you are trying to gaslight me. i want the democrats to win so we don’t have trump, and they’re voluntarily trotting out this fucking corpse.
sure, it shouldn’t be about appearances, but it is, because that’s how most people interpret the debates (especially because it’s part of the job for politicians to lie and that isn’t exactly a meaningful shock at this point). that’s the worst i’ve ever seen anybody do in a debate in my life.
I fucking despise Biden for his policy in Palestine. If there was any reasonable chance that they could switch candidates now and still have a shot, I’d totally agree with you.
I think he’s way too old to be president, but I’m sorry to say you’re stuck with a shit decision, and one that’s been engineered to help work against our best interests.
I fully get where you’re coming from, but I’m not trying to gaslight you.
I’m not an American and even I know it is not his policy. It is a result of decades of US-Israel relationships with all kinds of ties between the two countries and has far too many stakeholders than just the head of the state.
Not even Bernie could’ve managed to navigate this shit situation properly.
He did win, and then SCOTUS declared the loser of the election POTUS in one of the most catastrophic decisions of any in the history of the world, given the later consequences.
But thats what being a zionist is, you cant be a zionist without supporting the IDF which has been engaged in the constant subjugation and extermination whenever politically possible for decades now.
I don’t know… I see what you’re saying, but does the president not have the power to take a principled stance on the matter? Maybe I’m being too naïve about what’s realistically possible, but ultimately intended policy decisions have to start at the mouth of the nation’s leader.
He needs to firmly acknowledge and denounce the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Can someone remind me of the last time a U.S. president took a principled stand on some foreign policy issue? Seriously, I’m not just asking this to be a dick. I’m pretty sure things are set up to ensure this does not ever happen.
Their foreign policy is stinkier than blue cheese.
And doesn’t even compensate by also being delicious, like the cheese does!
Unless you have a significant profit stake in the military industrial complex and/or the fossil fuel industries, of course. Then it’s the most delicious thing ever.
Biden has publicly criticized Russia and China before. Every US President has made statements against countries like North Korea or Iran. It’s the literally the least he could do.
He did, and I’m not trying to downplay that in any way. He also called for peace, though, whereas Trump said he was also pro-Israel but thought Israel should finish what they started.
is not hispolicy.It is a result of decades of US-Israel relationships with all kinds of ties between the two countries
Yeah it is. Obama said about the Cuban Embargo that “these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked”, so he changed longstanding policy.
Meanwhile, letting Israel do whatever the fuck they want to Palestinians for 75 years hasn’t made the treatment more just (duh) or the region more stable and peaceful, and the majority of the population realizes that now.
People are demanding of Biden and the rest of the Dem leadership, which are the people with the power to do so, to change the awful status quo of total deference to a fascist apartheid regime and Biden et al are risking the election and thus American democracy by refusing to listen to the people who they are supposed to represent.
An embargo on a small island nation has nothing in common with a key strategic ally in the middle east. Why are we comparing these two? Are you for real now
It has one thing in common and that’s the thing I was referring to:
In both cases, the president has the power to change bad policy, no matter how longstanding.
Obama chose to make the right choice under little to no pressure (except from people adamant that he should do the opposite) while Biden is insisting on the wrong choice in spite of intense pressure and a very significant risk that it’ll cost him the election.
You’re not addressing the central point of my claim and simply restating your initial statement: that the president can change policy
has the power to change bad policy
while ignoring the key difference between Cuba and Israel. They are completely dissimilar situations with vastly different implications. The progressive left --which cares so much about genocide suddenly (forget Yemen, Syria, where more people have died int he last 6 years by an order of 10 than the entire palestine-israel conflict in the last100 years)-- made up their mind about Biden long before Oct 7. The only way for Joe to pander to their vote is by accomplishing miracles at this point and I think that ship has sailed a long time ago so I really doubt they are the key demographic that will cost him his election.
The progressive left --which cares so much about genocide suddenly (forget Yemen, Syria, where more people have died int he last 6 years by an order of 10 than the entire palestine-israel conflict in the last100 years)
Nice whataboutism strawman combo but that’s false. The left are the ONLY ones who have consistently criticized BOTH major parties for atrocities committed in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere.
Besides, Palestine and Israel is an area the size of New Jersey with roughly one and a half times the population where only one party even has a military and the other is confined to areas under its complete control, so your comparison to ACTUAL wars is absolutely ludicrous.
made up their mind about Biden long before Oct 7
Also false. The people who voted for him in 2020 were in large part still with him.
The only way for Joe to pander to their vote is by accomplishing miracles
No longer actively choosing to allow war crimes and even committing some yourself in support is not a miracle and it sure as hell isn’t PANDERING! What the fuck is wrong with you??
I really doubt they are the key demographic that will cost him his election.
Yeah, he can easily afford to lose Michigan, home of the largest Muslim population in the country… Oh, wait! He fucking can’t!
Besides, he only beat Trump very narrowly the first time around, boosted by good voter turnout as the left was actively experiencing how awful a Trump presidency was and hoped that Biden could be influenced to shift further left on key issues.
Now that those hopes have been mostly dashed, it’s EXTRA important that he doesn’t further alienate the left. Which he’s doing.
The way things are now, most polls have the Mango Mussolini winning and in both previous elections he’s OVERPERFORMED compared to the polls.
Just to circle back, because you keep side-stepping it: Cuba is not equivalent to Israel. In any form or manner. That’s what started this conversation.
If you followed any of the left pundits, news outlets, and even social media (including Lemmy) before Oct 7 you would know that Joe was long dead in the water to this demographic. You can latch on to Israel/Palestine as a defining moment for this election but honestly if it wasn’t for this, this group would have found something else to latch on to. Joe may very well lose this election, but it won’t be because of the progressive left by any shot as demonstrated by who is actually showing up tot he polls (even if pivot states such as Mi with large muslim populations exist).
And it has been. The risk of sticking with Biden is the greater one by far. He’s losing the election and showing no willingness to change any of the behaviors that are causing it.
Switching to another candidate might be a controversial choice, but it’s still a safer bet than Biden.
Na. It’s a pretty clear and easy decision. Neither option gonna get ya what you want and need, but one option is actively trying for a disastrous result.
Unfortunately, too many people in the USA say the same thing and mean the opposite candidate.
Regarding Palestine, not a single president would or could have done any different. You made your bed there, now you have to give it money. It’s the same with us here in the UK.
The president could choose to not sign the bill sent by Congress for further funding. Congress might pass it with veto proof majority but it would still be making a statement. So, not exactly true
The President has plenty of power here. They can halt shipments like he did one time, which proved he could try that. He could not veto ceasefire deals in the UN. He could assign a better secretary of state that doesn’t run interference for Israel. He could not jump the gun making pro Israel statements or supporting suppressing the protests, than staying otherwise silent when they do things wrong like even kill American aide workers or Palestinian journalists. He could veto laws that get to him. He could rile up the populace to contact their local Congressmen and publish Israel’s wrongdoings in press conferences, while he’s only been doing that for pro-Palestinian “wrong-doing”, often getting the facts wrong in the process. He could threaten Israel harder to let aid through the ground. Even if some of these fail, it shows who he supports at least.
you are trying to gaslight me. i want the democrats to win so we don’t have trump, and they’re voluntarily trotting out this fucking corpse.
sure, it shouldn’t be about appearances, but it is, because that’s how most people interpret the debates (especially because it’s part of the job for politicians to lie and that isn’t exactly a meaningful shock at this point). that’s the worst i’ve ever seen anybody do in a debate in my life.
I fucking despise Biden for his policy in Palestine. If there was any reasonable chance that they could switch candidates now and still have a shot, I’d totally agree with you.
I think he’s way too old to be president, but I’m sorry to say you’re stuck with a shit decision, and one that’s been engineered to help work against our best interests.
I fully get where you’re coming from, but I’m not trying to gaslight you.
I’m not an American and even I know it is not his policy. It is a result of decades of US-Israel relationships with all kinds of ties between the two countries and has far too many stakeholders than just the head of the state.
Not even Bernie could’ve managed to navigate this shit situation properly.
Bernie would’ve led Bibi by the fucking nose. He’d have recalled his days in the kibbutz and said that Bibi is burning everything good about Israel.
Perhaps. I wish that were the reality we lived in. I also wish Gore won over Bush and we nipped Global warming in the bud. Alas…
He did win, and then SCOTUS declared the loser of the election POTUS in one of the most catastrophic decisions of any in the history of the world, given the later consequences.
sorry but bernie is a zionist too
He is, but he’s not the type that would kowtow to and enable fascists or fund genocide.
But thats what being a zionist is, you cant be a zionist without supporting the IDF which has been engaged in the constant subjugation and extermination whenever politically possible for decades now.
The president isn’t a king. Bernie would’ve had lot of resistance from within the government, military, and intelligence agencies.
Deep state isn’t just a conservative meme/boogeyman. It definitely exists.
Enough with that ridiculous excuse every time Biden refuses to do things that ARE within his power!
He bypassed Congress by sending many smaller weapons shipments to Israel so that he didn’t need congressional approval and when he halted shipment of 2000lb bombs only, he could have halted shipment of ALL weapons but chose not to.
Furthermore, knowing what they do with them, supplying the fascist apartheid regime of Israel is against both international and US law.
He’s enough of a “king” to keep committing crimes against humanity, but apparently NOT actively breaking the law is outside the bounds of his power 🙄
I don’t know… I see what you’re saying, but does the president not have the power to take a principled stance on the matter? Maybe I’m being too naïve about what’s realistically possible, but ultimately intended policy decisions have to start at the mouth of the nation’s leader.
He needs to firmly acknowledge and denounce the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Can someone remind me of the last time a U.S. president took a principled stand on some foreign policy issue? Seriously, I’m not just asking this to be a dick. I’m pretty sure things are set up to ensure this does not ever happen.
Biden pulling out of Afghanistan.
Obama pulled out of Iraq.
Biden pulled out of Afghanistan.
Shit, my bad, I did a stupid
I mean, he certainly did say that he wants to increases taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
It’s not a foreign policy issue, but it’s one that would be unpopular with any rich donors so it perhaps demonstrates some amount of integrity.
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to defend the US. Their foreign policy is stinkier than blue cheese.
And doesn’t even compensate by also being delicious, like the cheese does!
Unless you have a significant profit stake in the military industrial complex and/or the fossil fuel industries, of course. Then it’s the most delicious thing ever.
Biden has publicly criticized Russia and China before. Every US President has made statements against countries like North Korea or Iran. It’s the literally the least he could do.
Those are things that are in the interest of the US foreign policy agenda.
Sure, but didn’t Biden go on a rant of how pro-Israel he is specifically?
He did, and I’m not trying to downplay that in any way. He also called for peace, though, whereas Trump said he was also pro-Israel but thought Israel should finish what they started.
Yeah it is. Obama said about the Cuban Embargo that “these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked”, so he changed longstanding policy.
Meanwhile, letting Israel do whatever the fuck they want to Palestinians for 75 years hasn’t made the treatment more just (duh) or the region more stable and peaceful, and the majority of the population realizes that now.
People are demanding of Biden and the rest of the Dem leadership, which are the people with the power to do so, to change the awful status quo of total deference to a fascist apartheid regime and Biden et al are risking the election and thus American democracy by refusing to listen to the people who they are supposed to represent.
An embargo on a small island nation has nothing in common with a key strategic ally in the middle east. Why are we comparing these two? Are you for real now
It has one thing in common and that’s the thing I was referring to:
In both cases, the president has the power to change bad policy, no matter how longstanding.
Obama chose to make the right choice under little to no pressure (except from people adamant that he should do the opposite) while Biden is insisting on the wrong choice in spite of intense pressure and a very significant risk that it’ll cost him the election.
The specifics of Cuba has nothing to do with it.
You’re not addressing the central point of my claim and simply restating your initial statement: that the president can change policy
while ignoring the key difference between Cuba and Israel. They are completely dissimilar situations with vastly different implications. The progressive left --which cares so much about genocide suddenly (forget Yemen, Syria, where more people have died int he last 6 years by an order of 10 than the entire palestine-israel conflict in the last 100 years)-- made up their mind about Biden long before Oct 7. The only way for Joe to pander to their vote is by accomplishing miracles at this point and I think that ship has sailed a long time ago so I really doubt they are the key demographic that will cost him his election.
Nice whataboutism strawman combo but that’s false. The left are the ONLY ones who have consistently criticized BOTH major parties for atrocities committed in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere.
Besides, Palestine and Israel is an area the size of New Jersey with roughly one and a half times the population where only one party even has a military and the other is confined to areas under its complete control, so your comparison to ACTUAL wars is absolutely ludicrous.
Also false. The people who voted for him in 2020 were in large part still with him.
No longer actively choosing to allow war crimes and even committing some yourself in support is not a miracle and it sure as hell isn’t PANDERING! What the fuck is wrong with you??
Yeah, he can easily afford to lose Michigan, home of the largest Muslim population in the country… Oh, wait! He fucking can’t!
Besides, he only beat Trump very narrowly the first time around, boosted by good voter turnout as the left was actively experiencing how awful a Trump presidency was and hoped that Biden could be influenced to shift further left on key issues.
Now that those hopes have been mostly dashed, it’s EXTRA important that he doesn’t further alienate the left. Which he’s doing.
The way things are now, most polls have the Mango Mussolini winning and in both previous elections he’s OVERPERFORMED compared to the polls.
Just to circle back, because you keep side-stepping it: Cuba is not equivalent to Israel. In any form or manner. That’s what started this conversation.
If you followed any of the left pundits, news outlets, and even social media (including Lemmy) before Oct 7 you would know that Joe was long dead in the water to this demographic. You can latch on to Israel/Palestine as a defining moment for this election but honestly if it wasn’t for this, this group would have found something else to latch on to. Joe may very well lose this election, but it won’t be because of the progressive left by any shot as demonstrated by who is actually showing up tot he polls (even if pivot states such as Mi with large muslim populations exist).
It’s come to the point where the risk of changing the candidate has to be weighed against the risk of not changing the candidate.
And it has been. The risk of sticking with Biden is the greater one by far. He’s losing the election and showing no willingness to change any of the behaviors that are causing it.
Switching to another candidate might be a controversial choice, but it’s still a safer bet than Biden.
Na. It’s a pretty clear and easy decision. Neither option gonna get ya what you want and need, but one option is actively trying for a disastrous result.
Unfortunately, too many people in the USA say the same thing and mean the opposite candidate.
Regarding Palestine, not a single president would or could have done any different. You made your bed there, now you have to give it money. It’s the same with us here in the UK.
The president could choose to not sign the bill sent by Congress for further funding. Congress might pass it with veto proof majority but it would still be making a statement. So, not exactly true
The President has plenty of power here. They can halt shipments like he did one time, which proved he could try that. He could not veto ceasefire deals in the UN. He could assign a better secretary of state that doesn’t run interference for Israel. He could not jump the gun making pro Israel statements or supporting suppressing the protests, than staying otherwise silent when they do things wrong like even kill American aide workers or Palestinian journalists. He could veto laws that get to him. He could rile up the populace to contact their local Congressmen and publish Israel’s wrongdoings in press conferences, while he’s only been doing that for pro-Palestinian “wrong-doing”, often getting the facts wrong in the process. He could threaten Israel harder to let aid through the ground. Even if some of these fail, it shows who he supports at least.
Oh they’re 100% gaslighting you. But they’re also gaslighting themselves, so I guess that makes it fair?