is netanyahu that important to our imperial interests in the middle east? Why choose full on putinesque post-truth politics over this?
I've never had much faith in the democrats, but I honestly just don't understand what's driving such terrible decision making.
Pulling support from Isreal isn't nearly as popular as someone who is in the progressive / lemmy bubble would think. And besides public opinion, Isreal has a very strong lobby. Also, while there are more vocal American Jews standing against Isreal now, they're far from united against Isreal.
I know it seems like it's a clear win because of the echo chamber in here, but it could cost them not only the presidential election, but down ballot as well, if they go against Isreal. And I've said it before, chasing the Leftist vote is an exercise in futility. They will just move goalposts, and you may very well lose more voters appeasing them than you gain. And the votes you do gain will be fickle.
It sucks to say, but their strategy is solid. And we need to celebrate the small wins to encourage their slow break from unconditional support.
Edit:
Lemmy as a whole - "Political polls are very unreliable and next to useless"
ITT: "A specific poll agrees with my opinion, and thus should be treated as the absolute truth"
Uh huh. Re: echo chambers
I've seen a number of polls that reiterate how strongly youth and democrats oppose israel's actions and call it genocide. I don't think it's an echo chamber effect.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
This poll from March shows 55/36 disapprove/approve.
Moreover, democrats disapprove at 75% vs 18% approve and independents disapprove at 60% to 29% approve. Sure, republicans approve at 64%, but ain't no republicans switching to biden over gaza.
Those numbers are brutal for democrats, and getting worse. More obvious genocide from the israelis and feeble lies from biden isn't going to reverse that trend.
It's easy to say disapprove, you should look at the rankings of what issues are on their minds. Gaza is down there.
Conveniently up until the election.
A fair point.
Polling does not agree with you. It's certainly not a slam dunk but the majority of voters want military aid conditioned on not committing war crimes.
Completely Pulling support is one thing, but “conditioning support” has broad bipartisan public appeal. Bernie Sanders can articulate this well; support for Israeli defense programs like Iron Dome, and cutting support for offensive artillery that’s being used to storm Gaza. Why can’t Biden say the same, instead he’s trying to split hairs on whether tanks into Rafah doesn’t count as a ground invasion (and making himself look stupid in front of voters).
When did doing the right thing become unelectable?
So solid that polling says the opposite, the media is starting to catch on, and there is a report that dem strategists are freaking the fuck out over how shit Biden's chances are. CNN miraculously figured out that, surprise surprise a lot of it has to do with Biden's handling of Gaza.
Sry, but you're delusional if you seriously think that the Israel thing isn't a huge factor towards why Biden has lost so much support. We are literally seeing a democratic president aid Israel in commiting a genocide.
Outside of lemmy I get tons of information about the ongoing genocide. As far as I can tell, the democratic strategy is not solid. They're going be in for a rough realization that Trump stands a very good chance of becoming the next president. But I suppose we just have to wait and see, I wouldn't count on Biden winning, and neither our NATO allies as they're Trump proofing themselves.
This is only half the story: the US consciously chooses how they put out information about these issues, it's not as if the american public just magically stays ignorant to the facts on the ground. The state department has repeatedly denied Israeli atrocities and culpability, and even in the instances where israel's actions are black and white (like the above report), they speak about them them as if they are less concrete than they clearly are.
I think a lot of people are kidding themselves if they think there's no material benefit to the US by keeping Israel as an iron-clad ally in the middle east. I think it's crazy that anyone would even need to articulate the reasons why the middle east is so significant to modern geopolitics; the significance of the region's natural resources and distribution thereof simply can't be overstated. Look back just a couple years to the news around Nord Stream and russian sanctions to get an idea about what oil means to the world economy.
The polls are kinda irrelevant to the issue: public opinion follows state messaging (at least the portion you're describing that supports israel blindly), and even where it deviates in this case (allegedly), I think most people might recognize the need for intervention if the state department just passed along the reports happening on the ground and not obfuscate israel's roll here.
The US is at least partially responsible for their own propagandizing here.
Not at all. Israel is a greater liability than any benefit they provide. Unconditional support for every Israeli aggression makes the US deeply unpopular in the rest of the region when we were previously popular. It undermines all our rhetoric of freedom and human rights when we partner with such a blatant violator of them. Bin Laden spelled out in his 2001 statement that support for Israel’s atrocities is what motivated 9/11, and doubling down on that support only increased terrorism for the next 20 years.
And what do we get out of this ironclad support? Did Israel help us in any of our wars in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do they give us any aid or resources or do they demand them from us?
That's a great point. When Israel kicks out 2 million refugees where are they all going to go? Surrounding countries again. And I'm sure they really don't like that from a geopolitical point of view, as well as humanitarian. It really encourages every surrounding country to hate us.
I honestly don't think there is any calculus happening here. Biden is a Zionist. It's not outlandish to think there are other high ranking Democrats who are also Zionists enabling him. They might be upset at the optics, but they're not upset at the outcome. The Biden administration also doesn't seem to think this position will cost them the election, so they see no incentive to pause their goals.
Blinken’s a zionist
They figure that they would lose more votes from people who support Israel than they're currently losing from people who support Palestine so much they would rather have Trump in power (in which case Palestine will be in even more trouble, which isn't a problem for Israel supporters).
I mean, look around these comments sections and see the apologism. If you bring up any criticism of Biden, you must support Trump! Its 2016 all over again, where voters with legitimate concerns about the candidate are being told to basically stfu. Democrats of a certain vintage think they are owed your vote.
Yeah, and imagine where we'd be today if people had just sucked it up and voted for Hillary in 2016. Just the SCOTUS alone.
But sure, it's the fault of the people warning you how bad it would be to let Trump win, because they couldn't make voting for Hillary feel good.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
You have to come to terms with the material fact that this approach to electoralism doesn't work. Shaming votings, telling them you know better, that they owe you their vote, that Trump is way worse so they should vote for someone they dont want: Its been demonstrated to be ineffective at winning elections.
You can and maybe should be disappointment in the electorate for this being the case, but you can't be in denial of it if you actually want to beat Trump. You have to do something different and convince them that the candidate is worth voting for. Or rather, the candidate needs to convince the electorate they are worth voting for. They need to go out and build a coalition. Candidates need to go to where voters are, hear their issues and concerns, and address them with their platform.
Trump is doing that. Maybe he gets booed. He got booed at the libertarian conference last weekend I think. But he's showing up to where voters are, and attempting to convince them that he's the answer for the issues they face. Democrats could take a hint.
Yes. This stupidity definitely has grass roots.
I think it's the same short sighted calculus businesses use. They aren't thinking about the long term. They just want to win this election. And there's a path to victory by grabbing soft conservatives. They don't care that they're obliterating our reputation, the reputation of our intelligence community (who press F to doubt on Israel's claims), and the reputation of the party.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
Thing is, there's a liberal path to victory too. He just isn't taking it.
Here's the political calculus for Democrats:
This appears to be a very unusual election. Normally Democrats lead with young voters, and Republicans lead with older voters. But this year, Biden has gained ground with older voters even while losing ground with young voters.
So the first thing to consider is that Biden is trying harder to appeal to older voters than usual for Democrats, and older voters are more likely to support Israel.
Furthermore, older voters are much more likely to vote, which is good news for Biden. This also means that Biden has less reason to maximize turnout than previous Democrats.
The obvious question is why doesn't Biden try to win over young and older voters? I'm sure he would like to, but supporting Palestine isn't the way to do it. Surprisingly, young voters actually don't care that much about Gaza. Furthermore, according to that article "young voters who wanted Biden to pressure Israel to stop attacking Gaza would vote for him at about the same rate as those who didn’t." So supporting Palestine might just be downside risk with older voters.
Putting all this together, and the political calculus favors appealing to older voters on Israel, and trying to find some other issue to win back young voters.
Is it money? It’s usually money.
It can't be worthwhile trying to fight over the pro-Israel lobby considering how hard the Republicans back Israel no matter what.
Yes. And it's wild to me that you don't have to be a far-right neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist to be able to say that nowadays. They're a huge lobby with a lot of money and influence to throw around.
It basically only makes sense if corruption is involved. There's no reasonable moral ground for enabling genocide.
States just aren't moral entities - there's no reasonable moral ground for most anything an imperial power does. It's almost always just about securing more power.
But I don't understand how this makes sense for the democrats from even a realpolitik perspective.
I said this only makes sense if states lack morals(corrupt).
You say "well states aren't moral".
How are these different enough that you felt the need to downvote me? I'm literally agreeing with you.
I didn't downvote. I don't see you having any down votes. I don't disagree with you, I just don't feel that your comment addressed the specific point I was making.
I don't disagree that states are devoid of any ethical capabilities, but they're not cartoon supervillains. When states are cruel, it's for specific reasons to achieve specific aims.
I don't understand what the democrats think they are getting or avoiding with this. To me it looks lose/lose for them.
Geopolitics is rarely ever moral.
Biden is afraid of the same Israeli political action networks that evaded registering as foreign agents for about half a year before JFK and Bobby were assassinated. Those networks never came into compliance and split into a parent and a subsidiary. The parent organization has disbanded. The subsidiary is now known as AIPAC. If he pulls support from Likudnik Israel those terrorists will instantly put two bullets in the back of his head.
I personally don't think that fear of assassination is what's driving biden and the democrats policy on this.
Given that netanyahu and gvir were almost certainly involved in killing yitzhak rabin I'm sure they're capable, I just think the risk/reward is off. They can affect US policy without the risks inherent in killing an allied head of state.
He’s spreading conspiracy theories. Don’t take him seriously.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
Do you think all Jews are Israelis?
Did I say the word Jews?
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
You said Israelis.
What other religion would these supposed Israeli assassins be?
There's a world of difference between saying something was done by people who happen to be Jewish, and saying "the Jews" did it. Unless you think being Jewish should make a person immune to all criticism.
I don't actually have an opinion on who killed Kennedy, but saying it was done by a group--the Israeli right wing--that's openly committing genocide, has a history of committing assassinations, and has a stranglehold on US politics is not ridiculous or racist on its face.
Notice how neither of them engaged with what I asked in the terms in which I asked them.
There's a world of difference between saying genocide was done by people who happen to be Israeli right wingers, and saying "the Israeli right wing" did it.
I can't fathom what point you think you're making.
iirc the opposite, rfk's killer specifically said it was because of rfk's support for Israel.
Biden, what the fuck are you doing!? Can you do the right thing when it comes to genocide, please? Just hand the election over to trump on a silver platter. How hard is it to... not support genocide? Wtf
The Democrat's strategy to appeal to their base really seems to be, "Look, we're not as bad at the other guys." And they really aren't realizing that that isn't enough, because it's not just about Israel/Palestine anymore. I really don't think the people who are also repeating this party line (including the ones on Lemmy) are realizing how out of touch this sentiment is especially the younger Millennials/Gen Z.
I've seen my friends get attacked, arrested, and get criminal records from the university encampments and protests, and nothing was done to protect them. In their eyes, Trump would never protect them, but neither did Biden or any other Democrat in power. How can they be trusted to protect the people in the future? Seen from this lens, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there might be people out there who find voting for Biden unpalatable.
I've been saying for a long time that Democrats basically sell themselves on the idea that you should be afraid that the Republican might win, and vote for them to prevent that. Sometimes they get something done, often only after compromising heavily, but for the most part that's not the message they're selling on.
To put it another way, if someone asks you why they should vote Dem instead of third party, the answer isn't about how great the Dems are and why they deserve your vote it's about why you should be scared that the GOP might win. It didn't work in 2016 because most didn't actually think Trump might win and it did in 2020 because they knew he could.
It might work this time (I'd give it better than even odds, even given the Israel/Gaza stuff is going to hurt Biden some), but eventually it won't and when it fails and we get another GOP president the Dems won't win another election for a while - either we immediately fall into Christo-fascist super-Nazism and there are no more elections where we could vote for Dems or we don't and Dems are at a loss on what to do for votes.
Our current political structure and the two party system makes even the best politician look feeble.
I'm not sure how to do it but represent.us proposes to fix it in the near future (if we all bought in, I suppose).
One thing that sticks out on that sit is that whether all of voters agree or very few of us agree on a policy there's about a 30% chance of the policy becoming law.
It goes without saying that the rich and corporations benefit from the current system. It will be tough to change. And makes our system pretty pathetic in practice.
It's one of the first modern democracies and as a result, I think needs a major update. It's way too hard to get things done, filibustering is too easy, money has an outsized influence on politicians and elections due to lobbying, there's no real way to recall certain powerful leaders (from the President to Congressmen to judges), lifetime appointments were an interesting idea but terrible in practice, and all the compromises made for slave states, including the Senate and electoral college, need to go. When are the devs going to put out a new patch?
Oh, and gerrymandering needs to be stopped. Almost forgot that one.
Pathetically, that’s what Republicans said for the 4 years Trump was in office. “Please overlook his faults, a Democrat would be worse!”
Mother should I trust the government?
If nobody is going to protect you, maybe pick the one who's not promising to deport you.
You know when the ML’s say “scratch a liberal and …,” it’s that. That’s what you are seeing. Liberals will always defer to fascism in support of corporate interests.
What do ML's say about Khmer Rouge and Xinjiang?
Here’s some cream for that itch.
What do ML's say about the Khmer Rouge? Haven't seen discussion of it myself, maybe you can provide me with a link?
Generally they say that it was Vietnam, a socialist/communist country, that went in to stop the Khmer Rouge, which is true.
Nothing
If you pressure them long enough they admit they consider them justified genocides
Wow, really? I certainly wouldn't want to hang around people who consider the Khmer Rouge's genocide to be justified, maybe I made an account on the wrong instance. I mean, assuming that actually happened.
In fact, I promise I will not only delete my account right now, but also never post on the fediverse again if you can provide a link to what you just claimed regarding the Khmer Rouge. Should be easy, right?
Providing a link is easy. Providing something you'd yourself strictly agree with is harder. Providing a link that the opponent won't discard if they want to discard it is possible, but unlikely. I've reached that last point with ML's for a few times.
That's just what fascists say.
No idea what you're talking about. Have you, or have you not, seen an ML call the Cambodian genocide "justified?" There's nothing for me to "strictly agree with" or "discard," if you've seen someone say that, then all you have to do is show me, and there's no room for disagreement.
Great, where's the link?
Fascists question whether ML's call the Cambodian genocide justified? Wtf are you talking about?
Oh, I get it. Now that you've been caught in a lie, you're trying to pretend that I was asking for proof of the genocide itself, as opposed to what I actually asked for, which is proof of an ML calling it "justified." Nice bit of weaseling.
Let's be absolutely clear - the Cambodian genocide happened and was not justified, and @nonailsleft@lemm.ee and @rottingleaf@lemmy.zip are blatantly lying and making things up by claiming to have seen MLs call it justified.
Yes, after calling it "putting unfavorable elements\burgeoisie\vermin to the wall" or something like that.
Just like I have seen the same with Stalin's repressions in USSR.
I don't keep links for things I don't need.
Do you keep links of your conversations on the Web?
Weaseling is what you are doing in this quote. I openly say that I don't respect you and thus don't bother following your turns.
Almost everybody has seen MLs call it justified, it takes only one case. Maybe you are bad with math and probabilities.
You could argue about this being commonplace or not, but since you are accusing others of lying in the same comment you are asking for proof in, I think everybody reading this has a measure of you.
This website has a search function. Searching "Khmer Rouge Justified" returns precisely 5 comments, none of which were claiming it was justified or responding to someone claiming it was justified. "Khmer Rouge Wall" likewise turned up nothing of note. Liar.
Great! Anyone is welcome to chime in and provide evidence. Where is it? Liar.
That... that's not at all contradictory lmao. Liar.
Given your comments about how drowning puppies is justified, which everyone's definitely seen but which I have precisely zero evidence of, I think you're the one everyone has a measure of.
How could you say that?
Puppies? Really? Wow.
Ofc, I won't provide evidence, because as you're a puppy murderer, I don't respect you and won't play by your terms. Liar.
Now think further. You are so fucking close to the answer. This website.
Also why waste time looking for something? I'll still be right, it'll only affect what you think.
Well, because I don't respect you, I don't care. So dunno what was this supposed to tell me. That you are running around asking from people evidence of what they've seen a few months ago and they won't? That's expected.
Liar.
Something a liar always says first
Sorry, I don't want to be responsible for you leaving the Fediverse
Liberals and making shit up to punch left, name a more iconic duo.
Y'all never have the receipts for anything you say. Bunch of messy little drama queens.
Wtf did you think Biden is? Dark Brandon?
It's his job to do US policy - ie, enabling Israel's genocide, just like all the other mass-murder US policy is responsible for.
He is facing a lot of resistance amongst his electorate for doing his job - therefore he will be handing over to a regime that can perform this sacrosanct aspect of US policy without meeting any resistance from it's electorate.
It's "liberal democracy" working the way it's supposed to in all it's pseudo-democratic glory.
Historically he never does the right thing when it comes to religious motivations.
At least take some kind of useful stance on fucking anything.
Everyone who votes for trump because they think he is better for Gaza than Biden really deserves Trump
Idk if anyone is saying they'll vote for trump over Biden because they think he will be better for genocide or for people in the states.
Saying Biden and the Democrats are enabling genocide and watching it happen is not the same thing as saying "we will vote for trump"
It's calling out people and hoping they do better.
But I guarantee you if Biden loses the election this November, all the pieces will be about why black and brown and Muslim voters didn't come out, rather than examining why an absolutely massive proportion of white people vote for trump and the Republicans at every turn even though they're destroying the country.
Oh they'll blame all the demographics they can. The youths. "Progressives". I doubt they'd go so far as to blame "wokeism" but I imagine some other made up demographic would apparate.
I mean I'm voting Biden in the fall, swing state and all. But still, The DNC needs a lot of overhaul for sure.
To be fair, the Muslims would have a pretty good excuse.
That isn't really an effective strategy to convince someone to vote for someone else. That just pushes someone further entrenching them into their view.
If we want anyone and everyone left of center to vote for Biden even though he's fucking up Gaza. We're going to have to convince them. Having that type of attitude only hurts us in the long run.
I'd suggest picking other issues to discuss where the average progressive/leftie would agree with the direction of the Democrats, esp where a Trump win would likely mean a severe worsening. The right to bodily autonomy, LGBT+ rights, student loan forgiveness, progressive tax brackets (that may be a stretch for importance to the morally disaffected, but still), unions. Democrats may not be the best on those topics, but they at least move things a couple ticks in the right direction in the face of the alternative, which would be a very fast reversal of those gains (see recent supreme court rulings for evidence of that).
Just my $.02
Why do you think Im trying to convince anyone? People who are not convinced now that Trump is a fascist are completely lost and trying to reason with them is a lost cause. Same with people who vote for the fascist party AfD in my country. All we can try is to fight against these people at every point attempting to make them hide in shame again instead of publicly puking out their shit.
America deserves Trump. Period.
Y’all love your violence outside your borders. How about within?
No, we don't. We aren't all meatheads, thanks.
Frankly, I'd feel better about it if we could just have the violence at home instead of at other people's places.
I actually don't love violence anywhere. Outside or inside our borders. I've voted every election since I became eligible. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be enough.
Reading the report makes me feel like I'm from a different planet.
It clearly spells out Israel blocking aid to Gaza. It describes what we all would call blocking aid. If someone did what Israel does, to you, you would call it blocking. Israel blocks aid and the report makes it plain.
Just because they have a different definition of "blocking aid" doesn't mean the report cleared Israel. I don't get it. Can you really just say whatever you want, end it with "but it's not what it sounds like" and that's the takeaway everyone gets?
It's one thing for a document to have arbitrary restrictions on what it can say. That happens. It's another for people to take it so literally.
Edit: I don't even know what definitions they were working with, I just got a "it's not technically..." vibe. But I do know that the report describes blocking aid.
The purpose of not actually calling it what it is is because most people won't read it. It let's the media "accurately" say the thing they want them to say.
Not the first, and won't be the last.
Article mentions 5 other State Department employees have left over Biden's support of a genocide while pretending it's not a genocide.
It's not to late to ditch him for a candidate that represents the values of dem voters. And regardless of who it is, they probably have a better chance of stopping trump.
Sunk cost fallacy is a terrible way to run a political party, but especially when the stakes are this high.
Even if we win and get four more years of this, it's not winning, it's just losing less. Which is why Biden's numbers are so bad, he doesn't inspire voters due to his words and actions.
No, Biden has the brand recognition and is the party's best chance to win. His administration does do a terrible job of selling the good things he is doing and he is shooting himself in the foot by not following through on his 'red line' with Rafah, but that isn't enough of a negative to outweigh the lnown factor.
It sucks that winning a first past the post election based on the electoral college is how it works instead of something like ranked choice, but that is where we are at.
Biden isn't going to win dude. He's losing, hard L style right now.
Its not an issue with fptp, its not strategic voting.
He's a shitty candidate that was always a comprise/ most-least preferred candidate and he's not going to win.
Continuing to make the arguments that we need to stick with Biden is basically arguing to give the election to Trump.
Shitty compared to whom? To the leading republican? Are you high?
"Generic Democrat" polls 12 points higher than Biden.
You are leaving 12 points on the table with Biden. Interestingly, this is also the differential polling error associated with a Biden/ Trump head to head.
12 points is about the number Biden needs to be leading Trump to be 'confident' in victory. So quite literally "Any generic Democrat" is a less shitty candidate than Biden.
I've concluded and am pretty sure of my conclusions that in this context yes, people be high as FUCK
So what's your solution? Who has a better shot at winning the election in November if they started campaigning today? I want a specific name and why you think it would work. You know better than everyone, this should be easy for you (everyone else, watch for this sidestep and refusal to actually answer or back up anything).
You're really good at claiming (almost to a point of preference) that Biden will lose and why we shouldn't support them but not once have you provided anything of value that people can take action on. Everything you post appears to be designed to make people more apathetic and less likely to be involved, why is that?
Its not my job to give you a solution. I just need you to be real about the probability of failure of the strategy that you seem to be pot-committed to. And to be clear, we haven't had a convention yet, so there is still time to change.
I'm offering you an analysis that makes a conclusion, that based on current polling, Biden can't win this election. You might find it unpalatable, but that's not my problem. Hope is a false
But this isn't new news'. Biden has been struggling in this way for over a year, before Israel/ Gaza became hot. Biden's chances have gone from "rough" to "very unlikely". He's actively working to distance himself from the positions of his base. Instead of rejecting Trump's policy positions, he adopts them. Biden is catering to a non-existent center. It seems like he genuinely thinks that some republican voters are going to show up for him. There is 0 evidence from the previous three elections that any voters are convertible.
On the other side, maybe he gets laughed at, but Trump is going to the places that voters are and trying to get them (the sneaker thing, libertarian convention). Trump is trying to win this election. You win elections post 2016 by growing a base and driving them out to vote. It worked for Trump in 2016. It worked for Biden in 2020: Biden took on the most progressive platform in recent history to grow his base to include progressives.
Whats Biden's platform in 2024? I don't know about you but I have no fucking clue based on the campaigns messaging. Its all, just like you are parroting here, about how bad Trump is. And while you might find that convincing enough, there are obviously enough voters out there (about 12%) who don't and that you can't win the election without.
So I'm sorry. It hurts if he's your hucklebee, but the guy can't win right now. He's statistically lost at this point. If beating Trump really is your goal, then you need to come up with a better candidate. Continuing to push for Biden when he can't win dooms us all.
You keep saying Biden needs to be replaced but there's literally no candidate to replace him with that beats Trump. If you're so sure we need to ditch Biden, and you're not advocating for Trump to win, it seems pretty fair to ask what you think should happen. Until you do that it's pretty clear you're just spewing bullshit in bad faith.
Sigh.. Just because some one is pointing out the flaws in your approach to electoralism doesn't mean they are acting in bad faith. Pretending that everyone who has a perspective you disagree with is out to get you is a poor way to go through life.
Recognizing that Biden can't win is step one. There really is no point in a discussion around alternatives until that point is accepted. We can't turn this ship until collectively, people understand that this guy isn't going to win the election. It has to show up in mass, in the polling, and in the collective conversation.
As far as determining an alternative, there is a straightforward mechanism for that. Its called a convention, and conveniently, there is already one scheduled. Supreme court decided post 2016 that Dem's can do whatever the fuck they want. So delegates go to the convention unaffiliated and we figure it out there.
It really doesn't matter who the nominee is, so long as its neither Biden or Hillary. Any generic Democratic governor or senator will do fine. Trump is deeply unpopular. The problem we're up against is that some how, Biden has managed his presidency in such a way as to be more unpopular than Trump.
And I'm telling you, there is no viable candidate you can nominate that has a better chance than Biden. "Generic Democrat" isn't a candidate. Who's polling better and is willing to run?
That's the kind of take that gets Trump into office in 2024.
So then what take should I have to prevent Trump from winning? Specifics. You know what works, tell us. So far I've got:
Why can't you defend anything you say? Why do you need to try and dodge questions and play rhetorical games? I have had 1 simple question this entire time and you won't answer it.
You should first accept that based on all the information we have currently, Biden isn't viable as a candidate, and that by continuing to promote the position that Biden is the only option when they obviously aren't even an option at this point.
So step one: Stop gaslighting people.
People know when they are being lied to, and they especially know when they are being lied to by some one who has fully deluded themselves into thinking they know whats going on. Its what you are doing here with the false choice dichotomy you continuously try to draw.
Step two: Stop supporting a failed strategy.
Biden can be moved, and the DNC can and will swap him out if its obvious he can't win. We need to show that this candidate can't win now by audibly making it clear they don't have enough support to win the election. This means ceasing to engage in apologetic for Biden. Put your criticisms where they belong: at the feet of Joe Biden and the DNC. They are the ones failing to do the work necessary this election cycle and if you think they aren't listening, you are wrong. They are. They hear you here and elsewhere. You need to connect the strategy of "Blue-No-Matter-Who" to exactly why Biden is shaping up to lose this election whole cloth. Biden won 2020 because he had to come get progressive voters, black voters, youth voters. He did so through surrogates and through his platform. In 2020 Biden basically did a lift and shift of Bernies entire suite of platform issues. He needed to do so to get Bernies voters to come to him. By relinquishing your consent and getting nothing in return, you are setting Biden up for failure. Stop promoting this approach to voting. It does not work. It will lose us the election.
Step Three: If you seek alternatives, you should propose them.
You seem like clever folk. Why don't you come up with some alternatives to Biden you find acceptable and which you think could be palatable to a broader audience. Present them here. We can have a conversation about them.
We only entered the reformed primary system ~40 years ago. Its completely reasonable to expect that if Biden steps back as candidate, we can decide the entire thing at the convention. Its how the primaries have worked in this country for the majority of its history. Wilding et al. vs. DNC Services Corporation et al. 2017: The DNC’s choice of how to conduct its presidential nominating process is protected by the First Amendment, which means they can do what-ever the fuck they want to decide a candidate. They could hold a potato sack race if they so choose. There is no requirement that they regard their own charter in this manner.
You seem to want to have an option before recognizing that the strategy you are committed to can't win. That's a personal preference of yours. And so if that's your preference, you should propose some alternatives. I don't feel the need to have an alternative in place once I recognize that the strategy I've selected doesn't work. I personally recognize the importance of 'empty space' ; that if something can-not work, I recognize the importance of abandoning a failed approach as-soon-as-possible to create room for another option to exist. Its not about knowing what I'll do instead, its about creating the space for another option to exist.
To put it into metaphor, you are basically arguing that if I have an abusive boyfriend/ girlfriend/ partner, someone its just not going to work out with, I shouldn't break up with them before I know who my next partner will be.
This is pure conjecture. You have not provided any viable alternative. Once you do that we can discuss other options and if Biden is actually less viable.
Can you point to a single misleading or inaccurate statement I've made about Joe Biden or the Democrats? Where have I ignored criticism? Everything else you say is based on this false and misleading premise that you've created and continuously cycle back to. You're claiming that my strategy is flawed without providing evidence of alternatives. It's amusing that you've written the same thing this many times to avoid backing up your claim but I think I'm good for now. You're just going to keep playing games. Luckily it's pretty obvious at this point.
See you later!
See… this is the problem with discussing these things with people like you. You were asked a simple question as a rebuttal to your suggestion that people not vote for Biden, and you have no answer.
I’ve asked this same question to nearly every one of you that I’ve spoke with on the subject.
None of you can answer it.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
Yep. Predictably unbelievable. They think we don’t know what they’re up to and keep sticking to the bit. They’re like… bad telemarketers.
Do you sniff your own farts often or just frequently?
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
Making a criticism doesn't require that I have a solution to the problem that's been set up by the insistence that Biden be the nominee. If that leaves you feeling incomplete, that's your issue.
Complaining about something while offering no solutions and expecting to be taken seriously is about as fucking stupid as not voting and expecting things to change.
You were asked a simple question, that for all the talk you people seem to do here- should be simple to answer…
But NONE of you can answer it. It’s litetally your shut down code. And I’m going to ensure that everyone knows it.
I just don't think your attempt to derail the primary thrust of my point is worth answering. I didn't comment about who else might run or how well they would be doing.
You are trying to engage in a red-herring fallacy, and the royal "we" (since you used the royal "you") are dutifully ignoring it.
There being or not being other viable candidates is irrelevant to Bidens chances at winning. Its a non-sequitur. If its important to you, you should come up with an answer to that question. I would be interested to hear what you come back with.
Nope. That might work on the high school kids you’re used to arguing with, but I’m holding you to the wheelhouse of the topic:
Your inability to answer a simple question. You can either answer it, or admit your entire argument is flawed.
You come here and ask people to not vote for Biden, without suggesting an alternative. So either you’re actively trying to get Trump elected, or you don’t know how elections work.
Either answer the question, or admit to one of the aforementioned.
Your choice.
The answer is Gretchen Whitmer
Neither will your rhetorical slight of hand.
If you think Biden can win this election, show me the receipts. Otherwise, you can take a seat.
So you refuse to answer. Predictable. Thanks for playing. We’re done here.
I just did. Gretchen Whitmer
So your offering is someone that’s not even running..
My good man.
That was never your criteria, until I answered.
And, don’t even bother editing, I’m taking screenshots. Just kidding. But I could, and you still got clapped.
It’s implied. Otherwise, why not just say…. Darth Vader, or anyone else with zero chance to win. Because making suit up is SO fun!
I asked in good faith, who could win November if not Biden. It’s a given that I was talking CURRENTLY RUNNING candidates.
But you people never respond in good faith. Which is exactly why I asked what I did. To show to everyone how you cannot answer a simple question that challenges your agenda.
Thanks for adding your two cents.
And why would I edit? I’ve nothing to hide. It’s all there. You and your pal getting…. Clapped? Is that a thing? Sure…
let’s go with that.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
Oh fuck off. I don't need to be a pilot to know a plane crash when I see one.
Gretchen Whitmer
She’s not running. Try again.
Lol
That you can’t understand implied meaning isn’t my fault. You came in here with the intent to disrupt by answering a question unrealistically.
You’re proving my point for me.
None of you have anything to offer yet want even to not vote for Biden.
No one is wondering why anymore.
I’m voting for Biden, but I’d rather vote for Gretchen Whitmer.
Fair enough. I don’t like him either. But I know what needs to be done.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
You need to touch some grass.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
Gretchen Whitmer, plus she can win Michigan, which has been lost to the genocide.
ROFL! She’s not even running. My god man… you people really need representation. You’re al over the place. How on earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you answer a question about who can beat Trump in the 2024 election….
And your answer is someone that’s not even running?
Get someone to speak for you if you want to be taken seriously.
The question:
I answered it. Now, you’re moving the goalposts and they have to be running? And you want me to take you seriously? Lol
You’re mistaken, I never once said “if they start campaigning today.”
And even if she started campaigning, she STILL doesn’t have a chance.
Oh really:
Really. That was written in January, and it’s essentially an op-ed piece.
Come on man. Do better.
Why? I don’t need to. I answered MegaUltraChicken’s question.
Exactly this. Ask them every time. And none of them ever have an answer. They’re not here to support third party candidates- they’re here to sway votes away from Biden.
And suggesting people vote third party when it is well known that not one of them have a remote chance to win, is purposefully trying to give the election to Trump.
Apparently what the Libertarians elected as their candidate is good for the Democrats
LOL it's hilarious once you find out who and what.
Yeah, but if we do that, then in four years they won’t be able to say “trump” and get everyone on their knees
It'd be nice if we could have a presidency where no one from the State or Justice Departments quits in disgust during their term. The last time was what? The first Bush?
Who is this candidate? Pick one and start saying their name! Would Sanders take the nomination? Whoever it is, you'll need their cooperation at least, so find your duck and get it in the row.
I don't mean to yell at you, it is frustrating and humiliating for the average citizen, and it's going to get worse.
Losing less is still better than losing more and if we're too late we have to accept that and look beyond the vote to damage control in the coming years. Yes, asking each other to "hold your nose and vote" sucks, but we've got to pair it with the idea that protest and disobedience and local government action is going to be an important factor for years to come, no matter who is president.
That argument worked in 2016, it's been 8 years of trump...
If the party can't find a single better candidate, than maybe there should be different people leading it?
But pick any of the 49 senators that caucus with Dems (I'm not counting Manchin, he'd probably be just as hard to elect as Biden) and they'd all have a better shot.
Hell, AOC would get every single Dem vote that can't hold their nose for Biden. And while some "moderates" would campaign against her like they did Obama, as we saw back then increased turnout more than makes up for those conservatives who constantly claim compromise always means giving them exactly what they ask for Maybe less, but never more.
The main voter block this election will be under 40, we can't keep catering to boomers because our politicians are so old they can't realize their grandkids are now the biggest demographic.
We'll always be little kids to an 82 year old.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
She turns 35 in October. She only has to be 35 before assuming the presidency.
It's strange that the founding fathers of the USA were mostly in their 20s at the time of the founding, but you can't be a POTUS until you're over 35(?) now.
They weren’t that young.
Biden is part of the old boys club where all the monied interests hang out. If you think AOC will get their support you're not thinking of the current USA. Politics in USA is owned by corporations and I haven't seen her back corps, why would they back her?
Bernie showed us you don't need them if voters support you...
He ran a competitive race against Hillary and she had corporate donors and the full weight of the party. Hell, her campaign manager controlled DNC purse strings during the primary against Bernie.
Biden might have needed a billion last election. And he's projected to need 2 billion this year
But that's not how much it takes for a popular candidate to run a campaign, that's how much it costs to convince Americans Biden is better than trump and they should hold their nose and vote Biden even tho he's an 82 year old conservative genocide enthusiast who disagrees with most of his own party's platform.
You don't need corporate donations to convince Dem voters to vote for someone they agree with.
And the moderates tried to protest vote Republican against Obama for being "too progressive". Do you remember how that worked out?
Progressives are the future of the party, and this election most voters will be Millenials or younger.
It's cheaper if the people want what we're selling
I remember this, but Bernie failed to get his own party to support him as a candidate, is that not so?
Bernie is an independent, he caucuses with the Dems.
Pick 2016 or 2020.
But I've explained both already today, and I'm 90% sure it was in this comment chain...
So pick one or look at my post history for both.
I've been saying this for months. Years even. If you want Trump to lose, its not going to be with Biden.
...again. Trump has already lost to Biden once in 2020. If anything Biden has a 100% track record of beating Trump in presidential elections. Trump has a 100% loss rate against Biden in Presidential elections.
Biden wasn't supporting a genocide of the Palestinian people in 2020.
Things are different for incumbents than they are for challengers, especially those without a recent track record.
In 2020, right now in terms of days till voting day, Biden had something like a 15 point lead on Trump.
Biden barely won going into election day with a massive lead.
Its 2024. Biden lags Trump by 3-6 points.
Its over. Biden loses. He can't make up that kind of polling deficit.
Trump is also a supporter of Israel. Trump (and GOP lawmakers) actively criticized Biden for stopping delivery of weapons to Israel. So Trump comes out looking no better than Biden on Gaza.
Biden was in the Executive Branch for VP for 8 years and was in the US Senate for 36 years. Trump has 4 years as an twice impeached President.
Thats funny, that's what people said in Hilary's favor, and then Trump won. So which is it?
You might consider that those were the same people who have been telling you to not worry about/ apologizing for Biden.
The world isn't a monolith. There were plenty of people, myself included, saying in 2016 that Trump had a far better shot than they were being led to believe.
No, they're the same people saying the polls conclude Trump is a shoe in that you are citing yourself.
Bro you don't know who I'm citing. I've been doing ground up analysis on polling data for years. Biden showed a 12 point polling deficit to Trump in 2020, and hasn't led (unweighted) in 15 months.
So...you're citing...yourself?
Didn't you yourself point out that polling data analysis lead to the incorrect conclusion in 2016?
Yeah bruh that's how shit works. Here is a link:
https://lemmy.world/post/15291274?scrollToComments=true
You put analysis out publicly and people can engage with it. Polling isn't "wrong" it just has biases. It over samples some populations and under-samples others. Polling is only one approach to modeling political outcomes, but its generally pretty consistent. Trump was and is clearly an exception. But because we have the 2020 data, we can correct for some of these issues, especially because its consistent.
The best data we have is that in a Biden / Trump head to head, Biden needs to be +12 on Trump to be secure and overcome the spread he has been shown to demonstrate between polling values and performance. And its pretty good data, its a years worth of scientifically conducted polls and an actual election. In-terms of data sources, it doesn't get much better than this.
Here it is in map form:
https://lemmy.world/post/15294268?scrollToComments=true
Another way to think of this map would be "how much so does a given candidate outperform local polling".
And this is the big takeaway. Biden was CRUSHING it in the polls prior to November 2020, and like, squeaked out a W.
Even if you cut the polling differential in half (and we don't have evidence for that), Biden is still failing dramatically.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell, 1984
More of this, for the love of god.
If anyone was confused by this poorly worded title, the Administration claims Israel has not blocked civilian aid, and this official believes they have blocked civilian aid. She’s leaving because she wants Israel to be held accountable for blocking aid to civilians.
I assume this title is poorly written because this article appears to be written by a bot… aka “By MEE staff.”
... Biden and Co. can't lose any more credibility than this. Do they think there's a portion of the world civilization that lives in some sort of simulation that is controlled by the powers that be? lol smh.
Not without having to switch parties, they can't. And that party has a candidate already.
But remember, we're still supposed to vote for Biden even though his own cabinet members have lost faith in him. Because otherwise we get Nazi Trump.
Remind me again, is this what a functional, healthy, democracy looks like? The institutions that form our "political parties" are rotten to the core. The ideals don't need to die, but the corrupt groups who stifle actual change and progress need to.
Yes you are. Because Trump will accelerate the genocide. He has been vocal about that. Neither have the right stance in this but one is clearly worse.
That's how fptp and party politics work. Not voting is handing a bigger vote to whichever side you dislike more. This is just grade school civics.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
Mass protests. Civil disobedience. The kinda of things that ended slavery and helped raise women's rights. The things we used to do instead of sitting down and just taking it. Look at the French: they stage months/years long protests. Now check their labor laws and compare it to the US. Where would you rather work?
It's not going to end until people accept that this change won't be easy and won't happen taking the easy way. It's going to be a shit ton of uphill battles. But that's the only way to take power back from the oppressors: you demand it.
You think Biden could keep his course of actions up if a large percentage of citizens were out on the streets protesting? I'm asking you to hold your elected representatives accountable. And if they arent doing as they should, you should damn well make it known. Not go "well, he's not gonna do what I want, but he's not a Nazi". DONT ROLL OVER AND TAKE IT.
Do you realize how much you can slow the government down just by calling your representatives? Even if you don't talk to them, every secretary and assistant taking calls instead of doing other things slows them down. Keep calling. Don't stop. Send in letters. Show up to meetings whenever possible. Be visible and make your voice heard.
::: spoiler spoiler asdfasfasfasfas :::
I don't expect to see that as an option when it comes to voting.
Because, if you go back, you'll see that was the question. It was about voting. Voting is that thing you do where you choose between (currently) two options.
That’s not what the question was.
The question was
I see you are not capable of arguing in good faith.
Good god, really?
The question was what do you want us to do.
The answer given was too long for me to type, but they have made very clear that at the end of the day they were going to vote for Biden but they still wanted change.
Gtfo with your not arguing in good faith
Who is claiming we live in a functional, healthy, democracy? Sounds like a straw man to me.
The people who claim that voting will solve our problems. You know, like all the Dems saying "well you have to vote!". If we were in a functional healthy democracy, sure. In this current farce? Nah. That's just feeding the slow deline of our nation. Will it possibly let Nazi Trump win? Sure. But we're already in a corporate oligarchy anyways, we might as well throw the mask off and admit to it. Trump winning is the least of our problems when the Tree of Liberty is already diseased and rotting away.
We can either keep the current system on life support and keep the farce going for a few more elections/decades, or we can pull the plug and admit that the system as it is today has failed and needs to be reworked.
But go ahead, act like "voting for the lesser of two evils"(which has been a thing for decades now) really matters and is enacting any real change.
Remind me again how many of our basic rights keep getting swept away? And before you start the usual "well it's the Republicans fault!" speil, consider if they would be able to do the same bullshit if the democratic party had any real teeth and didn't just roll over conveniently every time. We have words for that: accomplices and enablers.
The system is rotten to the core and until we admit that, we aren't going anywheres. It's a prisoners dilemma and we're all fighting for our self comfort instead of the greater good.
Nobody is saying voting will solve everything, just that it matters. I didn't bother to read the rest of your screed against your straw man.
Did she give her reasons for disagreement with the report anywhere.
Presidential candidate Jill Stein condemns Israel's genocide and has opposed US actions of sending them more ammunition. And before you type up that First Past the Post response, ask yourself if you support First Past the Post. Because she's also campaigning on Ranked Choice voting.
Until ranked choice becomes law, everything you said is 100% irrelevant.
Not really.
Its plausible that Bernie might have been successful on his own in recent elections had he made his own party considering how much support he got in the DNC's primaries despite being a technical independent.
It's not impossible for a new party to compete successfully, just very difficult.
If it took Imran Khan 20 years to create a populist party worthy of rivaling the military establishment in Pakistan who runs an actual fraudulent election every season, surely America can create a grassroots party worthy of dethroning the GOP and DNC.
Repeatedly voting those two parties and expecting ranked choice voting to become a thing is the real fallacy here. Neither party would pass legislation that weakens their stronghold on elections.
In the last 47 years Independent Parties have received a combined total of 0% of the electoral votes. The losers of elections don't get to decide how the system changes, so you really do accomplish a precise mixture of jack shit and fuck all by voting third party.
And thats going so well for us as we get to choose between Joe "Im a Zionist" who uses emergency powers to bypass congress to fast track weapons to Israel to commit genocide, and Trump.
Lmao
Yes, to reiterate this for you one more time, we're choosing between Joe "Don't Cross this Line for Real this Time" Biden and Donald "Nuke the Region" Trump. You contribute more to death and destruction by voting third party than for Biden. These are your choices.
I don't like it. I don't expect you to like it. But this is it.
Alright if I can only possibly choose between Trump or Biden on the ballot in November you shouldnt have anything to worry about me choosing someone else whose name is gonna be on the ballot.
The USA allows write-ins and third parties on the ballot, but as I mentioned 0% of the Electoral Vote in 47 years makes it sort of pointless. If you really don't like either voting for candidate then I have some good news: both parties want Election Reform. DNC is for campaign finance and popular vote winners while RNC is for ending elections.
No theyre not, theyre as bribed as republicans. Makes all that noise making about trump soliciting campaign funds from oil executives ring hollow.
Oh I'm sorry, I guess H.R. 1 For the People Act was just complete lies start to finish. It's a good thing Republicans didn't call them out on their bluffs or it would have exposed them all as frauds, huh?
I dont see anything in it about reducing the bribes they receive.
That's because that was already illegal. What the bill blocked was Campaign Financing by megadonors and foreign nationals.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text
DIVISION B—Campaign Finance
TITLE IV—Campaign Finance Transparency - Mainly talks about disclosure of foreign entity funds and corporations based outside of the USA or with any such affiliations.
TITLE V—Campaign Finance Empowerment - The US Citizen specific rules, and in fact it STARTS this title with an overturning of Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
Pretty sure the genocide is not irrelevant.
good luck getting ranked choice into law by voting against it.
All it will take is one more Turnip presidency to end all elections forever, and you're toying with the idea. That makes you a fascist.
He gonna wave his magic end elections wand that only appears for a second term presidency.
How can anyone say that we should vote for this administration in the fall? Its own staff are abandoning it!
It’s one thing for me to observe the machine from outside and say “gee, idk about this one, it looks to be going down the wrong path…” it’s entirely another for tactical and practical staff to come leaping out of various hatches and run the other way shouting “it’s ontologically evil!”
Voting is when you get to choose your opponent. Would you rather oppose the Democrats, who are clearly at least somewhat divided on the subject of Palestine, or the Republicans, whose only division is between "Bomb them" and "Nuke them"?
You're not endorsing a government by voting for it. You're just arranging the playing field in the way that is most tactically advantageous to you.
I’m not voting for either. The party for socialism and liberation has a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to weapons shipments to israel among many other positions I align with.
My support for this party gives them material benefits and makes my position clear in no uncertain terms that the platforms of both democrats and republicans are unacceptable.
Doesn't work that way sweetie, fptp means if you don't vote for one of the two major parties, then you're essentially voting for their opponents.
If you usually vote democrats, and don't do it this time, you're voting for republican by weakening the democrats.
If it worked like that then my third party vote would both count as a vote against trump and as a vote against Biden and they would cancel out.
Of course, it doesn’t work like that because when votes are tallied my third party vote doesn’t get put in either major parties’ total.
I haven’t voted for a democrat in sixteen years.
If you aren't a regular voter for either the 2 primary parties, then I'm sorry to say your vote literally doesn't matter.
How can my vote not matter when it’s counted?
I get how for certain seats like senators whose power isn’t proportional to the population they represent my vote may have more or less power than someone from a less or more populous state, but within my own district how does my vote not matter because I haven’t been voting for major parties?
Well we're talking about the presidential election here, but out of curiosity - Has your party won anything inside or outside of your district in the 16 years you've been voting for them?
I’ve voted for lots of candidates with different party affiliations and plenty have won, yes.
Some at the local level were democrat affiliated, but none at the state or higher level and as you said, we’re talking about the presidential race here, so it didn’t seem like a misleading claim.
Do you think winning the seat is all that matters or is there space for base building, policy injection or other electoral strategies in your assessment?
So... better vote for a group who is passionately wrong than on a team that to some extend has integrity
I’m voting party for socialism and liberation this November. Passionate integrity!
Oh i see...
i hope these people are happy if they succeed in torpedoing biden and getting trump elected
Trump is a nightmare and must be stopped at all costs.
That doesn't mean there can't be calls for Biden to do better or call him out for blatant lies.
In what reality is the person refusing to lie to cover up human rights abuses the bad guy?
if biden wins the election, i'll carry on shitting on him right along with everyone else.
at this point, people need to internalize the AT ALL COSTS part of of your first sentence. because drawing attention to biden's problems does nothing but help trump
So Biden can do anything he wants up to the election? Why would he give a shit after the election?
apparently any president can do anything they want ever. i don't know why the concept of biden > trump is so hard to grasp
seriously why the fuck is this even a debate right now? maga troompa loompas are calling for mass murder of all non trump supporters. and here we're talking about "i WaNnA cRiTiCizE bIdEn ThO"
We can do both things. We can criticize Biden and recognize that Trump is the devil.
Saying that Biden can "nEvEr Be CrItIcIzEd!!!!" is the exact same behaviour Trump supporters get demonized for.
i specifically never said biden could "NEVER BE CRITICIZED." in fact, i said i would be more than happy to join in AFTER trump doesn't take over the whole country.
exactly wtf do you think you're accomplishing by spending >0% of your day shitting on biden rather than trump? do you think biden will all of a sudden say "you know what-- fuck israel"? because he's literally already doing all he can do, which isn't much. you know what he's NOT doing? deporting protesters, like trump promises to do. so again-- what the actual fuck do you think you're getting done here?
edit: this is why democrats lose. this is why trump happened. maybe the great american experiment has run its course. everything that's going on right now is absolutely fucking absurd, and it would be a laughingstock of the world if it weren't such a dire threat to the world's very existence. learn how to say за Родину кириллицей with gusto, i guess
"Should Politicians try to be better?"
"No, it's the voters who are wrong. Biden can do anything he wants as long as it's still not as bad as Trump and nobody should say anything about. THAT is a functional democracy!"
Are you talking about the state department losing Biden the election? It would be amazing if they stopped lying to cover for Israel. That would increase Bidens chances of winning.