Omar says Israel policy divisions won’t stop her from supporting Biden in November
thehill.com
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said policy differences toward Israel between her and President Biden won’t stop her from supporting him in the November general election.
“Of course,” Omar said Tuesday, when asked by CNN’s Abby Phillip on “NewsNight” whether she would vote for Biden if the election were held that day, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “Democracy is on the line, we are facing down fascism.”
“And I personally know what my life felt like having Trump as the president of this country, and I know what it felt like for my constituents, and for people around this country and around the world,” Omar continued. “We have to do everything that we can to make sure that does not happen to our country again.”
I don’t understand why people don’t realize that trump is also a Netanyahu ally. They’re old pals.
It’s not like trump winning over Biden would change anything about the US policy on Israel- except probably make it worse, and trump winning over Biden would definitely make things in the US and pretty much everywhere else US policy affects worse.
As always, you can come right out and say you're supporting Biden and say that Trump is worse, and you can count on someone to ignore it and lecture anyway.
"I will never vote for (Palestinian) genocide! But I will definitely refuse to vote against (Ukranian) genocide!"
Either they're wedge-driving russo/right-wing bots, or they're grandstanding only to shoot themselves in the foot on an issue they claim to care about.
Any rational person understands more people will suffer in both Gaza and Ukraine under Republican leadership. Period. That's it. End of story. It's election season, time to fall in line to save Democracy... Again.
I see what looks like a lot of virtue signaling. They have to let everyone know how extremely against genocide they are so that their social media peers recognize how decent they are. Stops them from seeing any of the many bigger pictures involved.
I had one (my first block here) that was trying to say that it was unknown whether Biden could be trusted to leave office after his second term voluntarily and that they were both dyed in the wool fascists but of course he(/she/they/it) defended only Trump throughout the thread.
Doesn’t sound like much of a democracy if I don’t really have a choice, now does it?
You have a choice. Getting everything you want is just not one of the options.
Yeah you get to make the choice, but don’t get to influence what the options are.
Well, you can have some influence via primaries, either voting, donating, or campaigning. But once the nominations are in place it’s just a multiple choice question.
Huh? Did anyone stop you or anyone else from running for President?
I'm not a fan of FPTP and think massive campaign finance and election reform needs to take place, but the choice presented right now is unfortunately a reflection of the broader electorate, and for better or worse that's democracy.
Yeah actually. We've made money political speech and routinely refused to use public campaign financing. That pretty effectively bars 99.9% of people from ever running for president. And 98% from running for any office above local school board.
I wholeheartedly agree with money equating to speech being disastrous as to the healthy function of a democracy, but the complaint here doesn't strike me as that. While we all know the game is skewed toward money, we should also know the better choice between these candidate couldn't be more obvious.
That's not what you asked. Restricting the pool of candidates to elites (money or connections) absolutely has an effect too. If it seems like our politicians are out of touch, that's why.
Ok. If you're going to play that game, then the obvious answer to what I asked:
... Is No, nobody stopped them from running. Money may help, but is not prerequisite to running. People also get money if they garner support. Hence the success of grassroot organization.
Bullshit. If you stick with word of mouth as a middle class person you might get enough name recognition by the time you're 80.
It's probably a good thing that the vast majority of candidates have to get word of mouth recognition by rising through the ranks of government starting small at the local level and going from there. But you're right: that's part of the reason why most candidates end up being on the older side.
Yes, name recognition matters in a democracy, no surprise there. But the personal wealth of the majority of presidential candidates is a paltry sum to the total funds needed to be raised simply by running on a platform and getting support from within and outside the party. When we talk about "money in politics," it's usually not the candidate themselves but the outsider influence who prop that candidate up.
Still you try to corner me by taking what I said verbatim and so I respond in the same literal way: Nobody stopped them from running. Nobody is stopping them from not voting or writing-in someone else. Sure circumstance can improve one person's chances over another, but we have more choice than most countries of the world, and again the better choice between these two candidates couldn't be more obvious.
The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?
An effective ban is still a ban. If you're not in the club you will not win.
Democracy is all about falling in line...
Versus all of the other systems (single party communism, single party fascism, etc.) which are all about the freedom of choice. /s 🙄
My friend, you are absolutely right.
In two years, 587 children have died in Ukraine. In 5 months, 12,300 children have died in Gaza. These are not comparable. Israel's conduct is far and away worse than Russia's in terms of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Everyone realizes it, but that doesn't mean people want to endorse Biden's stance on Gaza. He still needs to earn people's vote if he wants them to go out to the polls and vote for him.
No, not everyone realizes that. You wouldn't believe how many posts I've seen railing against "genocide" go on to claim that Trump would be tougher on Netanyahu. Saw one a couple days ago that even claimed that because Putin is such an ally of Iran and therefore Hamas that he'd be better for the people of Gaza. Which is just a mind fuck I can't even understand being able to type.
For those who still don't understand;
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/14/us-settler-sanctions-west-bank
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
I would argue that progress like this is only happening because of the pressure on Biden from people saying they won't vote for him if he continues to support the genocide. The biggest change was after the uncommitted movement in some of the primaries That's why I'm okay with people saying they won't vote for him, as long as they agree to vote for him if he continues to improve.
> You wouldn’t believe how many posts I’ve seen railing against “genocide” go on to claim that Trump would be tougher on Netanyahu. Saw one a couple days ago that even claimed that because Putin is such an ally of Iran and therefore Hamas that he’d be better for the people of Gaza.
you're right: i don't believe this. can you link it?
https://lemmy.world/comment/8336943
Why am I not surprised it was harderian making such stupid takes?
Hey look, it's me! I can screenshot deleted comments I can still see (unless that'd get me banned)
But I don't think that user was actually serious about Trump being better for Gaza -- he was trying to set up a gotcha for a point that nobody actually made (about Trump being Putins lapdog).
that doesn't say what you say it said.
Did you read all the comments?
yea. everyone agrees trump is worse for palestine in that thread
K
Haha they actually linked a sarcastic comment attacking a liberal line of reasoning and conflated it as a comment supporting trump. They... are beyond help and you couldn't ask for a better finish
/thread
hey you do good work so like... keep it up!
This is like suggesting the firefighter has to earn your trust before you let them carry you out of the burning building.
I’m not good at detecting sarcasm in text; less so when there’s no text.
I see a performative monkey. Was that the intent?
Different viewers take different meanings from that picture. However, I would guess that someone who is extremely anti-Israel would never be captured in a photo like that. From what I know, the above is a genuine image and it is not contested that Trump visited the wall in this manner.
It’s trump. He has no real position on anything except what he thinks might make him look good. I’d bet everything I have that he doesn’t even understand the situation enough to have a cohesive position, and just figured wearing a little hat and putting his hand on the wall like other people do would play well with a group he wants to like him.
He’s like a child. He’s said so himself. This photo is a publicity shot, nothing more.
Yet, I doubt we would find the leaders of HAMAS taking a similar photo. His participation in this ritual means SOMETHING.
It means he visited during peacetime and his handlers thought this would get him more Jewish support, which he was sorely lacking due to his very public antisemitic comments in the past.
It was very transparent. There’s no deeper meaning here than that.
e: and it worked in some circles, apparently, since some people are still posting this photo to argue he’s not an obvious antisemite.
It's insane how when someone criticizes anything about Biden, the first move is accusing them of supporting trump, and when they have to clarify trump is obviously worse, everyone then acts like their criticisms of Biden becomes invalid.
Biden is better than trump. But we deserve better than either option.
"Shutting up and voting Biden" doesn't help anything, and is what we give republicans shit for.
Liberals always choose to stand in the way of progress. You'll never have better Dems if you don't criticize them. They aren't your friends and voting is a tool.
Malcolm X put it well:
That said, many people have a mistaken view of voting.
They think “I’m picking someone who represents who I am as a person, and so who I pick is a reflection of my very soul.”
Or at best, they think “I’m picking someone who will act in my best interests. I may not like them as a person, but the actions they take are at least a good approximation of the actions I want them to take.”
The reality is more like “I’m picking someone who will inevitably act in the interest of those in power. I need to pick someone who has the right vulnerabilities. They don’t have a good rapport with certain powerful entities, so they don’t mind pissing those ones off if it means they can score some votes as a result.”
You’re not picking someone to lead your side. You’re picking who you’d rather negotiate with from their side.
Like that last sentence. Very astute.
You're saying that here, but you have repeatedly said you're voting third party, and I among many others have given you shit for that, as well as your refusal to even acknowledge one thing you think Biden has done well. You complain about this so much on Lemmy that I recognize your name, and can usually tell when you've written a comment before I even look at the name. Go outside sometimes.
Feel free to respond to this but fyi I'm not going to read it.
Because everything he's "done well" has been pretty much the same shit they've always done. It's not enough. You can blame Republicans all day long but we need something to change and Democrats are the only option available to progressives and leftists. But every single time there's an opportunity to demonstrate looking towards the future and making these changes Biden has passed that up. Here's some examples:
Called on congress to block the rail strike: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-calls-on-congress-to-block-potential-railroad-strike
Walks back his own campaign promise for $50k forgiveness: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/539139-biden-balks-at-50k-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/
Goes around congress to sell weapons to Israel: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/politics/biden-congress-israel-military-aid/index.html
Forced federal workers back to office: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/in-person-work-biden-administration/index.html
Increased the defense budget: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/politics/defense-budget-biden-administration/index.html
These behaviors put me as a voter in a no win situation. If I support Biden after all this what am I doing besides giving establishment Democrats and moderate voters a blank check opportunity to say "See? Everything is fine.". They will completely ignore the fact that I and other voters compromised our principles in order to prop up a candidate we hate for what he's done.
On the other hand I can protest vote 3rd party or write in. And of course that comes with it's own risks.
At what point will moderates and establishment Democrats have a moment of self awareness and admit that this isn't a sustainable model? Personally I had hoped 2016 would be that wake up call but instead I'm seeing people try to turn it around as if it's progressives and leftists who need to change.
How much are you being paid to post those same 5 links everywhere?
I pay them 5 big fat leftistbux every time, and frankly i am gonna have to have a talk with them cuz they're clearly not producting value for my money.
Will you fill out this customer service survey?
How many times must they post them 5 links before you read even 1?
Would you be happier with a short message describing what each link says?
What about their attitude caused you to turn off your brain? Would using more words help? Fewer words?
We're sorry that thinking about hard truths is painful. Your needs are important to us. Would a meme format help wash these down?
We care about your input. Please stay on the line for more questions and a chance to win!
How much are you being paid to follow me around?
I think you don't know how government works. Your list of things is misdirected. For example, Biden forgave the loans, Republicans blocked it. Congress makes the defense budget, not Biden.
Republicans didn't force Biden to walk back his campaign promise to fight for $50k forgiveness down to $10k. He did that all on his own.
It's called compromise. It happens sometimes. It's very sad. I remember my first time a politician let me down. Even Bernie has once or twice broken my heart.
I think Biden's hand was perhaps not forced by the Republicans, but restrained by forces that Biden must not only contend with, but work with.
My urge for Biden to come in like a dictator and say "fuck the law, here's my executive order, go change the dollar amounts in our computer system" and then just ignore the fallout and the resulting injunctions and claims for damages, as Trump would have done, is a strong and primal urge, it's an urge for comfort. It's comfortable to have one person to solve all your problems. My grandfather warned me of it regarding his escape from Italy.some time ago. Perhaps that why in my mind it passes as quickly as it arises.
A compromise with who?
Did you read the article?
Nope, never.
But thanks for blocking me! I know you're going to sign out to check this, but it's still nice to know I'll never get another response from you.
If you bet banned for personal attacks, please don't forget to also block me on your new account or any alts you currently have
Sure, but there are only 4 options when November comes: 1) vote for Biden, 2) vote for Trump, 3) vote 3rd party, or 4) don’t vote.
Due to how the US system works, options 2-4 only help Trump, so unless you want a Trump presidency, only option 1 is valid.
Anything else is just at best a pipe dream, or at worst, direct support for someone who will become a dictator.
If the weatherman says a tornado is going to hit your town tomorrow, would you start getting upset at them for causing a tornado?
Or would you be appreciative that someone gave you a heads up while there's still time?
Because I see a lot of people frantically ringing alarm bells. For years at this point.
The primary still isn't over despite the DNC pulling delegates from NH.
There's still time to not run Biden. And I know that's unlikely.
But there's still also time to make noise and hope Biden and the DNC sees reason and move left so trump doesn't win
But telling people:
Isn't going to get Biden enough votes to beat trump. He's sitting at less than 1/3 approval with voters...
We can't just stick our heads in the sand and hope that's enough.
If you want to be sure we beat Trump, start making noise and praying Biden actually listens.
I continue to believe polls have been less and less accurate and for the last several elections, special, midterm, and general, or so, polls have been completing meaningless. It's obvious to me that respondents in recent years simply lying to pollsters.
Doubt this claim. Using this logic (voting for 3rd party is a vote for Trump) a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Biden as well. Not voting trump only helps Biden. I won't be voting for Trump or Biden, so i guess by not voting for either I'm voting for both of them and an committing voter fraud so at least you won't have to worry about me in 2028s election as I'll be in jail.
The general logic as I understand it is this: (effectively)No one who might have considered voting Trump is going to vote for anyone else. So folks who defect to a third party vote, especially due to the current Israel/Palestine situation, are assumed to be potential Biden voters by a much wider margin than potential Trump voters. Then you factor in all the R who claim they don't support Trump or what he has wrought, but continue pulling the lever for him and politicians like him because of the R in front of their names. They aren't voting third party either.
That logic may or may not reflect reality, but I think it's what is in most folks' heads when they make that statement.
Thank you, that makes sense.
There's a time and a place. In this case, the last best time was in 2015 and 2019 during the democratic primary elections. And the left shot its shot and got Bernie pretty freaking far along, enough to reshape the democratic party apparatus partly in his vision. And maybe that didn't give us President Sanders, but it might give us the next great president.
If Trump gets in, he won't leave.
We should be having a proper competitive primary now instead of a coronation. In 2019, we were told Biden wasn't looking for two terms. We got bait-and-switched.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129
Maybe so. There is a primary happening in accordance with the laws of each state right now and Biden is on the ballot. You could have run.
Biden beat Trump once and he can do it again. Perhaps Biden's change of heart has to do with the fact that Trump is running again. That's almost inconceivable.
You can deserve all you want, but that won't change the names on the ballot. If you really care, start organizing some grassroots support around 3rd parties, or perhaps take on a role in government in your local jurisdiction. The upcoming election is 99.999% going to be between Trump and Biden. Vote or not, there's very little you can do about alternatives at this point. Start working on the next one.
Man, if only we had an earlier election where we have a say in who the general candidate was....
But I'm sure if Biden doesn't move left and trump wins, you're going to do the rational thing and blame Biden and his campaign team for their words and actions.
I mean, it would be ridiculous if instead you blamed all the people who held their nose and voted D but spent 4 years telling everyone that Biden isn't popular enough to beat trump again. And he needs to do more to reach out to Dem voters.
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/14/us-settler-sanctions-west-bank
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
Is this good enough for you?
I remember when Biden sanctioned the few individuals....
Even a comment I made back then, but it would be a hassle to find it.
I said it was better than nothing, and if Biden actually sanctioned the politicians and government officials behind this shit, I'd unironically stand up and clap.
But that sanctioning random settlers literally accomplishs nothing. So I dont know why people want to brag about it.
I still dont know why someone would act like this means anything, and I'm still desperately waiting for the chance to be proud of Biden.
He's doing a lot of diplomacy behind closed doors, a bit too much for my taste even, but that's how he's always worked and he'll keep doing that, so there's not much visible but the few public statements. I think he needs to do more, but he's very risk averse and the problem is that if he just straight up blocks all support for Israel then that could cause chaos (risk for war in the region, loss of internal support, etc).
If he was averse to risk, he'd stop doing all this shit his voters hate less than a year out from an election...
He's being dangerously risky right now, and we're all fucked if it turns out he made a bad judgement call and loses the election.
At the same time, Biden says trump is incredibly dangerous, and him becoming president again could be the end of American democracy.
And I agree with that.
Which is why I think Biden putting Israel over America is so fucking stupid.
America isn't responsible for the safety of Israel. If America stopped protecting them at the UN, and the UN forced them to stop their genocide...
That wouldn't be the end of Israel, just the end of their current genocide.
If Israel got attacked after that and invaded, then aid to Israel would be a different story and the rest of the UN would be helping.
You're arguing from this false stance where Joe Biden is the only thing keeping Israel a state right now, and ignoring that his support of Israel could very well lead to the actual end of American democracy.
The president of America's priority should be America, not if a foreign country might have to stop their genocide.
Like, if Biden was stopping a genocide, that would be different.
Do you legitimately not understand any of that?
There's not as many people who think like you as you think there are.
And unfortunately it’s mostly younger voters, who as a group BARELY vote.
We have states with 20% of voters choosing uncommitted. What are you on about?
80% > 20%
And that's of Democrats who voted in the primary.
There's just way more supporters of Israel than there are people who dislike genocide. Biden has to be careful to not lose their votes.
I was under the impression that refusing to do the right thing because you’re scared of the consequences was the definition of cowardice.
You're a troll, please go away.
You can't assume the 80% of people who voted for Biden would abandon him the minute he withdrew his support of genocide. They might as easily believe the fud I keep hearing here that an uncommitted vote is tantamount to a vote for Trump.
Likewise, not all of the 20% would withold their votes if he continues to support Israel.
But regardless of the actual number, it's pretty clear that "votes at risk if I continue to support Israel" is a much smaller number than "votes at risk if I denounce Israel". The resulting political calculus is unavoidable. Biden can work for a ceasefire, but acting or speaking in direct opposition to Israel is a terrible idea.
Sure, but "right now" you need to vote for Biden or risk never being able to vote again.
and the general election is eight fucking months away, so it’s 100% justifiable to vote however the fuck I want to in the primary.
Which I did, and I voted uncommitted. And I will vote for not Trump in November. But don’t mistake my enthusiasm for “not living in a fascist theocratic state” for enthusiasm towards Biden, because it’s not and never will be.
Apologies. I wasn't talking about the primaries. I was talking about the presidential election.
Edit: I didn't realize they were talking about the primaries. My bad.
Edits aside, that is kinda the issue. I have disliked Biden not because he's Biden, but largely because I feel he's a little more conservative of a president than I would like. Will I vote for him still if he's up against Trump? Unless he genuinely gives me a reason to think he'd be as bad as Trump (pretty damn unlikely), yes. But I very much dislike his handling of the Israeli - Palistinian conflict, so much so that during the primaries I voted uncommitted. But every time I bring up my opinion, the default is not to say that I must be implicitly be a Trump supporter because I'm not 100% behind Biden. I live in the southeastern US, so I absolutely have family that are Trump supporters, and that argument of all or nothing is sounds very similar in my mind to those that support Trump. I'd argue that this rhetoric of total support will most likely be more damaging than not for the democrats, as it has actually made me more wary about voting for Biden than I suspect I would be otherwise.
All I’m seeing here is that you don’t seem to understand how the spoiler effect works in an entrenched two-party political system, which this is. Also, it appears you’re not aware of how absurdly tilted to the right the electoral mechanisms have become in this country - largely due to gerrymandering, and the continued refusal of Congress to reapportion the number of Representatives in the house from the cap imposed in 1929.
I would say it is a spoiler effect if another candidate was running in the democratic party, but there wasn't, so now it pretty much the choice between Biden and Trump (I doubt there are many on the fence voters at this point). I also very much understand gerrymandering, I am a left leaning voter in NC after all. What is troubling is that it seems the simple solution is to not support Israel and back the UN in investigation of war crimes and handing out aid. But when you suggest that, the default is often to suspect that I am actively suggesting not to vote for Biden (I'm not), and that I am implicitly supporting Trump (who I acknowledge would handle the situation way worse). The reason I am worried about this is that it is very reminiscent of Trump voters that follow with questioning the reason why, which I have seen firsthand. There are likely going to be other big issues raised during this election year, and if they are often answered like this it isn't exactly confidence inspiring.
Question: If they run an even worse candidate next time, which considering the trend of them all, they will; Will you finally allow leftists to stop blindly voting for a party that doesn't reflect their values?
At what point will the responsibility be on the dems to appeal to us, instead of us blindly backing the blue against our better wishes?
The answer is never, so it's time to start organizing now. Labor unions are on the rise for the first time in a century, and historically are an incredibly strong voting bloc. Coordination between them could lead to a proper leftist party, split from the Dems.
Splitting the left would result in a permanent Republican majority.
That presupposes the Republican party survives. They've put a lot of capital into Trump, and if he loses this November there's a good chance he's just dead before he gets a chance to run again. None of the other claimants to the throne are anywhere near as popular amongst the cult.
Nobody is suggesting we get a leftist party together for November. That's just not possible, and getting a president would be meaningless. Organize for midterms, start getting house and congress seats. Work with the Dems while the Republican threat remains, but prepare for when their movement collapses to infighting
That's true. I think there is a reasonable chance that the right-wing could split or collapse.
There is an interesting parallel here with Canada, which also has a FPTP system. Canada is more progressive than the US, so it already has two left-wing parties (one more centre-left than the other). But, for about a decade in the 90s, the right wing party split in two and this guaranteed electoral success for the centre-left Liberal Party. The interesting thing is that this was actually bad for the Liberal Party. They became arrogant, internally fractious, and scandal-prone. When the two right-wing parties re-merged, the Liberals suffered their worst defeat in history.
If the Republicans in the US split into two right-wing parties, there might be room for two left-wing parties as well. In fact, it would be good if a left-wing split ensured that the Dems weren't guaranteed electoral success, as this would lead them into making stupid mistakes. However, if the right-wing later re-united, the left would have to be prepared to reunite again as well. The problem is that the US is more right-wing than Canada, so vote-splitting on the left is more of a worry.
All of that said, it would be interesting to see how much support a left-wing working class party would have. I recall that there were midwest working class voters who were prevaricating between Trump and Bernie, not between Trump and Hillary/Biden. They didn't care about left vs. right politics as much as they wanted to vote for someone who would bring good working class jobs back to the Rust Belt. A left-wing party that really focused on bread and butter working class issues and not culture war bullshit might do well, but it's too risky when Trump is the alternative.
If moderates can't get over their unwillingness to compromise with progressives and leftists the split is guaranteed.
Genuinely curious, how is Joe worse than Hillary?
If you hate Democrats and Republicans, don't vote for them, but recognize that abstaining has consequences as well.
And the real fun begins when you look at what the Dems do in the primaries. Progressives get outfunded in favor of "centrist" Dems BY the DNC and DGA, and the DNC/DGA also have a bad habit of trying to elevate the craziest Republican to the general election in states all over the country.
The DNC et al would like very much to continue forcing democratic voters to vote for them to save the democracy the party are actively undermining.
Yall watch that bit on John Oliver about the mark robinson? I looked into it. Yes, the DGA ran their game ("attack" ads designed elevate fringe candidates into the public consciousness) in North Carolina and helped him secure the Republican nomination.
How much can a voter force a party like "that" left?
And since DNC pulled NH primary delegates for something only republicans can change and Biden supported it...
We can't even use your point to convince people.
This sham of a Dem primary might be our last.
Do you think NH republicans learned their lesson and will change NH state law so the NH Dem primary doesn't have to be first?
Or do you think they'll leave the law in place so in 2028 the DNC cancels the NH primary again?
The only people that can fix it are NH republicans and the DNC. And the DNC seems fine with just not letting NH Dems have a say in who the candidate is.
What's stopping the DNC from canceling other states that vote progressive like NH was?
They've already argued in court they can do what they want, because primary is nonbinding and they can just ignore it anyways.
This is the danger of just blindly supporting Dems no matter what. They keep acting more and more like Republicans
DNC conspiracy theory nonsense gets so tiresome. You had some legitimate grievances over what happened with Bernie, but not really in the recent primary. Unless you can name the challenger to Biden that was worth spending money holding the primary for.
I sincerely hope the far left does fall in line with its own party eventually, with some voting reform we could make a multiparty system viable. For now though, much like in WW2, we have fascists to defeat. Regardless of how much liberals and communists may dislike each other, we are at least capable of civil cooperation.
It'd just be nice if you stopped trying to attack all forms of liberalism so hard and take over the dem party just like MAGA took over the repubs. It won't work on educated people in the same way fascism can convince the uneducated. We tend to know the difference between liberal and neo-liberal.
I mean you say 'legitimate grievances' then proceed to ignore what happened to NH.
The reality of the situation that we're all in is that oarty primaries are the only 'real' mechanism we get to engage with democracy in a material way, and time and time again the stewards of those parties are thumbing the scales towards specific outcomes.
You acknowledge it, then dismiss it as 'nonesense'. It's not fucking nonsense. There is almost nothing 'democratic' about the DNCs primary process. If you run a competitive race but aren't the predidermined party leadership acceptable candidate, they steal it from you, in fact, they'll conspire to do so. If a state 'votes wrong', they take your primary from you. It's material and real you chucklefuck and dismissing it trivializes the real consequences it has around voter disenfranchisement.
If we consider the primary process to be a part of our political system, and we should because it is, the DNC is less democratic than some of the lowest ranking "democracies" in the planet. The RNC didn't rig their primary to stop Trump. The DNC did so to stop Bernie, twice. And when a state which was one of the first in the nation primaries gave the primary to the non-dccc candidate, they took the primary away from that state.
It's an indefensible mockery of the word democracy to call the DNCs primary a democratic process
Conveniently skipped over where I asked someone, and anyone can do this, to name the viable leftist challenger in the recent NH primary, that would make holding it worthwhile.
And really, can name a non-leftist challenger too if you want, if you really think Dean had a real shot or something.
The degree of personal attacks and cherry-picked arguments in here is remarkable.
Oh stfu you pedant.
You are dismissing the structural critique that makes your first point irrelevant.
There are no viable challengers because the DNC has repeatedly changed the rules or moved the goal posts to prevent that from happening again.
Ah, more conspiracy theory. Bernie ran just fine. Twice. He's not even a registered democrat. You got any evidence of the new rule that prevented it from happening this time, or just an anonymous claim on the internet?
God you are a coward.
My, sure does get personal fast when people don't just agree with folks.
Its your intentional ignorance that's the problem here bro. You cherry pick which parts of the past you want to acknowledge and which ones you don't.
There is no holding still on a moving train.
Well, the topic was the canceling of the NH primary. So, talking about the NH primary seemed pretty reasonable to me.
From my perspective, it's you guys who ennervate. Is there a point to reading any more of the couple a paragraphs or is it all pompous nonsense about how you 'just know better' without a shred of shame?
Read something jackalope. And write something worth reading.
Personal and tribal attacks. You can be better.
Hey, you can too! You shortened your ridiculous whining down to 2 sentences i can dismiss more quickly.
Show me the meat in your argument and ill bite.
Read your previous comment again and think of how else you might improve, professor
That's cute and all, but we're not all teens here.
Youre right. I'm 45 and officially over your arrogant, empty words. You could have at any point attempted to argue a point but chose to act like a know it all instead (while providing nothing except vitriol.)
which as you say is pretty effin' childish.
Make. A. Point. Or admit you have nothing but faith.
Yeah, you sure sound 45 on the internet.
Thank you. I think when i get extra mad at kids i remind myself of my father.
He was an asshole when i was growing up and i learned real good how to make people feel small when they get big headed. If you are angry enough to keep replying like this i have succeeded in my estimation. Think about this discussion, cool off, and use this as opportunity for growth.
Goodbye
Yep, you probably want to block me too. That way I can reply to your posts as much as I want without you ever getting notified and being able to reply. lol
> like in WW2, we have fascists to defeat
that's what leftists are saying, and that's why they are saying not to vote for democrats, too. it's like you're saying if we don't vote for mussolini, we'll get hitler. well i'm not voting for either of them.
Right, because the best way to fight fascists is to let them take over. Brilliant!
Oh, and do you not think Omar and the rest of the squad leans left? Because she just said she plans to vote Biden. Or they just not progressive enough for you?
>Right, because the best way to fight fascists is to let them take over.
you don't seem to get that mussolini was a fascist too.
Yeah, he invented it. You equating Biden with Mussolini? Because I'm not seeing the hyper-nationalism, the militarism, the subjugation of the individual for the state, the undemocratic holding of power, etc etc etc.
Unless you believe in the right-wing conspiracy theories anyway. Hmm...
oh. let me help you out:
he wrote the patriot act
he wrote the crime bill
he voted for every military intervention for the last 50 years, sometimes grandstanding on making them happen
i don't know about the undemocratic holding of power: i'm pretty sure that the appearance of democracy is a desirable trait for any authoritarian regime, but when less than half the eligible populace votes, how can you claim any government is democratic?
Patriot Act:
On October 23, 2001, U.S. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced House bill H.R. 3162, which incorporated provisions from a previously-sponsored House bill, and a Senate bill introduced earlier in the month.[5] The next day, October 24, the Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66,[6] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming majority of "no"-votes. The three Republicans voting "no" were Robert Ney of Ohio, Butch Otter of Idaho, and Ron Paul of Texas. On October 25, the Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98–1. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted "no".[7]
He did draft the Senate version of the '94 crime bill, you're half right on that one, though only half since his draft wasn't that different from the House version. Though I'm not sure that makes him a fascist.
Regarding the WoT, we were attacked, I'll remind you. Democratic countries responding to attacks does not make them militaristic fascists. Did we conquer anything?
Lastly, people have the liberty to vote or not. That supersedes any authoritarian requirement that they do so, in most people's opinions anyway. People are free to vote if they wish, and if they vote him out, he'll leave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus\_Counterterrorism\_Act\_of\_1995
Let's just condense your two comments into one, eh? If Biden is in your book, then I probably am too. I think you're using a weird book though.
So, you must be referring to: Much of its rejected proposals were ultimately recycled as the USAPATRIOT Act of 2001 with Joe Biden's vocal endorsement.[8]
I suppose that works, though counter-terrorism does require tools to battle it. We're not pacifists either you know, Americans can be quite aggressive in personality sometimes. We are careful, however, to draw a distinction between militaristic conquest and defense. You'll note America is still the same size it was then, despite successfully holding both Iraq and Afghanistan for a time.
looks like you got your facts wrong AND you made excuses for military adventurism. are you the real fascist all along?
>Unless you believe in the right-wing conspiracy theories anyway
what right wing conspiracy theory are you talking about? this appears to be an attempt to pigeonhole me and my legitimate criticisms.
Only way I can think of Biden fitting the fascist glove, is if someone believes Trump's lines about the election. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
oh, i just know what fascism is and i know the US has been fascist for decades.
People complaining about the process of the Democratic Primary this year seem to have forgotten that there is only one viable candidate this time around. If somebody else viable had announced his candidacy this year, I would be there with you all the way. However, if an open primary implies that Biden has to debate anti-vaxer Kennedy as his closest competitor, I don’t see what the point is. This primary is not rigged by the DNC, but by other candidates (e.g. Whitmer/Newson/AOC) not running.
Sorry to chime in, but I find this particular debate/conversation going on within Liberal and Leftist circles interesting and at times frustrating.
While I don't buy that the DNC is involved or cultivating some sort of conspiracy to take the election, I do believe every US election from here on out will be a choice between Capitalist Technocracy and Imperialism and outright Theocratic Fascism. Do I prefer one? Sure (not fascism), do I think it's even remotely ideal? Not at all. Am I pissed that I'm at times criticized for wanting something unrealistic?
Yes, because a reality where those are constantly the two options presented EVERY election is pathetic and points to the fact we're just prolonging the end of US democracy because it failed to evolve into a socialist democracy soon enough and thusly became vulnerable to fascist rhetoric.
This is more likely the reality than "we can turn back fascism now and next year, when Biden is president, then we can protest what you want." That simply isn't what's going to happen. Trump is just the beginning of a Fascist wave, the ideology of Fascism, White Supremacy, and Theocracy has been allowed to fester for too long in America and it's like a cancer that has grown too deep for a single chemo treatment to treat it. You've got to cut it out stem and all, and that isn't a peaceful or painless process.
The left that is pro Palestine and calling out the war in Gaza as the genocide it is are the future of The Democratic Party in America whether you like it or not, unless we're finally going to splinter from Bipartisan politics, which I just don't see happening. But we can always justify lesser of two evils when the enemy is fascism. Very much how Netanyahu needs Hamas (as evidenced by his rhetoric and past policies, so too does the Democratic Party need Fascists deeply seeded in the ranks of the Republican party.
This ensures that Democrats don't have to enact laws that align more with the increasingly more leftist leaning public's desires for an end to American Imperialism, and can simply be not Fascists to win election after election after election.
All until Capitalism destroys not just this country, but the majority of humanity at large, because just like any dying empire, America has become a nation controlled by an elite class that, regardless of party, solely desire to retain the status quo regardless of the consequences to those not within said elite class.
So yeah, I'm voting Biden, but I don't expect Fascism to move even an inch regardless of the victor. It'll be there the next morning, and 4 years from now to try its hand again...and 8 years from now...again and again...until finally we fall.
We've had many chances to stomp Fascism in the head while still in the cradle, and we slept on it cuz we needed to "be fair" (but only to white supremacist fascists) and give Fascism a voice at the table in a Democratic system, and look how that infection spread! Now when it's at our doorsteps we want to fight it in an election!? Give me a break. If you think your vote matters, you haven't been paying attention. We're already a Fascist dictatorship, we just think that means boots and bad moustaches and killing Jews, but Fascism is just a nation state where those with the money make the rules and the people don't. Sound familiar?
So...
You're saying Biden was going to win no matter what, so the DNC yanking NH delegates and Biden being outspoken in support of that is fine?
If he was going to win anyways, why would Biden and the DNC risk taking that incredibly undemocratic step?
Why wouldn't they just let the most progressive candidate win NH for the third time?
Why remove their delegates and have Biden publicly take himself off the ballot just to spend campaign money on a write in campaign?
How is any of what Biden and the DNC logical if you're right?
The main point is that if you are ever putting pressure on NH to change the date on their primary election, then this is the time.
Except NH state government is all Republican and the only one that can change the law that NH goes first...
The DNC told NH Dems they had to violate state election laws or lose their delegates.
That is a giant fucking issue, and something I thought republicans wouldn't even sink to.
There's no choice, and you acting like there was isn't a good look.
Did you just not know the details?
Or do you think the DNC telling a state party to break election laws is no big deal?
Change is easier to make early in the process. At the very end of the process, i.e. the election, it’s all but impossible.
Yeah and while it's ok and good for blue team punters to lecture ("ignorant", "petulant") non-biden voters or genocide haters on how important it is to" swallow what they don't like and vote D", just try and lecture them on any political history or conditions that led to your concerns. Anything that goes against their little sports team sends them into a tizzy
Im guessing they get mad cuz the tv told them to. They really just don't understand why others won't buy into their ridiculously simplistic worldview and it gets them breathing hard
No shit. Everyone doing protest votes for the Democratic nominee was just that, a protest. Hell, in NC, Biden was the only option.
Come November, there is no way in hell I would vote for Trump. Biden could come to my house, burn down everything I own, punch a baby, kick a puppy, kiss my Dad, and I would still vote for him.
The worry is that some people won’t vote for either.
That is a risk you run when you commit assisted genocide.
You know. Genocide sucks. And I hate what's happening to Gaza.
But at least Biden didn't try to overthrow the US government
Shhhhh... we've all agreed it's better not to think about that. It's like that one movie, Zone of Intention or something? Just float in the pool. Pay no mind to the trains rumbling by.
Why do you include this positive in the list of bad things? I would even vote for Trump if he kissed my dad. lol
Jokes on him, he'll have to find him first. Daddy! Come home, we have milk.
That's smart. She has to know that things under xtian nationalism would be far worse than under Biden.
We need to be rioting in the streets to change first past the post. The fact that we can only choose from the lesser of two horrible choices is inconceivable.
That said until we have better choices, we still need to consistently choose the better choice.
Trump's going to win more than 50% of the vote in my state of Texas. Complaining about FPTP is so 1996 "Ross Perot Could Have Won" energy. In states and districts so heavily weighted that one party will take 60%+ it simply doesn't matter.
That said, it might be nice if we had real proportional representation - party ballots and larger congressional delegations - such that voting for a Green or Libertarian or Reform party ballot means you might actually be sending someone who shares your views to the assembly, rather than just signaling dissatisfaction with the dominant parties.
Even the California Jungle Primary system would be preferable.
With a proportional representation system the parties hold all of the power and the only thing that matters is the negotiations that happen behind closed doors to form a coalition.
If the party you voted for isn't part of the ruling coalition then your vote didn't matter. Sure you got someone sitting in a seat in a legislature that shares your opinions on things but the agenda is already been determined by those who negotiated the coalition.
And while you may thinking that it's possible that a party that shares your views might get into the ruling coalition, but it's just as likely that a small far right party could get into a coalition, which is exactly what happened in Israel's proportional representation system.
Or as we saw in the EU's proportional representation system, a fringe separatist party can gain notoriety and expand their influence on the population and you end up with a Brexit.
"First past the post" or as I like to call it, a community representation system, has individual representatives control the seat. That individual representative can leave the party and will still hold the seat. Which means the party has to keep the representatives of the communities happy. And those representatives have to keep their communities happy. If a minority group in a community is willing to organize they can influence the representative, and that representative can influence the party. The power dynamics flow from the people upwards.
Proportional representation systems only look good from the perspective of a spreadsheet. From the perspective of power dynamics (which is all important in politics) they're terrible systems. You get to vote for a party that completely conforms to a checklist, but that party may have zero impact on real policy. Sure you have to make an effort to influence your representative in a community representation system, but shouldn't the people willing to make the most effort have the most influence?
In a multi-party system, that's fine. Parties accrue delegates by appealing to a voting base. And candidates get onto the slate by working in and for the parties to bring in new supporters and achieve policy changes.
That depends on the parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions. But - generally speaking - if you've got a delegate you support in the parliament you're much better off than if you're casting a protest vote for an individual or group who will never hold a seat. Even if its a lone Ron Paul / Bernie Sanders esque voice, that's a foundation around which to build a movement. By contrast, a Ralph Nader outsider who gets seen as a spoiler candidate every four years is going to build more hostility to your movement the more successful it gets.
Love my Jim Justice style politician
Why would I want a candidate that can win under a party banner that I support and then turn coat the moment they're ensconced in a four or six year term of office?
Not if they're doing the one-term Senate gambit, like Kristen Sinema. Six years cultivating favors with corporate interests, and then resign before you party can primary you out so you can take a job as a lobbyist.
Coalition governments build support by appealing to particular interests of the various party members. That means an "Abolish the National Debt" Party and a "Green New Deal Party" are going to form a different kind of government than a "Green New Deal" and a "Small Business Alliance" party. But if you're interested in debt-politics and I'm interested in clean energy and third guy is interested in business start-up subsidies, we're all better off supporting for our issue-centric partisan groups than aligning behind a "Generic Liberal" or "Generic Conservative".
And you're better off still if you contact your representative about issues that matter to you in a community representation system.
Also people like Bernie Sanders or AOC simply wouldn't have any prominence in prop rep system. Bernie is an independent that's popular in his state. AOC is in congress because she won a primary in a safe blue district. They aren't required to vote on party lines, so the Democratic party has to compromise with them. In a prop rep system they'd either have to fall in line with the party leadership or form their own party and be irrelevant.
Third Parties are only relevant because of their potential to spoil an election. In a multiparty system they no longer have that capability. The only power they could potentially have is in the backroom deals to form a coalition with a larger party if the larger party doesn't have the majority of the votes. And once again, this kind of thing swings both ways. A center right party may need to form a coalition with far right extremists in order to take power, as we've seen happen in Israel.
Next election, Kristen Sinema will be gone. This is an indication of the system working, but you're characterizing it as a sign of the system being broken. No matter which system you have, it's not feasible to have elections every week. There will always be bad actors that will require an election to remove from power.
Exactly the problem. I don't have a say in the nature of the coalition that's formed after the election. I'm not going to 100% agree with any party, and in a Prop Rep system the policies will be determined after the election during backroom deals to form a coalition. I'm in Canada and the Green Party basically imploded over Israel-Palestine even though there's no chance for them to ever have any influence over foreign policy. Many times I might agree with a party in theory, but politicians tend to be whacky people and party leadership tends to be even whackier. But since the 2 MPs they have represent their communities they can do that job even when the party leadership goes batshit crazy. People can still call their Green Party MPs and those MPs can bring up those concerns in the Parliament even when the party itself is completely broken.
The only reason why Justin Trudeau is PM is because his party has built a lot of capability in identifying community leaders and recruiting those people into the party. People may not even like the party but they like the person they have running in their area, so a few seats can be picked up in this way. It's interesting how bringing in community leaders is a good strategy to win an election in the "bad" First Past the Post system isn't it? In a prop rep system you'd want to fill your party with yes men who would go along with whatever the party leadership wants.
Also compare what happens if the party leadership goes nuts in both of these systems. In the first past the post system, if a majority of members (who are beholden to their communities) thinks the leadership is bad, then the leadership is gone. In a prop rep system is there's any members that don't like the leadership those members get replaced, because the seats belong to the party, not the people that sit in them.
See politics isn't just a numbers game. There's debate and discussion and compromise. Power dynamics should be the primary consideration in any system. Prop Rep is a party first system, the power flows down from the party leadership. In a community representation system the power flows up from the communities. Voters decide who represents the community, community leaders decide who the party leader is. No system is without flaws, but a prop rep is completely dependent on parties which creates too many disconnects between the voters and those in power.
What system do you think is better, then? Because, reading that post, the main takeaway I got was basically "the people that lost a vote don't have much say in government," which... That's how democracy works? I'm confused.
A community representation system is better. Or as a lot of people like to call it, a "first past the post" system.
Sometimes things are named by those who oppose it. For example the Big Bang Theory was called that by people that thought it was preposterous. But it turned out to be the best theory.
"First past the post" was deliberately called that by people pushing a proportional representation system in an effort to make it sound arbitrary and unfair.
But when power dynamics are considered, proportional representation systems are far more arbitrary and unfair. It looks better on a spreadsheet to see the number of seats being proportional to the number of votes. But when you consider the seats are controlled by the parties and not the individuals sitting in them, there's really no point to having seats at all, other than for optics. An optimal proportional representation system would simply have the each party appoint one representative and that representative would have exactly the number of votes the party got in the last election. The only reason there are legislatures and seats in a proportional representation system is to give people the illusion that there's a legislative assembly.
A bicameral system with House that is community representation body and a Senate that's a proportional representation system might be fine. But having seats in a pop rep is really silly, just have each party appoint someone to put on record why they're voting for or against a bill. And bicameral systems can lead to gridlock, so I'd say that at most a prop rep system should only be able to delay legislation, not block it completely. This would encourage listening to the concerns of minority parties to get legislation passed sooner, but prevents some far right whackadoos from blocking everything because they want the government to fail.
I think what you really need is a civil war to get anything changed. Historically this is how it tends to work.
See, little shits? Being a serious person means not masturbating to your ideals until you are murdered.
Democracy is all about free choices.
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/14/us-settler-sanctions-west-bank
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said policy differences toward Israel between her and President Biden won’t stop her from supporting him in the November general election.
“Of course,” Omar said Tuesday, when asked by CNN’s Abby Phillip on “NewsNight” whether she would vote for Biden if the election were held that day, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite.
Last month at a press conference, Omar, a strong supporter of a cease-fire in Gaza, accused the Biden administration “of greenlighting the massacre of Palestinians.” She went after the Biden administration for the approval of extra aid to Israel without congressional approval.
“This administration cannot claim to be an honest broker of peace while greenlighting the massacre of Palestinians.
Omar, in the same Tuesday interview, also accused White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan of not sharing the “full picture” when it comes to Gaza cease-fire talks.
“And the fact that they will not do so says a lot to me, about Hamas’s regard for innocent Palestinian civilians,” Sullivan continued.
The original article contains 350 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Given how famously obstinate she is, the fact that even she appreciates the simple reality of the situation should be a wake up call for any people that are still harping on this.
It just doesn't make any sense to be against Israel's actions and at the same time do nothing to stop our own Netanyahu from obtaining power.
It's bizarre to me how there seems to be this contingent of people that don't understand we are in an emergency situation. It's not even "lesser of two evils" anymore it's "the building is in flames, grab the nearest fire extinguisher".
Biden IS the lesser of two evils. That's what we're saying.
We WANT to grab a fire extinguisher. Not a smaller lighter.
But there's no reason to believe you'll reach the extinguisher, it's pretty much impossible in first past the post.
I love how I'm getting voted down for saying WANT.
Did I say I wasn't going to vote for Biden over Trump? No. STOP ACTING LIKE IT, YOU MORONS.
It's still very much the lesser of two evils. The degrees are not on the same scale, but it's still the lesser of two evils.
The fact of the matter is that democrats are betting it all on the least popular president in modern history, who is also an octogenarian. The hope is he will somehow be disliked less than cheetolini.
The problem isn't that democrats are going to vote for Trump. The problem is that polling indicates that Biden is already losing, so every person that decides NOT to vote for him by staying home or voting third party is just another nail in the coffin.
Biden deciding to run for reelection is the presidential politics equivalent of Ginsburg refusing to retire. And it's right there in front of us. And we know it's insane. But now everyone is just knuckling down and buckling up, because here we are.
You’re an idiot
Very mid.
Disgusting. Or we can not support him and set a precedence for the rest of time that a president cannot survive genocide.
You can work within the system or outside of it. Within the system there are only two actual presidential options, Republican or Democrat.
I despise Biden for what he's complicit in as well, but on election day there's not much we can do. We're not getting every Democrat to vote for a third party, and even if we did it would still have to get past the electoral college. The time to fight within the system is every other day.
Now if you're talking about sending messages in other, more old school french ways...