The poll found 50% of Democrats approve of how Biden has navigated the conflict while 46% disapprove ā and the two groups diverge substantially in their views of U.S. support for Israel. Bidenās support on the issue among Democrats is down slightly from August, as an AP-NORC poll conducted then found that 57% of Democrats approved of his handling of the conflict and 40% disapproved.
Itās Biden vs trump, and thereās zero chance Iām voting for a waste-of-carbon republican traitor. Now or at any time in the future. I donāt like our stance on Israel/Palestine, but that is immaterial to the choice I must make.
When voting between two parties that support genocide the only moral option is not to vote.
Fuck the stupid lesser evil thing. You are choosing and supporting genocide the moment you vote for it
If youāre voting in the US youāre living on and benefitting from land that was stolen by a full on genocide. Unless youāre voting for someone that wants to vacate the land and hand it back to the Native Americans, then youāre already voting to support genocide. So I wouldnāt really hold onto that argument to rationalize giving the bigger evil a better chance
Self reporting Americans be like "we did genocide in the past, we should stick with it with pride. Keep bombing women and children and steal their land!"Fucking mask off moment right here.
Shows how strong the moral backbone the west has always been. Whine about Putin for 3 year and then do the exact same thing without shame. Then put a little rainbow flag outside and cry about abortion rights. Then back bombing kids.
If youāre in the US, with a two party system, not voting for the less evil is actively enabling the greater evil.
You think Trump or any GOP candidate wouldnāt do the same? Or worse? Theyāre certainly not going to do anything better than Biden.
Voting on principles is for the Primaries. Try and get the best candidate possible that you actively believe in into the race. Election Day however is when itās time to put your adult pants on, accept the world is messy, and vote for the least worse option possible, because otherwise youāre just abetting the worst option.
You guys are just trolley probleming but you can add a third rails that says āif enough people pull this lever nobody diesā.
You have roughly equal amounts of people pulling the lever in the ākill one personā direction and the ākill many peopleā direction.
The only people interested in pulling a lever that adds a third rail are the ākill one personā crowd. The moment enough of them let go, the lever goes in the ākill many peopleā direction because that crowd has no interest in a third rail, they quite like the ākill many peopleā option. Youāll never get enough people to join the third option from both crowds simultaneously. No third party has seen any real form of success in nearly 200 years within the current system. Changing the system is necessary but taking out hands off the lever is a disaster.
You genuinely think Biden pulled back the israel support? There would be no difference between him and Trump.
Youāre never gonna change anything if youāre not willing to take your hands off a kill lever.
Also you are actively pulling the kill lever instead of the peace lever by voting for the ālesser evilā itās because of this that a third party isnāt taking off.
Youāre supporting genocide simply by paying your taxes. Grow the fuck up.
One is a choice, the other is not. Read a damn book. Lol /s
you could vote for literally anyone else.
Yes, and I could also shoot myself in the dick.
vote for a genocidal politician. what do i care: 1/3 of america has already decided theyāre going to.
If itās a choice between one geriatric who endorses genocide and another geriatric who endorses genocide, why should I be voting for either?
I still havenāt decided but atm Iām leaning towards 3rd party
This ālesser evilā thing is smoke and mirrors.
Unfortunately when you have to pick between two lesser evils, even deciding not to choose is a lesser evil. Inaction can sometimes lead to the greatest evil.
Refusing to make a decision doesnāt absolve you of culpability for the consequences.
Incorrect. The culpability lies with the moronic corrupt DNC and Democratic party for allowing Biden to run again. He is not electable, not coherent, and barely a hold your nose better choice than Trump.
The same assholes who cheated and broken their rules to put Hillary on the ballot are now forcing Biden to appear for some unknowable reason.
The lesser evil choice was forced by these people.
Frame it however you want, youāre not even wrong. It still remains true that, if elected, Trump is going to try to end democracy and replace it with a fascist dictatorship. Biden is Not going to do that.
Thatās literally it, thatās the only relevant factor to consider when deciding if youāre going to vote for Biden. I hate him as much as everyone else, but I donāt hate Biden more than I hate the idea of getting put in a camp for being trans at some point down the line, and if you do youāre shortsighted and you value your ability to feel Morally Pure over actually doing anything.
Biden is Not going to do that
the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy
choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt
weāre headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. theyāre using the techniques they learned during COVID to āfight misinformationā. You cannot stray far from The Narrative
the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers
we need to wake up before itās too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world warā¦ itās the 1930s all over again baby.
i wish orwell was around to see it
Refusing to make a decision doesnāt absolve you of culpability for the consequences
in deontological ethics, the ethics are in the action itself. ontological ethics imply that the ends may justify the means, and that is not something most people will sign.
i didnāt say iām not going to vote. iām leaning towards 3rd party.
if enough people voted 3rd party, we could break free from this quasi one-party state we have
in the early 1900s we actually had a socialist/communist presidential candidate get over a million votes
itās possible if people stopped towing the democratic party line. they are not our friends. they will do the bare minimum necessary and oftentimes they wonāt even do that, just promise to do it. iāve been waiting for immigration reform my entire life. NADA is the total value of what has come out from Democrats besideās Obamaās DACA which was a stopgap measure. weāve had democratic majorities multiple times since then. how many times could they have put abortion into law? how many times could they have gotten in universal healthcare?
itās a joke. they donāt actually want to do anything. we have 1 party and 2 factions. business faction A and business faction B.
and now Biden goes out and gives Netanyahu a big hug after Israel announced to the world they were about to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians?
What world do you live in where this is OK? What kind of men does our country breed? Itās ridiculous
how many times could they have put abortion into law? how many times could they have gotten in universal healthcare?
This right here tells me you havenāt been paying attention to the details. There are 0 times in modern history where this was possible. The closest was the first few months of Obamaās term, which is when they hammered out Obamacare. And it wouldāve had a public option if not for needing Lieberman for the 60th Senate vote. It was removed in return for his vote.
There were not 60 Democrat senators at the time willing to overturn the filibuster. Some of those senators were further right than Manchin. This is also why abortion couldnāt be signed into law ā you didnāt have 60 senators in favor of abortion.
That was the only time in modern history where Democrats had 60 Senate votes, and they used it to pass the furthest left healthcare policy possible at the time. And Democrats were eviscerated in the following midterms because it was seen as too far left.
Aside from all that, there is no serious third party in the US. None of them are actually trying to win. Itās a grift, they just want your money. If they actually wanted to win, they wouldnāt spend so much on the presidency. Theyād be building up a powerful ground game to win local across the country, and then take state legislatures and governorships, and then take Congressional seats, and finally the presidency. A president without any allies in Congress is powerless, and all the third parties try to do is win a presidency without any allies in Congress. And then you have their ridiculous beliefs, like WiFi causing cancer and vaccine skepticism.
Third parties align much more closely with Republicans culturally. They trick voters so they can get money and power, they adopt feel-good phrases and policies theyāll never enact, and they give anti science conspiracy theorists a platform.
This reply sort of makes the point for the OP though ā the American system appears to be broken at levels so fundamental that itās not worth engaging with, much less saving. Itās amazing the evil that people are comfortable shrugging at.
Youāre not wrong. Our government is inherently conservative in how difficult it is to change things. Itās a flaw by design, unfortunately. Still, as broken as it is, thereās people I still care about a lot. Thereās a lot of good people worth fighting for. So even if itās fundamentally broken, Iām going to keep maintaining hope that we can fix the fundamentals. If Iām lucky, maybe my grandkids will get the government that I wish we had.
Not to mention, liberals in the past struggled against worse odds to get just basic dignity. Things mustāve seemed more hopeless for womenās suffragists and civil rights marchers. But through tenacity, they succeeded. Abolitionists succeeded, gay people succeeded ā and then for some fucking reason Republicans decided to bring it back up again when it was seemingly settled. But LGBT rights will succeed once more.
I guess being almost 30, talking about how things were when I was kid isnāt quite as impactful as it used to be, but still over my lifetime, a lot has changed with gay rights. In middle school, gay jokes were all insults and slurs. It was all āI love you dude, no homoā. Now though? Gay jokes are homoerotic insinuations that you and the guys are all banging. We say āI love you dude, full homoā to laugh at how ridiculous the āno homoā era was.
Where Iām going with this, weāve lived to see real progress. And itās progress that was previously unimaginable and just a dream. Civil rights, voting rights, they all seemed like much more hopeless causes in the past. What we face now is no less serious, but certainly less difficult. And we owe it to our forbearers to keep carrying their torch.
Well one endorses genocide, the other wants to enable and cause genocide in our own country. Iād prefer my existence to not be criminalized.
what, are you gay or trans or something? newsflash
you have it 1000x better than the tens of thousands of palestinians getting mutilated and killed. i donāt see tens of thousands of gays being mutilated.
you even have it 100x better than the millions of illegals and asylum seekers in this country, of which both candidates flashes their wrinkly middle fingers to
you lose credibility when you exaggerate like this. yes, gays and trans should be treated better. yes, the republicans are more hostile than the dems. but itās not genocide, not even close. if you care so much about genocide you in theory should not be voting for someone who is actually endorsing genocide
first they came for the jews, and i did speak cause i was not a jewā¦ etc
Itās especially hurting him with the demographic heās always struggled with:
Majorities of Democrats younger than 45 (65%) and nonwhite Democrats (58%) say they disapprove of Bidenās handling of the conflict. Most Democrats 45 and older (67%) and white Democrats (62%) say they approve.
"Knowing that our tax money could be paying for the weapons that are murdering children by the thousands over there, itās getting harder to be supportive of our president and our country in general,ā said Brie Williamson, a 34-year-old Illinois resident. Williamson said she ācouldnāt see voting for a Republicanā but would consider other options next year.
And being forced to pick between this and trump will depress turnout, and depressed turnout is how Republicans become presidents.
And I know Bidenās supporters will say āheās still better than trumpā and thatās true. But it doesnāt change the fact that this is a fucked up situation where voters do t have a say in this issue because the only two options for president both support this genocide.
no. running shit candidates is how they lose. no one is entitled to someones vote or support.
dnc wants to win? then look at what your base wants. their approach has always been āyou take what we give youā and that resulted in donald fucking trump.
If a moderate dem wins, they win.
If a Republican wins, moderates get to be even more moderate and claim they have to, knowing whoever they run next time will probably win just because theyāre not a Republican.
The only way moderates lose, is if a progressive manages to win. Because then they lose the main reason lots of people vote Dem: anything is better than a Republican.
Thatās why they fight progressives harder than Republicans. Republicans arenāt their enemy, theyāre the rationale that lets moderates in 2023 act like Republicans in 1980 and still win elections
We could have had Bernie, and sure, heād be 83 in 2024 (Biden will be 81), but at least he had the idea to use Israel funding as leverage to get Netanyahu to calm the fuck down.
Instead, we get Biden, who does seem to have a good economic policy, but he was all too eager to jump to a known war-crime-committerās defense.
Ah America. Where we have the great options of genocidal maniac or other genocidal maniac. You see, weāre better, because we have the freedom to choose!
And we canāt vote for anyone else, or the wrong lizard might win!
Ah America, you offer the same choice as France and the UK.
I have a very strong donāt blow up kids policy, that doesnāt care what religion or political party you subscribe to or even race. If you do blow up kids, we feel strongly that you should just fuck right off and we should do whatever we can to stop those killing kids.
āThe terrorists are using schools as shields though!ā
Guess you shouldnāt use artillery strikes and bombing runs then.
āThe terrorists are using schools as shields though!ā
āOh damn thatās a genius strategy. Better just give up every military advantage I have and send in my soldiers to be ambushed.ā
Is it still called an ambush if you know they are there?
Nope, by definition isnāt.
Still more dangerous for the IDF and less vengeance-effective than just raining death on thousands of civilians on the off-chance that you might also kill a handful of terrorists that Hamas can easily replace.
Yes, and that touches on the core problem, unequal regard for human lives.
Yeah, to quote Rashida Tlaib from right before they censured her for speaking truth to power:
I canāt believe we have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable. We are human beings just like anyone else. Speaking up to save lives no matter faith, no matter ethnicity should not be controversial. The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I donāt understand is why the cries of Palestinian children sound different to you all.
So what did you do to stop the US killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan?
An estimated civilian death toll in the hundreds of thousands, and millions displaced.
What are your plans to prevent or oppose the mass deportation of millions of those Afghan refugees as just announced by Pakistan?
Thereās just a bit of morbid irony in anyone from the US acting like they are on a high moral horse here when their own country has exported an order of magnitude more harm around the world largely to crickets within the country, particularly in comparison to the opposition to something like the Vietnam war.
The US is still currently active in its bombing and involvement in Syria. Thousands of civilians killed by coalition forces, hundreds of thousands fled the country as a result of the conflict. Have you even done anything about that one?
Itās just wild when civilians in the US get riled up by the foreign policy conflict of the week, take their sides typically along partisan lines, and pat themselves on the back for taking their stand. āWeāll hold our politicians accountable.ā Meanwhile the actual joint military and intelligence branches have their hands in a half dozen conflicts around the world and are directly responsible for much greater harm thatās just far less publicized in Western media because of press relations forged in the wake of Vietnam, and stories like this donāt get picked up past the investigative groups researching them.
The US routinely blows up kids and has a long history of refusing to submit itself to international courts.
But no, Americans donāt focus on changing the policy and scope of their own governmentās actions (the thing they in theory have greater influence over). They just get worked up over the actions of other governments allied with the US - and then either are upset about funding Ukraine if Republican or upset about funding Israel if Democrat. At least this week. Iām sure in a few months weāll have moved on to a new Kony 2012 people are āvery upset about and not going to forget about until something is done.ā
(Seriously, the idea the current events will have any real impact on an election a year from now is laughable.)
Iād even be willing to bet at least 95% of all the Americans complaining about foreign governments bombing things couldnāt even point on a map to all the places that their own government has bombed children in just the past decade.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in āwhat aboutā¦?ā) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin āyou tooā, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of oneās own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: āLong-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.ā B: āAnd what about the starving in Africa and Asia?ā).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]
The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified.
So you are qualified to discount anyone related to a subject, that you donāt have any access to their research or the education to know about it? I certainly donāt, so I just listen to what they say and not attack them or who they are related to.
It seemed to me (looking in from the outside) that he merely kept on doing what the US had always done.
Apparently itās the public opinion that has changed, while the diplomacy plodded on in itās usual well-travelled trail.
Who knew that Millennials would hate casual genocide?
I said this a week ago and got downvoted to hell, but Iāll say it again: this issue will fuck him next November
If so, thatās fucking ridiculous. Jesus fucking Christ democracy will die because Joe Biden didnāt force Israel to stop their genocide and only told them to stop instead???
Fuck this goddamn retarded existence just fucking kill me already Jesus fucking Christ
FUCK THIS GODDAMN PLANET
Tankies arenāt humans. They hated voting for Biden the first time but did so because Trump was the literal devil. Now Hassan Piker has riled up his masses of dumbasses to completely turn on what is the best president we had since Obama (Iām only speaking economically, so shut up).
Please vote. No matter what anyone tells you, vote. Get your idiot friends to vote. Remind them of whatās at stake.
Tankies arenāt humans.
What a strange moment to make this statement.
Meh I use Tankies as a term for the āfar rightā of the left.
Might not be the most accurate term but these Israel hating leftists are almost always Tankies. But the rest of the comment is pretty clear and Iām glad you were able to focus on something benign. Typical tankie.
Benign, maybe in an irrelevant way? But certainly not benign by its content though, right?
I just found it to be a strange usage because presumably the criticism being cast against Israel is for their judicious use of force against unarmed civilians, and as far as I know ātankieā was originally used to describe people in support of the stateās judicious use of force against unarmed civilians.
I would have thought the word would have been more appropriately used to describe Zionists in this situation, but I wouldnāt pretend to know.
Hamas attacked innocent civilians on the 7th. Didnāt see any lefties coming out to denounce any of it
Its possible, but how smooth brained would someone have to be to vote for Trump over this?
Many just wonāt vote.
Which is still absolutely absurd, because any Democrat who doesnāt vote for Biden is implicitly granting his Republican opponent a vote. This opponent may be Trump, but even if it isnāt, itās still a Republican whose position on Israel and the conflict will make Bidenās response look measured.
Many people are angered by Bidenās response, but for pro-Palestinian supporters itās cutting off your nose to spite your face to not vote this cycle for Biden. Youāre actively allowing an even worse option.
I love how the headline sounds so negative, and yet looking at the Numbers they could have easily just said āmore Democrats approve of his handling of the crisisā.
I mean, almost half the members of his own party disagree with him, not the nation as a whole. If this doesnāt go away, it is not good news.
The old adage come to mind that, āThe left fall in love, and the right fall in line.ā The right will more reliably vote for ātheir guyā, but Iāve seen so many losses on the left because of disenchantment.
Thatās part of the problem, though: the left never fell in love with him. He got elected by a small margin in a few key states similar to that of Trump 2016 mainly due to not being Trump rather than any merit of his own.
It might not work a second time since voters have ridiculously short memories and ānot the other oneā tactics are much less effective for incumbents.
Or they could have been brutally honest and said āmore than half of democrats approve of enabling genocideā.
And before you say ābut Trump and the Republicans are much worseā, yes thatās obviously true but thatās besides the point.
Or they could have been brutally honest and said āmore than half of democrats approve of enabling genocideā.
Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like āmore than half of democrats think Bidenās making the best choice in an all-round shitty situationā. None of us approve of enabling genocide.
Some people actually think āpushing Israel to set rules of engagementā is some of the best weāre going to get if we canāt get the entire world on-board. Nobody wants to invade Israel to stop this (do they), and Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not ādestroying Palastineā might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.
Iām a fence-sitter on this issue, but I think the majority that supports Bidenās plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with āenabling genocideā.
I get that you want us to condemn Israel. And Iām sure itās been considered. I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it wonāt necessarily save a single Palestinian life.
Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like āmore than half of democrats think Bidenās making the best choice in an all-round shitty situationā. None of us approve of enabling genocide.
Thatās a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the ābest choiceā is objectively enabling genocide by unquestioningly supporting the government committing it while punishing those that speak up against it.
Some people actually think āpushing Israel to set rules of engagementā is some of the best weāre going to get
It isnāt, though. Israel has been setting their own rules the whole time and thatās the majority of what caused the whole thing.
Nobody wants to invade Israel
Of course not.
Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not ādestroying Palastineā might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.
Thatās not being done, though. Unless thereās consequences such as withholding military (but not humanitarian) aid and possibly targeted sanctions, the apartheid regime is going to continue committing atrocities.
I think the majority that supports Bidenās plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with āenabling genocideā.
Yes and no: I believe that most of the people who supports his genocide-enabling are under- or misinformed enough to not know that theyāre indirectly supporting genocide.
I get that you want us to condemn Israel.
Of course. Anything else is being complicit.
And Iām sure itās been considered.
Probably not seriously, no. The neoliberal Dem leadership depend too much on bribes from AIPAC and others like them.
I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it wonāt necessarily save a single Palestinian life
I guarantee you that no longer getting the financial and political support of the US would force them to be less aggressive, which would save thousands of lives.
Thatās a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the ābest choiceā is objectively enabling genocide
I think objectively doesnāt mean what you think it means. But more importantly, even if youāre right about there being a better response than Bidenās (and you might be; itās a complicated issue), that doesnāt mean people who support Bidenās position agree that youāre right. Which means, NO, objectively, they do not āapprove of enabling genocideā. Just look at literally the other reply to me that agreed with me at length. And if there are at least two people who support Bidenās decisions in this thread alone that do not āapprove of enabling genocideā, then I bet you any money thereās at least 2 more out in the US. āPerhaps more than that!ā
I called you on your bad-faith accusation that Democratic voters āapprove of enabling genocideā, and nothing in your reply to me reduces the accuracy of what I called you on. Youāre just getting into the weeds arguing politics now.
If you want, Iād be happy to join that conversation as well. As soon as you concede that the āapprove of enabling genocideā thing was excessive and bad faith.
Itās a fact that the tack Biden is taking amounts to enabling genocide. Whether you know that or not, saying you approve of his handling of the situation is saying that you approve of enabling genocide no matter if you know it or not.
In other words:
-
Bidenās plan is objectively enabling genocide
-
Some people who donāt consider themselves in favor of enabling genocide support Biden
-
The thing that those people say they support is enabling genocide, no matter how ignorant of reality or in denial they are.
Curious who made Viking Hippie the sole arbiter of truth. How many experts disagreeing with you makes it less āweāre all objectively enabling genocideā?
What if I think Viking Hippie is āobjectively enabling genocideā? Itās a fact (ok, itās just a thought experiment). That means I get to say anyone that agrees with you is āobjectively enabling genocideā, right?
3 days to come back with āyouāre wrong because itās arrogant to be confident that youāre youāre right when people are paid to be wrongā? Damn, youāre really bad at this! š
-
Less than half? Thatās depressing, given that heās pretty much all in on the genocide enabling and other whitewashing of the apartheid regime š®āšØ
