Joe Biden wins primary election in New Hampshire despite not even being on the ballot
donuts @ donuts @kbin.social Posts 19Comments 786Joined 2 yr. ago
donuts @ donuts @kbin.social
Posts
19
Comments
786
Joined
2 yr. ago
Are you aware that New Hampshire decided to unilaterally put themselves first in the primary schedule based on some nonsense in their state constitution?
"The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous," the law says.
But last year, the Democratic Party, supported by President Biden, announced it would be changing its primary calendar to prioritize South Carolina and move up battleground states such as Michigan and Georgia. New Hampshire's state government, controlled by Republicans, refused to comply with the DNC's new rules and scheduled the primary for Jan. 23, leaving it first.
As a result, Mr. Biden is not appearing on the ballot, although his campaign has launched an aggressive write-in campaign. Democratic candidates participating in the unofficial primary on Tuesday will not win any delegates, so any victory will be symbolic.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-new-hampshire-primary-first-in-the-nation/
As I'm somewhat a fan of democracy, I think that South Carolina is a much better first primary state than New Hampshire for the simple reason that it better represents the demographic and ideological makeup of that party.
I agree with the commenter above, you've inventing shit to be mad at.
Reread the comment that I was responding to.
They also mentioned in our therapy that their greatest fear is divorce and I don’t know if that’s because they’re still so attached to me or if it’s the fear of having to make it on their own.
It sounds like they might feel just as stuck as you feel. What if they are also unhappy in the relationship, but are only holding it together and going through the motions so that they can continue to rely on you financially? How can that kind of situation ever lead to anything resembling a happy and healthy relationship?
But that means that if I leave, they’re done for. They can’t pay the mortgage alone, nevertheless the bills or food. They also mentioned in our therapy that their greatest fear is divorce and I don’t know if that’s because they’re still so attached to me or if it’s the fear of having to make it on their own.
I think the big problem here is that you're both treating your partner as a dependent; someone you are responsible for taking care of, not an equal adult with their own responsibilities.
If you leave, they aren't "done for", they just have to grow up and live in the adult world with the rest of us, doing what needs to be done to support themselves like we all do. They slacked off in college, they have remained unemployed and now have a sort of crappy job, it's certainly not ideal, but it's survivable and ultimately not your fault. So, yeah, you both might mean finding a new place to live, finding a roommate, moving back in with family, or whatever, but that's life. If anything, maybe being put in that situation will be the incentive that they need to better themself and take less for granted?
That's fair. You're right.
I just thought it was funnier than going point by point through that incoherent nonsense to try to correct it, because sometimes I feel like it's better to laugh than it is to try to engage with political talking points that are so mired in bullshit that they are hard to take in good faith. It's also flawed to assume that everybody who is engaging in conversations around American politics are American citizens acting in good-faith, based on what we know about the history of foreign meddling in global elections, but I digress.
It's possible that you've taken it more seriously than I meant it to be, but ultimately I said something that may have been offensive and exclusionary to ESL speaking people, and for that I'll just say sorry.
Feelings aside, Biden is objectively one of the most, if not the most, progressive President we've had in modern history.
[Bernie] Sanders said that some of the early goals that the Biden administration and a Democratic Congress were able to accomplish in the first two years of Biden’s presidency were progressive victories, including the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.
“I think the American Rescue Plan that we passed early in his agenda, in the midst of the terrible pandemic, the economic collapse, was, in fact, one of the most significant pieces of legislation for the working class in this country, in the modern history of America,” Sanders said.
No. I do expect coherent and factual arguments from those who do, however. I've had my fill of word salad for 2024 already. Am I asking too much?
Proving once again that if you can identify a whale in a lineup of 3 different animals, you too can be the Republican nominee for President.
Biden leaves much to be desired, and waited until election year to mention price-gouging, even try to contend with border red states and abortion. Facts are, both establishment parties are on the same Team Gazillionaire, which isn’t us, and they don’t want it to ever be us. It’s time we wake up that one party is just more sneaky about it, and they’re really not that sneaky. And the EC is still in place.
You can't convince me that a native English-speaker wrote this.
So it’s amazing to me that the party seems to go out of its way to find the most horrific ghouls and status quo warriors to set forth in a federal election, especially really fucking important elections
Can you elaborate on what you mean that "the party seems to go out of its way to find the most horrific ghouls and status quo warriors to set forth in a federal election"? Are you unaware of the fact that Biden is the incumbent President?
He was nominated by a wide margin against a dozen other candidates (including over my preferred candidate), and elected with solid EC majority and a record number of individual votes.
To suggest that he was somehow appointed by the party establishment, when he's simply running for reelection like almost every incumbent President in American history has done after their first term seems like a very disingenuous statement. It's interesting that nobody leveled that argument against Trump when he ran for reelection in 2020, not to mention every other time it's happened, considering it's been the norm for decades.
Nobody's but when the war ends the number of hostages Hamas has will be an important factor in just how fucked Gaza will be.
How so, and what's the endgame here? Keep as many innocent civilians hostage in perpetuity?
Here you are admitting that Hamas' actions have benefited literally "nobody" thus far, and at the same time you're suggesting that they keep doing what they're currently doing (something which, as we've already established, is a war crime) because it will "be an important factor" in the future, in some very abstract and vague way?
As the saying goes "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results."
Yep, just showed your true colors.
Not sure what this ad hominem is supposed to suggest, but it's weak either way. 🤷
In that case Israel should also be surrendering its leadership and soldiers to stand trial in the Hague for genocide (or at the very least collective punishment).
I agree that Israel's actions over the last few months should be put under just as much scrutiny as Hamas', and in fact, they are. https://apnews.com/article/genocide-israel-palestinians-gaza-court-fbd7fe4af10b542a1a4e2c7563029bfb
No Western country has declared support for South Africa’s allegations against Israel. The U.S., a close Israel ally, has rejected them as unfounded, the U.K. has called them unjustified, and Germany said it “explicitly rejects” them.
China and Russia have said little about one of the most momentous cases to come before an international court. The European Union also hasn’t commented.
So far there doesn't seem to be much of a argument that anything that Israel has done up until now rises to the level of a war crime, while as I shared above, the Geneva Convention is explicit that terrorist hostage-taking of innocent civilians is, on its face, a war crime. If Israel is proven to have done things that are so blatantly war crimes, they should be held accountable for those things. It's the only reasonable position to take, frankly.
As always, if you find yourself arguing against the Geneva Convention you might want to reexamine the ethics and soundness of your position.
Israel (specifically Netanyahu) has repeatedly stated they want security control of Palestine "from the river to the sea".
Hamas have also repeatedly stated, including in their 1988 founding charter, that the goal of their jihad is the complete destruction of Israel and genocide of Jewish people in the Levant.
Neither Netenyahu nor Hamas believe in a peaceful two-state solution in which Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can live together peacefully. If I had my way they'd both be totally stripped of power.
Way insulting to whales, imo.
Yeah, are we all stuck in some endless emperor's new clothes shit.
Can anyone honestly argue that this guy isn't either (a) super fucking dumb, (b) partially mentally deteriorated, or (c) both?
hostages one of the few ways Palestinians can actually do anything to improve their lives
Genuine question, how has Hamas taking hundreds of innocent people hostage on October 7th improved the situation in Gaza or Israel in any way? Whose life is better today than it was a couple of months ago as a result?
International humanitarian law prohibits taking and executing hostages. Such acts are considered war crimes (GCI–IV Common Art. 3; GCIV Arts. 34, 147; API Art. 75) and can be tried before any national court, under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
The Convention defines a hostage taker as “any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (‘hostage’) in order to compel a third party, namely a State, an international inter-governmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking hostages (‘hostage taking’)” (Art. 1 of Hostage Convention).
The Convention further specifies that not only those who commit such an act but also any person who attempts to commit or who participates as an accomplice in such an act or attempt is accountable and must be punished.
At any rate, regardless of whether you feel Hamas' jihad is justified or not (it isn't, in fact), hostage taking is an international war crime. The Geneva Convention is the bare minimum standard on this, and as such our opinions and political leanings are irrelevant.
The bare minimum Hamas can do now is to release the remaining hostages and surrender themselves to the IDF to stand trial, so that the innocent people of Gaza can start slowly putting their lives back together.
Then maybe Trump should quit "riffing" until he can string a coherent sentence together.
Because Biden is over here giving solid speeches on how this moment reflects American history, while Trump is so completely confused (and, let's face it, that's being fucking generous) that he doesn't even know that Nicky Haley (who worked in his cabinet and who is running against him as a Republican) isn't Nancy Pelosi.
Am I cherry-picking? Has Trump said anything coherent in the last 12 months? On prompter or off. That's a serious question by the way.
Time to face the facts, Biden may be a bit old and doddering, but Trump is now straight-up demented.
It's no wonder he's afraid to debate, because he seems to have barely any idea what's even going on anymore. Why else do you think his handlers have him taking cognitive tests?
Having no achievements never stopped them before.
Holding civilians hostage for 3 months isn't "war", it's an act of terrorism and a war crime.
Edit: I see I struck a nerve with that one.
They won't get anything from handing them over
I guess Allah doesn't reward people just for doing the right thing then?
I'm not sure if AI is going to revolutionize anything good, but it's certainly going to revolutionize election interference.