Exclusive: Bernie Sanders worries young people are underestimating the threat from Trump
Exclusive: Bernie Sanders worries young people are underestimating the threat from Trump
They don't understand that Trump is just as pro-Israel as Biden, if not even more so considering he moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
That's the great part about our democracy: You don't get to vote for someone who isn't pro-Israel. Because freedom.
*electoral system
Because of FPTP and the Winner Take All Electoral College, there is a lot of political pressure to only have 2 parties. In a better system (proportional, ranked choice, etc) it wouldn't break with more than two parties. In fact just reforming the electoral college to be proportional would likely allow 3 parties to exist.
If you look at history the last time there was a viable 3rd party it possibly initiated the civil war by allowing an anti slavery viewpoint to exist (which is good, but if we'd had a better voting system it would have happened earlier and reduced a lot of suffering)
And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.
We have FPTP, and we'll have it until I'm cold and dead in the ground.
even republican-ass alaska passed RCV.
alaska also has some kind of UBI because of their oil stuff, I'm not sure they slot as easily into political partisanship as most other states
Burlington VT also switched off FPTP... and then we fucking back slid because "it's too confusing!"
I think it's highly unlikely we get off FPTP at a national level.
And it failed in blue as fuck Massachusetts
Yay, Alaska and Maine did it. Very good. Wake me when it's a state that has more people than moose.
Electoral system…
Just as I have to watch half the electorate embrace the most asinine BS possible to justify selfishness and hate… it’s not that far out to see people screaming “genocide joe!” at everyone they see, as they turn off everyone and defeat themselves at every chance.
The cool part is focusing all your effort into a camp-out such that your main message is synonymous with homelessness and you self defeat your own goals… all while you call the liberal element genocidal and basically show the world your biggest effort is to sit still while cutting off the liberal nose to spite your face.
Purely hypothetical question for you: If you had a choice between supporting Israel or Biden winning the 2024 election which would you choose?
Well shit, if you had a purely hypothetical choice, what would you choose?
I'm voting 3rd party so according to liberal and moderate logic that probably means I'm supporting Israel.
The important part is that the equation means more than you.
Vote how you mean, and ignore how your vote’s mean.
Good for you.
So what's your choice? Supporting Israel or Biden winning the 2024 election?
Ok purely hypothetical right back for you…
Do your ideals exist outside of pure hypotheticals? Can you cite them?
If you had a real choice… say in the upcoming election…
Who would you choose?
Can you imagine how dumb it would be to vote for someone who isn’t though?
The only reason I think Trump isn’t pro-Palestine (Russian ally through Iran) is because the war is a good distraction from Ukraine
You have to be pro-Israel as the US but that doesn’t mean you can’t be pro-Palestinian
Being pro-Israel and being pro-Palestine are mutually exclusive positions since Israel is genociding Palestine.
That's like saying you can be pro Nazi and pro jew.
I mostly agree in fact, however in definition it isn't true. Israel is a nation that could exist in many other forms. It doesn't have to do what it's doing. It's not the same as "pro-Nazi" because Nazism is an ideology, not a nation. A nation doesn't have any set ideals, only a set of people and borders it represents.
You can be anti-Nazi and pro-Germany because Nazis didn't define Germany. They were Nazis at one point in time but are now represented by totally different ideals.
Agreed
Socially Jew, economically Nazi?
No it would be like Finland allying with Germany because they had to be against Russia
But I didn’t say pro-Palestine, I said pro-Palestinian which you clearly know the difference since you had to change it to make your point
You just proved my point. The Finland/Germany/Russia comparison only fits with 'Palestine'.
The Nazi/Jews comparison is accurate with 'Palestinian'.
Would it be easier if I said “Finnish” instead of Finland?
If the US backs Palestine do you honestly believe they will turn against all their allies to aid American security of the region and be Israel 2.0?
That is irrelevant to the conversation.
The state of Israel is currently genociding Palestinians. You can't support the state of Israel and support the Palestinian people at the same time. Full stop.
Oh lol
It’s quite easy, you pressure your ally to stop that and to elevate the status of Palestinians in society
Send humanitarian aid and doctors to Palestine
We have. Israel attacks the convoys.
Being pro Israel means you support the genocide they're committing.
Yeah Donald "Muslim ban" and "finish the job" Trump is not pro-Palestine only for reasons of distraction.
Donald “carpet bomb the middle east” trump
Might possibly be pandering to his base
Palestine (Russian ally through Iran)
Russia isn't in military allience with Iran. Both Russia and Iran are neighbors sanctioned by the US, forcing them into a business partnership by exclusion.
And Iran isn't allied with Gaza Palestinians. You're confusing them with the Yemeni Houthis and West Bank Hezbollah. What you have is Israelis engaging in terrorist acts against both states, then conflating retaliation with cooperation.
https://apnews.com/general-news-08f1ea9e849a49c5a741bf0e1582b616
Also Israel is a state not a terrorist organization, they are participating in war crimes
Also Israel is a state not a terrorist organization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
An early example of Israeli state-sponsored was the 1954 Lavon Affair, a botched bomb plot in Egypt that led to the resignation of the Israeli defense minister at the time. In the 1970s and 1980s, Israel was also a major supplier of arms to dictatorial regimes in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia. In the 21st-century, it has been accused of sponsoring and supporting several terrorist groups as part of its proxy conflict with Iran.
Israel is a state
Response:you’re right but here’s a list of organizations that are
Congratulations, just seems like wasted effort
You're right that a state can commit terrorism just like a group can, but the key issue here is whether the state works towards being held accountable and towards achieving a long term benefit for all its benefactors, investors, assets and the society it's providing for
I was saying a state can’t commit terrorism by virtue of being a state they are war crimes
The difference is that random Israeli isn’t held accountable for war crimes committed by the regime but random Kurd/ISIS member/Proud Boys member can be held accountable for terrorist activities even if they aren’t involved
https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/the-systematic-torture-of-palestinians-in-israeli-detention/
The recent case of Samer Arbeed highlighted once again the systematic use of torture against Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons. Israeli soldiers arrested Arbeed at his home in Ramallah on September 25, 2019. They beat him severely before taking him to Al Moscobiyye detention center in Jerusalem for interrogation. Two days later, according to his lawyer, he was hospitalized as a result of severe torture, and lay in critical condition for several weeks. A judicial body had authorized the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, to use “exceptional methods” to extract information in this case without going through the courts. This led Amnesty International to condemn what happened to Arbeed as “legally-sanctioned torture.“
Torture is a war crime
What is your point?
Torture, how to keep sadistic people employed, and feel productive about extracting "truth"
You can check the 193 member states here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations
You have to be pro-Israel as the US but that doesn’t mean you can’t be pro-Palestinian
Like I said: Freedom. 🇺🇸🦅🍔
Congress is bipartisan pro-Israel. This isn't even a presidential issue.
Biden just happens to be the guy doing the pro-Israel stuff at the moment, so he's eating the lions share of the public ire.
"You have to support the Pro-Israel guy because the other guy is pro-Israel and both party leaders are pro-Israel and the cops are trained by Israelis and Israeli businesses have strong ties with the MIC and Big Finance needs Israel to control trade through the Suez and you're outnumbered and outgunned so quit fighting, just vote for Joe Biden" just isn't a winning message among progressive voters this year.
Maybe try it again in 2026.
My company buys a specific board from an Israeli company.
We have been working on an in house alternative for a few years now. Now we're scared to actually perform the switch because of the anti-boycott laws
Nut up and do it. I'm proud of you.
The thing is: Biden is pro-Israel but also pro-Palestinians. He's providing aid to Gazans and pressuring Israel to minimize civilian casualties. It's not great, or even good, I agree - but it's a whole lot better than Trump who would be pro-Israel and anti-Palestinians. You'd see humanitarian aid end and the US support total war instead of the (slightly) restrained version we're seeing now.
Biden is pro-Israel but also pro-Palestinians.
Right now it seems like the Biden Administration is trying to pressure Israel not to launch a military assault on Rafah and to allow in more humanitarian aid. At the same time, it has shown an unwillingness to take strong steps to punish Israel or to restrict the flow of aid or weapons to Israel if the Israelis disregard that pressure. How do you understand the strategy now?
I’d call the Biden Administration’s approach “passive-aggressive.” They are angry at Netanyahu, and were even before this. He’s presiding over the most extreme government in the history of the state of Israel. That government and the preceding dozen years of Netanyahu’s tenure are undermining the two fundamental drivers of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, which are shared values and common interests. So, it’s passive-aggressive in the sense that, six months into the war, the Administration has still been unwilling—unable—to impose a single cost or consequence that you and I, as normal human beings, would describe as real pressure.
Unable or unwilling?
Both, but I’ll get to that in a second. There were three levers the Administration could’ve pulled. They’re still available. No. 1 is to end U.S. military assistance. There’s no indication the Administration’s anywhere close to that. It just approved a shipment of two-thousand-pound bombs, and twenty F-35s. No. 2, change the U.S. voting posture at the U.N., either by introducing its own Security Council resolution, or by voting for someone else’s, that is very critical of Israel. It has not done that. No. 3, abandon the whole notion of negotiating the hostage release and simply join the chorus of those in the international community who basically say, “You need to pressure Israel to cease this military campaign.”
And I think it has not done these things
Biden is pro-Getting Relected. And he recognizes that his party is increasingly pro-Palestinian. However, his current policy appears to be a CYA strategy, intended to create the illusion of neutrality while negotiating a path that allows Israel to continue its extermination of Arab people across the region.
As this exterminationist Israeli agenda becomes more undeniable, the job of appearing neutral grows more difficult. And Biden's decision to (tacitly) back Israel at all costs means risking friendly relations with Turkyie, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. However, he's staying the course, precisely because he's banking on a mass expulsion and genocide of Palestinians today will strengthen Israel's regional position in the future.
It's especially telling that one of Biden's justification's for his support of Israel is a promise to his dying father.
Is that how politicians in a Democracy are supposed to make decisions?
If someone gives a sandwich to me and a gun to a person actively trying to murder me, they are not "pro-me"
Being pro-Palestinian would require demanding Israel stop murdering them.
An alternative explanation is that what he says and what he de facto does are two entirelly different things.
Look at what is done, not what is said.
The Nazis also proclaimed to be helping the Jews as they were putting them into Ghettos and then industrially murdering them in the Concentration Camps.
Yeah even to expand on that - they don't understand that everything they don't like about Biden, they'll like about Trump less. I mean I have real serious gripes about Biden but it is insultingly stupid to pretend that Trump would be any kind of a solution to those problems.
It seems that many of them know that Trump is worse, but think that sticking to ideals and voting for a non-viable candidate (or not voting at all) is somehow the best course of action. Republicans count on people like that to win. Fascists don't give a fuck how they get into power, as long as they do.
They don't just count on it. They actively invade spaces and spread that idea. I'm almost certain the first people saying that about Biden/Israel were right wing trolls, and people on the left actually took the bait and started spreading it themselves.
I get the sentiment, because I hate our two choices, too, but until first past the post system is changed, the lesser of two evils will always be the most practical choice.
They also seem to fervently believe:
Any time you ask for details on step 2, you get an unhinged rant with zero plausibility.
My best guess, if they actually believe there's a path to a ranked choice system and aren't just being doomers, is that they think a bloody rebellion will do the trick.
Yeah, there's a lot of tankies that pretend they are progressives so they don't get laughed at outright. They'll take their masks off 10-20 comments down the thread where few people actually see.
I tend to find that the people who believe in participating in the 2 party system also do these same steps. Why would either party do away with FPTP? Neither one has any incentive to do it. At least third parties often have it listed as part of their platform and have incentive to do it because they can't easily get elected within the current system.
The way it will happen is grassroots local compaigns. Those don't have as much need for FPTP and are more likely to be politicians who care. Eventually you build up enough to change things locally, then change state laws. That might be enough there, but it can potentially be pushed further and go for a national campaign once you have enough momentum.
It won't change by the president or congress right off the bat. That's not how this sort of thing happens. I wish it were. It'd be a lot faster and simpler, but it just won't work.
Your part 3 and part 1 are the same.
This is the ??? part you left out:
You don't just stop voting because FPTP is rigged and wildly corrupt. You fight with every weapon at your disposal, even the ones rigged against you.
This is how Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii did it. This is how everyone else needs to do it.
What exactly is your plan for changing first past the post?
You could make the case that if the democrats actually supported that, it's worth holding your nose and voting for them in order to open up other options in the future. But they don't support it, because they benefit from it. So basically you're asking the left to keep voting for the democrats unconditionally forever while they don't address any of our concerns and refuse to make any sort of reforms that might allow us to have a voice in the future. How is that a viable path to accomplishing anything?
The plan is to keep voting in every primary for the most progressive candidates and then voting for the least bad people in elections while pushing for reform. However hard it is to enact change while Democrats are in power, it will be impossible while Republicans are.
I'll pose the same question to you: how is not voting for the least bad viable candidates, thus guaranteeing the worst candidates get into power, a viable path to accomplishing anything?
Did you not notice what the DNC did to Sanders in the last Democrat primary???!
It's not just a case of "a few bad apples".
I noticed that voters didn't turn out to vote for him. The DNC doesn't get all the blame.
The plan is to keep voting in every primary for the most progressive candidates
But what I'm being told over and over is if Biden cuts off support for Israel he'll lose the election. Which means moderates and liberals won't vote for a progressive candidate who makes it through the primaries leading to whatever nutjob is running on the other side.
So our reward for being pragmatic and holding our nose will be the same as voting 3rd party today.
It's just as impossible to enact reform through the Democratic party. Especially when you adopt the approach of "vote blue no matter who." The Democratic parties interests in terms of voting reform are directly contrary to the interests of voters, and will never allow it happen unless they have no other choice. If they know they can count on your support no matter, then you have forfeited whatever negotiating power you've managed to accrue.
To the extent that electoralism is worth engaging with, strategic voting as part of a bloc is the only way to make it worthwhile. The goal should be to build an organization or movement that can say, if you refuse to give into our demands, we will not vote for you and you will lose. In the short term, it might mean losing an election, but if you can demonstrate that power, then in the future you'll be able to make a credible threat of withholding votes to get what you want, and if they cooperate you won't have to follow through. If that organization is able to coordinate other actions like strikes, then all the better.
It's like this: two countries are facing a powerful invader, and the only way to fend them off is through an alliance. But country A says, "I know you need us to survive, so we demand 99% of your territory in exchange for an alliance." If country B follows the ideology of "lesser evilism," they'll agree to that, because 1% is better than 0%. But how did that happen, when country A needs the alliance just as much? Because lesser evilism is stupid and irrational. At some point you have to set a red line and say, this is the absolute minimum that I'll accept, and I'll reject anything less even if it means the deal falling through and me facing a worse outcome. And "no genocide" is decidedly inside of that line.
There are a few ways of going about it. One is third parties. If you vote for the Green Party for example, you get voting reform, anti genocide policies and a much better enviromental policy. At the same time Biden is still much better then Trump and being realistic about what you can get should also be part of voting strategy. Also it is incredibly important to say, that citizenship does not end at the ballot box. You got to and can do more to influence politics. So I would probably vote Biden in a swing state and Green Party in an state, which is not a swing state. This matters in two ways. Firstly the more people vote third party, the more likely they can get into some actual power, but also the Democrats see that they can gain potential votes, by improving policies.
Also no lesser evil has to be distinguised from compromise and deals. If you get an actual improvement out of doing something, it can be worth doing even at a price. So if two countries face a powerfull invader, it can be worth making a deal that country A gets 40% of the invaders land and country B also 60%, if country B is already stronger for example. In that case both get something out of it. However without the alliance both would probably fail. In this case the question is, if Biden would actually net improve the US compared to today.
The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate why the principle of lesser evilism is incorrect. Not every deal has to be exactly equal, the question is what to do when offered a terrible deal when the other party needs you just as much as you need them, and the answer is to bargain even if it means a risk of the deal falling through.
Lemmy is absolutely infested with right wing trolls pretending to be leftists. And the worst part is that .ml protects them because they are completely blinded to this subversion by their pathological instinct to relitigate the cold war.
It's incredibly obvious to everyone who understands why assuming the moniker of a Haitian slave turned actual freedom fighter is actually incredibly offensive to those dealing with real oppression, both modern and historical.
Everybody who disagrees with you is a right wing troll?
It is pathetic how you are falling into the same line of thinking like the Trumpists. Building the Dems into a cult is not going to solve any of the problems. Threatening their power basis by voting based on principles does. Because then they have to actually listen to their potential voters. The majority of Americans is against continuing to support the Genocide committed by Israel. Biden would gain politically by turning the tides. But he would rather help Trump into power, than to stop a fucking Genocide.
Stop blaming the people who are voting and start holding the people in power accountable for their actions. That is the entire point of threatening not to vote fore the Dems.
Republicans count on people like that to win.
Republicans have lost more than one Senate seat because they ran zealous nutbag losers in safe elections and pissed off moderates.
I'm not sure why Democrats get to run pro-war Zionists and Blue Lives fascists, free from the fear that they'll suffer the same fate.
Because even though they would prefer the fascists don't get into power, the wealthy Democrat politicians know they won't be too adversely affected by it.
Well that just begs the same question about the moderates and liberals who keep them in power. Do they think this is a winning strategy?
Because unfortunately the pro-Israel, pro- cop Democratic candidates are much closer to the average voter than the nutbag religious extremists are.
The majority of Americans are against the continued support for the Genocide. Sanders speaks about that in the speech.
If that's true, why do more Republicans hold office at the national, state, and local levels?
Gerrymandering, structural advantages, etc. the same as it's always been.
This sounds like the strategy Republicans are banking on to win.
This is an uncomfortable truth that people don't want to face
You will understand this when you understand why most people who have more than 20s of geopolitical memory associate people who unironically rant about evil Zionists with neo-nazis.
You realize this critique cuts both ways right? Fox news and CNN are completely aligned in their criticisms of the protestors.
Yeah but the problem is we live in at least a pro-fascist state if not a fascist state already. So convincing people who realize this to vote for the guy who has been voting for fascist policies for decades (as well as some progressive ones, for those who will say I'm ignoring the "good" he's done) and is actively supporting genocide not just in policy but in his statements and apparently beliefs is going to be pretty tough. It's not just about voting "not Trump" anymore, people also want to vote "not Biden".
If you're going to call Biden a fascist, the word really does mean "anything I don't like".
Where did I call Biden a fascist?
If someone is being accused of voting for fascist policies, it's reasonable to assume they are being accused of being a fascist.
While I would call Biden a fascist (and I do), your logic doesn't follow. Would I call every Biden voter a fascist? No. Fascist apologist or enabler, maybe.
Show a little fucking courage when you call someone a name, own it coward.
Okay, he's a fascist. As if that needed to be pointed out.
Apparently it did because you tried to say you didn't call him that 40 minutes ago. Glad we could clear it up, it wasn't that hard.
And with that, the world has reached a new record for equivocation
They know Donald will destabilize the country and accelerate a collapse. They think that will make room for China to expand.
If their goal is to destroy the US then helping Trump makes sense, at least.
The hypocrisy comes when millions of vulnerable people they pretend to care about actually suffer as a direct result of their nihilism. Acceptable costs, right?
It really is shocking that more people on the "Lemmy left" don't see this. The US is one of the most tolerant places in the world for a bunch of otherwise marginalized groups. Pretending that it is irredeemable and must be destroyed because of your cold war grudge is destroying one of their biggest safe spaces and condemning them to suffer.
Hypothetically if you had to chose between supporting Israel or Biden winning in 2024 which would you choose?
Why do you think my comment has anything to do with Israel?
I'm going to give you a serious answer even though it's obvious you know nothing about us and don't care to learn.
Accellerationism is stupid and reactionary, and from my perspective Biden seems to be doing a fine job of doing that as it is. Trump is a symptom produced from the policies Biden has spent his entire career enacting. There will be plenty more candidates like Trump, because the material conditions that produced him still exist, and Biden is perpetuating and worsening those conditions.
The US is in decline and that's not going to change regardless of who wins this election. What I'd most prefer is to refocus our efforts domestically in order to address some of the many different crises that the country is experiencing. If we did this, it's likely that China would eventually eclipse the US due to it's manufacturing capacity, but the lives of everyday people would be improved and the country would become more stable and healthy. Whether the decline could be reversed, I don't know, but it would at least be a gradual, peaceful decline.
But that's never going to happen, even a little bit. Instead, our leaders are intent on getting involved in conflicts all over the world while ignoring all the problems at home and allowing things to get worse and worse. The geopolitical interests of the US government are completely disconnected from the interests of the American people.
The US doesn't need to collapse for China to grow. China's strategy for many years has been a policy of peaceful coexistence with capitalist states while it focuses on economic development. And that strategy is proving successful. The only concern is what the US is going to do once it becomes eclipsed as global hegemon, and the concerning thing is that while China manufactures more than the next 10 countries combined, the US spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. The possibility that the US could start WWIII in an attempt to maintain hegemony by pressing the area where it has an advantage is deeply concerning.
Even if you believe, as you probably do, that Xi Jinping is paying me to run around some niche corner of the internet pretending to be Phoenix Wright - why would China actually want to destabilize the US? They're already winning the peace.
Hm, read a dissertation from a Uighur genocide fan who communicates in childish video game cartoons, or focus on people who aren't delusional? Tough choice for me but I'll have to go with the latter.
Well, no one can say I didn't try. If that's the kind of engagement you want,
ahem
In a court of law,evidence is the only thing that matters! Your baseless accusations are... completely meaningless!What a goofy little clown. You have no substantial thoughts and have to do this instead.
Thanks for the laughs and nostalgia. Loved that game.
You have no substantial thoughts
There is a contradiction in this testimony! You literally just called my previous comment a "dissertation" and refused to read it! So it's impossible for you to know if my thoughts are substantive or not!
The defense would like to submit a piece of evidence: this tweet!
This doesn't actually prove anything, I just think it's funny!
Sustained
that sticking to ideals and voting for a non-viable candidate (or not voting at all) is somehow the best course of action.
Taking the “moral high” ground even though it would have a bad result. Sounds like what the DEMs do all the time.
“I learned it from you” -young people probably.
And the Dems get criticized for taking the moral high ground at the expense of being practical, too.
Or they understand that all this apolgetics for the Dems being the lesser of two evils just results in them being the same evil, just four years later. The Dems are still running internment camps at the border. They are still building Trumps wall.
By never threatening them with actual consequences to their power, you give them a blanket check to fuck everyone over for their rich donors. And that is exactly what they did and continue to do.
No they are not the same evil, and it insults the intelligence to pretend otherwise. And threatening the Dems with consequences by giving power to people who are even worse on those issues than them? That does the opposite of what you're hoping - it encourages that kind of behaviour.
We got to where we are because the right has pulled the window further and further, step by step, for years - and we have to do the same. The system doesn't just change overnight.
You have to understand that a win for Trump this year is a total win for the far right and a total loss for the left. Anyone pretending otherwise is hopelessly misguided or intentionally stumping for the fascists.
We got to where we are because the right has pulled the window further and further, step by step, for years - and we have to do the same. The system doesn’t just change overnight.
Because the Dems were happy to shift the window with them instead of pulling on the other side. Telling them "Either you pull it back now, or there is no reason to vote for you." Is the only way they will be motivated to not help the Reps pushing further to the right.
Sure just like in 2016 after we withheld our votes from HIllary and let the far right get all their wishes. The Dems realized how wrong they were and came pandering to leftists.
But surely it'll work this time, at least we don't have that many liberal justices left to lose on SCOTUS.
Because you accepted Hillary 2.0 with Biden. The DNC is laughing their asses off, as they keep shoving a "establishment" aka far right imperialist neo-liberal economics candidate down your throat. And now they are gas lighting you, to blame you for them only giving your candidates that are against your interests and against human rights and international law.
The GOP openly courts antisemites while also supporting Israel. They make sure to have all the awful bases covered.
They need all the Jews to return to Israel and the temple to be rebuilt so Jesus can come back. Of course, that does mean expelling all Jews from every other country Jews are in, but they leave that part out.
Zionism fits neatly into the view that every country should be ethically homogenous.
It's inherently right wing
And yet so is hating Jews. Ordinarily a quandary, but the GOP lives for hypocrisy.
Hating Jews "over here".
"Over there" is fine, which is why American Racism dovetails so neatly with Zionism: both desire the same, just from different directions.
PS: I was going to say "Fascism" instead of "American Racism", but frankly if there is one thing this whole situation has made clear is that Liberals are also all about different treatment depending on a person's etnicity - as made so puignantly clear in their reaction to recent university demonstrations as well as by the very different language used in the Liberal Press when it comes to Palestinians and Israelis - so it's really just both variants of Racism in the US.
Everything they do makes sense to them... Which should tell you everything you need to know about them.
Zionism has big "go back to where you came from" vibes
Antisemiticites
I knew that sounded wrong and reading your word brought the correct one to mind. Fixed!
Antisemenites Volume 7, Vivid Entertainment.
And once again, as the foreign trolls that are busy courting our youth want, not one comment in this entire thread mentions that Europe is on the brink of open modernized war should Ukraine fall to vlad "Ukraine is just a stepping stone" putin.
Gaza is a genocide, but that is not the critical geopolitical stage to be paying the most attention to. Once again it is completely ignored that the heads of hamas who attacked israel on oct 7 knowing exactly what they were about to cause are friends of putin.
The Gaza genocide was provoked precisely to pull western eyes from the Ukrainian front where russia was more than underperforming to ensure their victory in a sustained war of attrition.
You want to avoid a world war? You vote for biden whether u do it proudly or do it holding ur nose the way most of the sane will.
The Gaza genocide did not start on Oct 7, much like the Russian incursion on Unkraine did not start in Jan 2022. Both of those are tremendous blights on human rights and should be equally condemned.
Of course, voting for Biden is the only stable option as much as one may lament that it shouldn't be.
The Gaza genocide did not start on Oct 7, much like the Russian incursion on Unkraine did not start in Jan 2022.
This is very very true, and i didnt mean to imply otherwise. Ive been hating on the apartheid state in israel for a very very long time now, and as someone born in Poland, i need no reminders of the evil the russian state causes both at home and abroad. I highly appreciate the added clarity, i should have been more clear in the first place.
Both of those are tremendous blights on human rights and should be equally condemned.
Theyre both deserving of equal condemnation insofar as both are crimes against humanity, but the one is a much more slippery slope towards more genocide than i think many in the states realize. Russian imperial sentiments towards Poland, Lithuania, and Finland (of the very next in line) have been painfully clear to anyone paying attention to the past 100 years of history, and doubly so to anyone aware of "Foundations of Geopolitics."
Im not trying to say that the death of one group is worse than anothers, but i am saying that one conflict is a direct precursor to (for the modern age) unprecedented levels of death and destruction.
I am also willing to elaborate that sucking apartheid israels proverbial dick is something the US has been doing since before most of us were born, and that bidens stance on israel is less than par for the course in that hes the first head of state to outright say things like, "maybe israel should hold new elections bc of how fucked up their treatment of Palestinians is." Thats less than anyone wants or especially needs, but it does show represent more wavering from democratic leadership than one would expect. It also is further proof that the lemmy trolls telling u that the dems are getting more rightwing are full of it. We're on the cusp of the reins being passed on from the old generation onto the new. I agree biden shouldnt be the choice in a sane world, but a sane world it is not, and we can hope for far more with the boomers coming out of power so long as our democracy isnt just pissed the fuck away.
Only stable option is supporting genocide? Do you hear how you are evil?
The other candidate will also support the Gaza genocide. Again, it's unfortunate that both candidates are evil. And supporting the lesser evil is a bad long term strategy.
But, here we are.
There is no path to success here. Moderates, liberals and Joe Biden have made sure of that.
You vote for genocide. ✅
Very nuanced take. Really appreciate it.
Or in your style.
Your comment: 🚫🧠
You can insult all you want; I don't care what a genocide apologist thinks of me.
honestly that is a really attractive trait
If what you say is correct, then it would seem that the onus is on Israel to stop the genocide in order to save its European benefactors.
The onus to sane action is on everyone. Israel is in the wrong no matter which way u cut the pie. It does not mean that ignoring whats happening north of israel is validated bc the apartheid state is acting the way it always has.
Then the sane action is to not support and enable Israel, and not support its enablers.
If you live in the USA, you inevitably support the government. Not voting supports the greater evil, voting supports the lesser evil.
So vote, and organize anarchist enclaves, or socialist groups, or justice NGO's. Sink or swim.
Or at least Biden to reverse course and admit supporting Israel isn't worth the possibility of losing the election.
Liberals and moderates love to tell us about the choice in front of us between Biden and Trump. But they ignore the choice in front of them which is supporting Israel or losing the election.
liberals and moderates
Of course you reduce the voices not believing ur "two sides" bullshit to ill fitting buzzwords.
And there is no choice between supporting israel or not, but there is between all out war and its prevention.
Per the usual tho, youve a vested interest in keeping Americans disinterested.
Yeah, October 7th had nothing to do with the war that Israel was performing on Gaza before that. It wasn't all about Ukraine.
Nobody said that. Absolutist BS like this leads to dogma.
The *@#$ above me said that Oct 7th was all to take attention from Ukraine. I'm saying that's stupid.
He absolutely is more so. Also, young people have more power to influence Biden because they are part of his coalition. Of course, using this power is tricky because you need to pressure and criticize Biden without actually making him lose. So far I support the pressure campaign but I hope as the election gets closer people will start to realize what an epic disaster Trump term two would be.
He said he would level Palestine.
Not sure what these youngins are reading but he isn't coy about it.
Biden said this? When?
I think they were referencing Trump as that's who was being discussed in the last sentence.
Oh that makes sense.
Are young people really a part of Bidens coalition? Bidens policies and rhetoric have consistantly pushed young people away. The ridiculous speech he gave just a few minutes ago maligning student protestors is emblematic of this.
And it seems like young people have got the message. The last poll I saw had 18-24yr olds voting for Trump at +8%
Historically they have been. I think Biden seems out of touch but I’m not sure I agree with this sentiment overall. That poll sounds dubious but I mean coalitions can change certainly. Trump seems even further from the views I see most young people espousing so I’m not sure why they would move to him but maybe it’s protest vote kind of situation.
Young people are part of the coalition but they've never proven to be a reliable part. When the 18-25s vote like the older generations then campaigns will start to take their needs more seriously.
Exactly. When I was 18-25 bernie learned this. We didn’t like Hillary so we got trump.
It's a two way street. Young progressives don't see any reason to vote for Democrats who won't fight for any of the policies they care about, so they wont defend or fight for those officials.
If i am thirsty and someone is offering me toilet water after they just shit in the toilet, I don't need to show gratitude to the next person who comes by offering water from their toilet after they pissed in it.
Your analogy is completely absurd though, it's more like voting for cake and getting bread - and then being so pissed off about the bread that you let bread guy get voted out in favor of toilet guy.
Hold it!
Let me make sure I've got that right. In this analogy, a candidate supporting genocide is a perfectly fine option, and people who have a problem with him are comparable to picky eaters?
Trump would probably be just fine with nuking Palestine so consider that when you think about what's the shit and what's the bread.
Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to "bread" in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren't satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you'd find more success in just saying something like "this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don't you think?", or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
This is what I've been saying: Don't vote and expect cake. Vote and expect bread at best. Lower your expectations and treat it like paying your taxes and you'll feel better about it.
I guess sime people viewed "Never again" as more than just a feel good saying, and don't want to condone genocide.
If they don't want to condone genocide I suggest they just never vote. And also leave the country. Because this is a country built on genocide, and that will ignore genocide if its in their economic or geopolitical interest.
America sucks. Stop thinking it doesn't and that you have any control and you'll be less frustrated.
Young voters delivered GA in 2020, and what did Dems do with that majority?
Biden immediately dropped all pretense of doing immigration reform because an unelected senate parliamentarian said no, offered no meaningful student debt relief, didn’t legalize cannabis, and is drilling for oil at record rates - more so than Trump did. Dems had yet another chance to codify Roe, and blew it. Biden even left in Louis DeJoy as postmaster general. Now he’s mischaracterizing peaceful student protesters as violent radicals, while actual thugs in riot gear and stars of david are free to descend upon them and beat them into submission.
Don’t blame young people for having eyes and ears and paying attention - Biden had his chance, and blew it in favor of his donors’ interests. It’s a tale as old as time, and if you have any interest in actually galvanizing youthful voters, you’ve got to offer something better than the outmoded views of geriatric, genocidin’ Biden.
Downvote me if you want but it's still a fact that older voters vote more reliably and therefore get better representation. I don't know that GA was that large of a deviation but even if it was, in general the younger vote still can't be counted on.
Either way, your comment is case in point (if not also a bit misinformed) - if the youth vote is going to abandon the Dems after one election you can kind of see why they might consider spending more time and money going after a more reliable bloc.
I love your framing here, “youth vote is going to abandon the Dems.” lol!
The youth vote delivered a majority for the Dems, which was squandered yet again, because democrats don’t actually want to lead. Dems clearly are a fundraising organization, not a political organization.
Shouldn’t the DNC have to do something to earn people’s votes? Instead they spit in our faces as they continue to serve the corporate donors.
So fine, let them continue to court boomers. Because that will obviously work forever.
Correction - you were the one that implied the young people were going to abandon the dems: "Biden had his chance, and blew it"
You're missing their point. Biden didn't abandon younger voters because he never supported them in the first place. He talked a good game so he had their support which is why he won in 2020. Now that it's clear they never had his support yes, they will abandon him.
as somebody with a cumulative $130k in student loan debt, whose loans just went into repayment last year, don't fucking speak for me on whether i think Biden is trying to do something about it. needless to say i'm following that topic, and i see the efforts Biden/the current admin is making, and i see it repeatedly thwarted by right-wing politicians at fed and state levels.
every time i read a statement like yours, i get the feeling it's coming from someone who isn't in repayment yet.
edit - or a right-wing troll
I hear you on student debt forgiveness, Biden has done $144B, which is a little under a tenth of the total. I give that to him as part of the 10% of his campaign promises he has actually delivered on, but it’s not nearly enough. And holy hell did he screw up delivering on that - telling all those borrowers they were getting relief, only to snatch it away from them some months later in a most confusing and disorganized way. Truly inept.
Why not forgive all the student debt? The cost of higher learning in this country is absurd. Especially when you consider that many of these universities are land grant institutions. The commodification of education was a huge mistake (thanks W Bush for eliminating the tuition cap and opening the floodgates). Biden himself authored the legislation which prevents students from declaring bankruptcy when they inevitably get crushed from the massive amount of debt brought on by pursuing degrees. This is how they tag team us, to cement corporate hegemony. Here is a perfect example where Biden has a chance to make things right, but of course he wants nothing of it.
Instead, Biden sends billions overseas to massacre brown children. All the while preventing the UN from doing anything about it to keep civilians safe.
Instead, Biden locks in over half of Trump’s $2T tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Recapturing those alone could have paid for all the student debt. Literally all of it.
So yes, you’re correct that repugnantcons play their part to ensure corporate domination of our lives. But realize the Dems are also fiscal conservatives, and also extremely pro corporate, and they are complicit in this great robbery as well.
yes, even though i didn't get my $20k forgiveness, i'm sure current admin would be SUPER SUCCESSFUL in pushing through forgiveness of all student loan debt. no pushback from the right at all. /s
yes, even though the right is attempting to dismantle education at all levels, i'm sure the left could absolutely succeed in making quality higher ed free for everyone in a single term, no problem. /s
seriously though, i don't think it's worthwhile to pin our hopes on any administration achieving hugely improved outcomes on any complex issue in one or two terms. on a societal level, i think things decay and fall apart more easily than utopia is realized. i'm hoping for slow progress. i'm not holding my breath or shooting myself in the foot voting third party right now and expecting a miracle.
final thought as i write this - has utopia ever been realized on any significant scale? only for some, and only for a time.
Congress passed Trump’s $2T tax cuts for the rich and corporations without too much concern over how we’d pay for it, why does the cost of education need to be held to a different standard?
Can’t argue about the right’s war on education though. With their voter base dwindling and dying off, they’re getting increasingly more desperate to manufacture a voting populace incapable of questioning their failing governance.
Regardless, while I agree it won’t happen overnight, I also think we can achieve this “utopia” far more quickly than you imply. Never before has humanity had the means at its disposal to delegate fulfillment of our basic needs to our tools, but now we can thanks to advanced technology and AI. The challenge is going to be convincing the elites to relinquish their vice grip on society, which is what they exploit to increase their capital hoard and leverage it to keep all of us on the grind, fighting to survive or otherwise fighting pointless culture wars with each other. Part of that equation is of course modern day indentured servitude in the form of student loans.
Challenge yourself! Dare to dream of how we could, instead of why we won’t.
i don't approve of the tax cuts. look, i'm middle aged and my future doesn't look good. i'm hoping for... well, a better old age and death than the one that honestly seems likely. i talk to a lot of people without a place to stay, food, safety, or medical care.
my point to you was, i'm not going to not vote for Biden because he didn't manifest total financial freedom for me in the last four years. i don't think third party has a chance right now, and i'm terrified for myself, my family, and the people i work with if we get Trump.
i genuinely believe splitting the left will only enable Trump to win, and i'm not convinced there's any coming back from that. as bad as things are for most of us, i believe it can get a lot worse - and some of the the people i work with tell me what that looks like in places where government isn't functional at all any more.
i don't believe there is anyone in any party who is going to eliminate my student loan debt in the next four years. but i am grateful that i paid $0 this month instead of the $800 it would have been.
"because you need to pressure and criticize Biden without actually making him lose"
"We need to be toothless about our criticism of Biden" FTFY
The threat of making your candidate lose is the only power you have to shift them.
Next time you're negotiating for a car, see how much the seller budges after you preceed negotiations with "Now, I am fully committed and happy paying sticker price, but how much can you lower the price?"
Edit: at least have the intellectual honesty to say out loud that Biden could do anything, and you'd still vote for him
The threat of making your candidate lose is the only power you have to shift them.
I mean this is also not really a threat, though. I think realistically biden and trump are both closer to each other than either of them are to this like, eclectic amalgamation of positions that is the "youth vote". Him not winning isn't like, still a victory, in that circumstance, but it's not like, a loss to them in the same way that it would be if they actually had to do all the stuff the "youth vote" wanted. Basically I'm just saying that they, the DNC broadly I suppose, would rather give as little as they absolutely can, while still maintaining a delicate balance of power where they're the only ones that can maintain the status quo rather than a backslide into total fascism. Going with all the "youth vote" positions, to them, would be as big if not a bigger loss than a slide into total fascism.
Which is to say, I think they're willing to lose as long as it means they don't have to really do anything major.
Which is to say, I think they’re willing to lose as long as it means they don’t have to really do anything major.
100% agree. This is something liberal and moderate voters are completely blind to.
I’m fully committed to lesser evil voting since it’s the only viable electoral strategy. So as long as Biden is better than Trump I would vote for him. I have a hard time understanding why people don’t see that this is the most rational way to vote. If you don’t like it, and I don’t either, then you need to pursue strategies to change it, particularly outside the electoral system. Since these strategies do not conflict with voting I think it’s rational to pursue both actions.
And no I don’t think we need to be toothless. But a lot of people don’t seem to be smart enough to walk the line of threatening to withhold support without actually doing so. I’m not going to go right up to Biden and tell him that’s what I’m doing. He doesn’t know what my strategy is, so it can still be effective.
I mean so lesser evil voting is generally a good strategy for damage control, but it's not necessarily a great strategy in terms of like, blanket things you can just effect to the whole. If you take a voter in a non-swing state, say, california, a state that votes very consistently, them defecting their vote to a third party which represents them more accurately, is going to be of much lesser weight in totality than if someone in a swing state had done so. They are probably much safer in their estimation of walking up towards the line without crossing it. This is probably also true of states who get their votes tallied up later on, and also of states where projections are already in favor of certain candidates, since those projections affect elections.
This also kind of discounts "not voting" as an electoral strategy because that doesn't send a super clear signal, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world, since we could kind of file them away under like, either the average non-voter's position in their state, or just the average non-voter's position at large, which is probably going to be more radical of an average position than most would think.
But yeah, all of this still tracks with what you're saying so far. I think the biggest determining factor for me, though, is that electoralism as a strategy at all hinges on the assumption that democrats would rather move left than lose to republicans. And I dunno, that's kind of a tenuous assumption, and I think is the major disagreement on people who are willing to engage in electoralism vs those who aren't, is that most people who aren't, assume that the democrats would rather lose to republicans and ensure a status quo/backslide into fascism rather than move to the left.
Be careful what you wish for.