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.”

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • jumjummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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:

        Shut up and vote Biden

        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.

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sure, but “right now” you need to vote for Biden or risk never being able to vote again.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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?

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            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?

            • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                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?

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Addv4@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

    • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s the dem magalike cult in action. It’s sad because by denying criticisms of Biden, they’re effectively endorsing changing nothing after the election.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        As soon as conservatives got Faux New, neoliberals have been trying to get the same unquestioning support from their voters.

        The issue is if Dem voters wanted that shit, they’d be republicans.

        The people running the DNC don’t understand basic psychology because when they finished their educations, psychology was still pretty new, and the only big studies was shit like Zimbardo that threw out the scientific method and had researchers meddling with experiments to get the desired result.

        Imagine if Verizon hired a guy that stilled used a beeper instead of one of those newfangled mobile phones.

        Sounds ridiculous, right?

        But that’s what we’re doing with politics and psychology

    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      But we deserve better than either option.

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          https://www.axios.com/2024/03/14/us-settler-sanctions-west-bank

          The U.S. Department of Treasury announced new sanctions Thursday against two illegal outposts in the occupied West Bank that were used as a base for attacks by extremist Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians, three U.S. officials told Axios.

          Why it matters: It is the first time U.S. sanctions are being imposed against entire outposts and not just against individuals.

          The move comes as the Biden administration ratchets up pressure on the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over a range of issues, including settler violence against Palestinians and the war in Gaza. There were nearly 500 Israeli settler attacks against Palestinians between Oct. 7 and Jan. 31 of this year, according to the UN humanitarian office (OCHA).

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905

          PALM BEACH, Fla. — Former President Donald Trump declared Tuesday that Israel must “finish the problem” in its war against Hamas, his most definitive position on the conflict since the terror group killed 1,200 Israelis and took more than 200 hostages on Oct. 7.

          That month, his campaign also said that, if elected again, he would bar Gaza residents from entering the U.S. as part of an expanded travel ban.

          Is this good enough for you?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Flashback: On Feb. 1, President Biden signed an executive order allowing the U.S. to impose new sanctions on Israeli settlers — and potentially Israeli politicians and government officials — involved in violent attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank.

            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.

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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).

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                but he’s very risk averse

                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.

                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).

                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?

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  he’d stop doing all this shit his voters hate less than a year out from an election…

                  There’s not as many people who think like you as you think there are.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        You’re saying that here, but you have repeatedly said you’re voting third party

        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

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • juicy@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.

        https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      We need to be rioting in the streets to change first past the post.

      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.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          With a proportional representation system the parties hold all of the power

          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.

          If the party you voted for isn’t part of the ruling coalition then your vote didn’t matter.

          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.

          That individual representative can leave the party and will still hold the seat.

          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?

          And those representatives have to keep their communities happy.

          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.

          You get to vote for a party that completely conforms to a checklist, but that party may have zero impact on real policy.

          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”.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      We don’t understand why Biden doesn’t stop supporting Israel.

      Its like supporting Bibi would lose Biden votes, but not supporting him wont. Yet he still goes out of his way to support them.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Jews are not Israel. Israel is not Jews. Stop being a Zionist freak. No one cares what the makeup of the US is. Jews aren’t supposed to support genocide, so if anything, there being many Jews in the US should mean Netty’s behavior should be even less agreeable.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Jews “aren’t supposed” to support or oppose anything as a monolith. That’s just racial essentialism.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Pretty sure plenty of Jews preach against genocide… Or are you saying Jews are OK with genocide as a religion?

              Either way … very dumb.

              • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I’m not collecting all Jewry and describing what they do or do not believe, for one! I’m saying that being Jewish isn’t only about participating in a religion. And I’m also saying, which underlines my previous points, not all Jews think the same or believe the same thing.

                Are you Jewish? Are you Palestinian?

                To disagree with the basic point that all people, regardless of classification, don’t believe one single thing is ridiculous. To what are you even trying to retort?

        • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          And Jewish people are a monolith and all support Israel? Ironically this is closer to actual antisemitism than someone who hates Israel as a state because of their horrendous actions.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          If I understand correctly, you’re noting that the Jewish people in America lean supportive of Israel and because they comprise a larger population pool than the vehemently strong pro-Palestinians, Biden must then carefully toe the line between the two groups to court the largest % of votes to ensure the far-worse guy doesn’t get in power?

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You could understand if you wanted to. It’s the majority view held by the intelligence and foreign services of most western powers and virtually everyone in Washington. It’s not like they are hiding the explanation.

        Try to see the bigger picture and what this proxy war means for the world. If thirty thousand deaths make you too sad to vote for Biden and that results in reelecting Trump, how sad will you be when Iran shoots its shot against Israel and we’re here on Lemmy talking about thirty million deaths and a cascade of failed states throughout the Middle East and eastern Europe fueled by the unprecedented humanitarian crisis and masses of refugees?

        What does it mean for the world and for human rights everywhere if the western powers allow the only democracy in the middle east to fall to actual, for-real, far right religious extremists, who will actually, for-real genocide every Jew in the middle east in favor of an Islamic religio-ethno dictatorship?

        How does ceding Israel to actual fascists advance the interest of lasting peace or human rights, especially if it ends up reelecting Trump, who will never leave office if he gets in again?

        Maybe instead of throwing away democracy in America and the middle east, we can maybe appreciate that 30,000,000 is more than 30,000?

        Maybe it makes more sense if we use America’s persuasive power to see Netanyahu and his party defeated at the ballot box? Wouldn’t that be much better for the world?

        Biden isn’t the roadblock to peace in Gaza. He didn’t cause the situation or prolong it in any way. Israel has all the weaponry and fighters it needs to turn Gaza and the West Bank into a sheet of glass in about ninety minutes if it wanted. Even with conventional weapons, they could carpet bomb the entirety of Palestine many times over before the loss of US support disrupted Israeli’s defensive posture as to Gaza.

        It is Israel’s posture as to Iran that dictates America’s course, and frankly it’s not that hard of a choice given the stakes. Continued support is continued leverage, whereas ending support ends any leverage America may have over what Israel deeply considers to be, more or less, a local police matter.

        • juicy@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          lol. Israel is not a democracy. 5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are non-citizens without a vote. The PA is entirely under the thumb of Israel, and Palestinians in the West Bank live in apartheid. Gaza has been besieged and abused for 20 years. Your precious “Only Democracy in the Middle East” is a last bastion of proud European colonialism. The one colony that is still establishing new settlements and clearing “savages” from new land. America long ago divested itself of the Phillipines, but we pour money and weapons into our client colonial state between the river and the sea.

            • juicy@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              When a third of your population aren’t citizens, and in fact most of their families have lived there since the Ottoman Empire, while your citizens have mostly immigrated from abroad in the mid-1900s, and have pushed the non-citizens who predated them into ghettos, you can call it whatever you want. But it’s repugnant.

              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                That’s great, let’s agree that all of that is true; nothing will erase the original sin will it?

                The starting point to peace is right now. How we got here does not have to dictate where we go from here.

                What is it that you’re advocating with the land records line of reasoning, that the Israel government is evicted, that democracy in the middle east ends, and gets replaced with an Islamist caliphate, because the Jews did not inhabit the Levant during the Ottoman empire? Hmm, where were they again?1 But moreso, who were the inhabitants at the beginning of recorded history? I mean if you want to go back to the records and do a title search, go back to the first record. Why would you stop less than halfway?


                1. https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/dhimmi (“A dhimmi refers to a non-Muslim subject of the Ottoman Empire. Derived from Islamic legal conceptions of membership to society, non-Muslims ‘dhimmis’ were afforded protection by the state and did not serve in the military, in return for specific taxes. The dhimmi status was legally abolished in 1839 with the Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhane and was formalized with the 1869 Ottoman Law of Nationality as part of wider Tanzimat Reforms. Regardless of these official changes, in various places within the Empire non-Muslim subjects faced various forms of institutional discrimination.”). https://web.archive.org/web/20181214221418/http://jewishhistory.research.wesleyan.edu/i-jewish-population/5-ottoman-empire/ (“As the dhimmi, Jews and Christians were subject to: A special tax (the jizya); A prohibition against carrying arms; A prohibition against riding horses; A prohibition against building new houses of worship or repairing old ones; Prohibitions against public processions and worship; A prohibition against proselytism; A requirement to wear distinctive clothing; A prohibition against building homes higher than Muslim ones.”).
                • juicy@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Nothing will erase the original sin, but Israel can abide by international law and allow the Palestinians to return to their homes and give them equal rights. We are not talking about ancient history. The Naqba was just 75 years ago.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      “I will never vote for (Palestinian) genocide! But I will definitely refuse to vote against (Ukranian) genocide!”

      • juicy@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Doesn’t sound like much of a democracy if I don’t really have a choice, now does it?

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

        • juicy@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

  • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Disgusting. Or we can not support him and set a precedence for the rest of time that a president cannot survive genocide.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.