I don’t want to sound like I’m defending Biden, but I don’t know why people find this surprising. I’ve only been paying attention to politics for about 30 years, but he’s been saying this loudly and proudly for as long as I can remember.
Maybe people are just now noticing because it suddenly matters more than it used to. It definitely hits different when Israel is actively attempting a genocide, and it feels to me to be in pretty fucking terrible taste to beat that particular drum right now, but people are acting like this just came out of left field. He has been absolutely consistent about calling himself a Zionist for decades. It really shouldn’t have come as a shock.
Maybe people didn’t realize he’s a Catholic? Or thought that meant something other than implicit commitment to Zionism? Seems kind of hard to believe tbh
Basically its to do moreso with post wprld war 2 politics. Basically after the war and what happened in the concentration camps came to light (I know there was more but I aint making a list) a lot of people implicitly or explicitly supported Israel. This fact bled over into Catholic doctrine cause suprise suprise the organization of old fucks are old.
I suspect now that the holocaust is fading from living memory such thing shall change, but until the boomers and the silent generation become a minority in politics it will most likely stay the same.
Because belief in the biblical end of times requires it of those who believe in it.
The Catholic church are not the only christian church guilty of this, but they do believe it. The papacy did for a time reject it, politically, but that was a short lived period in the church.
Now, the most influential Catholic in the free world (maybe besides the Pope, if you’re a Catholic) is pro Zionism.
I have no idea what the dude is smoking. The Catholic church is explicitly against zionism. They wanted Jerusalem to be an international city.
Pope Pius X stated "We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different.
This was over a hundred years ago, and they’ve changed their tone significantly since then.
Here’s a good paper on the modern history of the Catholic church’s approach.
One thing I’ll grant is not all Catholics believe this. But then they also don’t really have an answer to dispensationalism. More on that here (this source is far from unbiased but the historicity is accurate).
Even if he personally has an ideological commitment to Zionism, he should be smart enough to not to say it out loud when it is clearly an issue that supposes a risk to his numbers.
Because old fucks in politics can’t keep their goddamn mouths shut about anything. Gotta pander, but unfortunately there a lot more cameras and microphones at everything they attend, unlike when they were my age.
Can we just pull the reset rope on government and replace all positions with people that represent the average demographic age that will actually see the future we’re building? I honestly do not care what some 80 year old thinks society should be like. When they were my age, black people were still not allowed in schools with them.
Because saying you are a Zionist is simply to say that you believe that the state of Israel has a right to exist and be secure. It's not saying that Israeli policy towards Palestian's isn't a inhumane cluster-fuck.
Thank you. The anti semitism on here is actually terrifying. Either there are a lot of people who don't realize what they are saying, or they truly are anti semites just waiting to come out of the closet.
Luckily, they are not the majority in the real world. It seems to be highschool and university students who do not understand the implications of what they are saying.
Its absolutely not. Neither is suggesting (for example) that Israel is committing war crimes. But you can be extremeky critical of Israel and still think it has a right to exist, in line with long-stamding US foreign policy and the U.N efforts to find a two-state solution. Anyone who supports a two-state solution is a Zionist, by the dictionary definition. And that includes Biden - and me.
The difficulty is that the term 'Zionism' comes wiith a lot of extremely unpleasant shit associated with it.
Yeah, go fuck youself. Im fine with Jews (atleast as an ethnicity id probably punch an orthodox one) but Israel aint representative of all Jews. And frankly Israel is as low as Russia in my books at this point, which is to say id cover every military instilation in white phosphorus and hang their fucking leaders.
An apartheid ethno-state should not exist, no exceptions. Frankly speaking im of half the opinion to scatter the fuckers for a third time if they want keep playing fascist.
I'm not sure why you are telling me to fuck myself. Go ahead and criticize the Israeli government for their policies. I have lots of criticisms for several governments.
I would disagree that they are as bad as Russia. Hamas, a Palestinian governing party, attacked Israel. Of course Israel will defend itself. It's baffling to think otherwise.
The fact that you state you would punch an orthodox jew just because they are an orthodox jew might mean you are not a good person though.
I beg your pardon, but I know a few “orthodox ones” (like women shaving their head and wearing a wig, no electricity, no money and no leaving your house and district at Saturdays etc) and they are nice people ; however I’ve met some who probably eat pork and they’ve been among the most unpleasant people I’ve met.
Also most of Europe consists of “ethno-states”, so let’s please drop that too.
I agree that Israel’s size and extent should be reduced, and they shouldn’t be allowed to police any population but their own.
Opposing apartheid in any context is not antisemitic. Conflating criticism of oppression and occupation as condemning an entire religion is extremely obtuse. Surely you’re not that fucking dense.
I don't know why you have to resort to insults. You're the second person to insult me and I am not really sure why since I only said I'm concerned about anti sentism.
I also beleive Israel has the right to exist and be secure. This is not controversial. Most of the western world officially takes this position. If you want to insult me for that, then I guess go ahead.
The nation of Israel solely exists as a Jewish ethnostate propped up by the western imperialist countries (initially the British Government) after the Nakba of 1948, displacing over 700k Palestinians in a trail-of-tears-esque forced removal from their land. Since then, the Israeli Government has controlled every aspect of Palestinians’ lives such as electricity, drinkable water 97 percent of which is toxic, IDF checkpoints to get to and from different enclosed sections of their own land, etc. The oppressive regime of Israel and the apartheid it imposes on Palestinians is funded heavily by countries like the US, which sends billions every year to support this far-right fascist ethnostate.
The most disturbing thing aside from 70 years of oppression, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing is language that you are repeating justifying genocide that is taking place right now. You think an ethnostate has the right to exist at the expense of ethnic cleansing? So did Nazi Germany. If criticizing Isreal’s atrocities for the past 70+ years offends you, then imagine how offended the families of the 17,000+ Palestinian civilians slaughtered by the IDF in the past couple months alone must feel.
I don’t care if geriatric dinosaurs in power like Joe Biden have supported Israel their entire lifetime. It’s wrong. It is pure evil to fund genocide, it is pure evil to fund apartheid, and the only solution forward is a secular one-state solution in a similar fashion to the ending of apartheid in South Africa. It may never happen in my lifetime, but it starts with ceasefire and continues by ending financial ties to war crimes, a tall order for Americans.
That won't happen with Hamas in charge. They are literal terrorists. Their entire purpose is to kill Jews, even at the cost of their own people. Maybe you think the attacks on Israel are justified. I do not.
“Palestinians of all ages are all terrorists and they must be exterminated by the IDF. The slaughter of 17,000+ Palestinian civilians since Oct 7th is actually justified.”
Yeah fuck off, nazi.
I do not condone attacks on civilians no matter who the target is. Stop using one tragedy to justify another.
I disagree that a religious ethno-state has a right to exist. I'm anti-zionist for the same reason I don't like the regimes in charge in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Because the vast majority of Americans believe that a state of Israel has the right to exist in some fashion, which is all that Zionism means.
It does not mean wholehearted support for literally everything its government does, which Biden very much does not have. He and Netanyahu are not exactly friends.
That you and the other comment about this are massively downvoted despite being accurate really shows how Lemmy is changing.
I get it, they may not like what the truth stands for or that there’s nuance here, with POTUS recent words and actions setting a poor standard. The whole situation certainly sucks but so does the knee-jerk reactions on many of these threads.
A president of all people should understand what words mean given context (quite lacking in the U.S right now). It’s quite bold of you to give excuses on behalf of someone who says they are a zionist without even knowing if they were ignorant or deliberately trying to dogwhistle. You might come off as daft if you’re proven wrong.
And? They weren’t downvoting the president, they were pushing down legitimate information that was specifically asked for by a non-American. Historical even.
Not everything is a dog whistle and this isn’t even sly or hidden, he outright admits it and always has. Sheesh.
He’s been saying it for decades (literally), it’s only now that it garners so much attention. Look, I can find 100 reasons to dislike the guy but being consistent isn’t one of them.
I’m not American, can someone explain why Biden does this when his “one job” for 2024 is to not look like a fash?
Is it though? Americans do not really care about foreigners getting killed. A lot are actually in favor of Israel killing people and/or Muslims being killed in general. It’s not a given he will lose more votes than he will gain from ‘moderate’ Republicans. After all Democrat voters will be whipped into line with the ‘but Trump/lesser evil’ argument. This’ sub’s mod has smeared himself up in shit and is going hard at it.
Israel is one USA's major allies. America helped in the creation of the Israeli state. He believes the Jews have the right to their own homeland. These are three likely reasons.
The US didn’t have much to do with the founding of Israel, the UK was the primary colonial sponsor at the time. It wasn’t until a few decades later when the US decided that it was going to need a permanent military presence in the Middle East to ensure the oil flowed that the US became the primary colonial sponsor.
Not sure yet. Maybe a Green Party candidate or Cornel West. I’ve previously tried to vote for the lesser of two evils, but when this is what that entails, it’s not worth it.
It is not the fault of the voters that the democrats can’t put forward a candidate that makes someone who is generally likely to vote Democrat not want to throw up in their mouth. If Trump gets in again that falls squarely on the democrats and Biden for constantly doing abhorrent bullshit like this.
That is such a simplified and reductive view of the way democracy in the states works. This attitude towards your political system over the last few generations is why your country is even in this situation in the first place bud.
You sound like you don't understand first past the post. I fucking hate it but it's the system we live in and it's not going to change anytime soon. We can't even get more than a handful of partially left folks in all of Congress
This person is right. You can openly hate the way the US votes and refuse to be a part of the status quo, but this is how the system works now. If you want your current voting power to have a current impact, then you need to vote in a way that the current system works.
I’m very strongly principled myself, and greatly dislike how petty the voting ideals are. I also greatly dislike how little impact most people have in changing the way we vote. It very much feels like organized systems of corrupt power when you peek into the US system at any angle.
Therefore, if you’re strongly principled like me, I highly recommend that you observe these efforts as different principles:
We should vote in a way that gives us a voice with real impact (present day problems)
We should strive to change and shape both politics and our voting system however possible (present day and future problems)
Make your impact now and for the future. Don’t choose to be silent by not playing the game that is put in front of you. It’s dirty, it’s gross, and it’s political, but it is currently how your voice gets heard. While doing so, also be the change you want to see in the world by pushing for the ideals you are after.
If a new SCOTUS decides that marriage historically and thus always must mean a relationship between a man and a woman, yeah, I'm gonna fucking blame the voters.
He’s held positions antithetical to most of conservatism for quite a long time. Still some things bother me. His religiousity, issues of his personal finances, etc. So I’m still quite undecided. I’ve got 10 months or so to decide.
Yes, please don’t be a single-issue voter. There is no perfection in politics, so don’t pretend that this is the only thing that matters and pursue to make your vote meaningless. A lost vote from you is a vote for them.
“don’t vote for genocide” equals “don’t be a single issue voter” lmao. US is fucked, the lack of morality in the country is laid bare even to people who used to believe in the “good guys” rhetoric
Lol seriously though. My jaw literally dropped reading the comment you just replied to. I’m so glad I don’t live in the states. That attitude is an absolute embarrassment to the rest of the world.
Right, the voting system is bad. I don’t like it, either. However, if the dominating candidates are Biden and Trump, and you voted for lesser Democrat candidate, then Biden doesn’t get your vote. If Biden gets too little votes, then your next president is Trump. You wouldn’t have chosen it explicitly, but it is your implicit vote.
That being said, if Biden has some strong competition and another candidate is appearing favorable, then it makes sense to vote for them. Voting for someone you know is going to lose is just acting in principle without making any impact on the election.
Personally, I believe that Trump would deliver significantly more harm than most candidates. He’s the Republican leader.
I don’t agree with a handful of things that Biden has done. I believe that the situation with Hamas and Israel is much more nuanced than “arm Israel to the teeth.” We’re on the same page with this.
I can decide that I don’t like Biden because of his stance with Israel, and choose to vote for another candidate. Let’s say that the election is extremely close between Biden and Trump. And let’s say that there is a reasonable amount of people like me, who have decided not to vote for Biden.
If enough people do what I would be doing, and vote for a candidate that might get 5% of votes or so, then that’s 5% of the vote that could have gone to defeating Trump. However, because the election was so close, Trump wins.
If you protest the majority candidate in the election, you might as well check the box for your opponent and submit your vote. Voting is a dumb game that shouldn’t be a dumb game, but it is what it is.
Biden has literally said “I am a zionist” and is currently blocking resolutions for an immediate cease fire. He is complicit in a genocide. Do you understand what that is?
If nobody votes 3rd party, nothing changes. Ever. You got so pigeonholled into thinking “these are the only two choices :<” that you would rather vote for a genocide committing president than anyone else.
I say this as someone who’s going to vote third party - Trump and Biden are the only two choices. One of them is going to win, period. I’m voting third party because I know beyond reasonable doubt which one is going to win my state, so I have the privilege of throwing away my vote. I can’t fault someone for voting on a “lesser evil” basis in a swing state.
Maybe it won’t make an impact this election, but if people start voting for third parties regardless, the Democrats would be incentivised to do better and/or to introduce ranked-choice voting.
In any case, people need to stop waiting for elections and to start taking action now.
There certainly are ways to vote for your party that will result in your party being weaker, therefore making the opposing party stronger. Call it whatever you want.
Personally, I believe that Trump would deliver significantly more harm than most candidates. He’s the Republican leader.
I don’t agree with a handful of things that Biden has done. I believe that the situation with Hamas and Israel is much more nuanced than “arm Israel to the teeth.” We’re on the same page with this.
I can decide that I don’t like Biden because of his stance with Israel, and choose to vote for another candidate. Let’s say that the election is extremely close between Biden and Trump. And let’s say that there is a reasonable amount of people like me, who have decided not to vote for Biden.
If enough people do what I would be doing, and vote for a candidate that might get 5% of votes or so, then that’s 5% of the vote that could have gone to defeating Trump. However, because the election was so close, Trump wins.
If you protest the majority candidate in the election, you might as well check the box for your opponent and submit your vote. Voting is a dumb game that shouldn’t be a dumb game, but it is what it is.
Every fucking presidential candidate will continue the US policies that have been in place for decades. That includes Jill Stein, Cornell West, anybody. They will all continue to supply arms to Israel, because no president is going to revolutionize the entire US political system.
You don't stop genocide by hopes-and-dreams voting for an incompetent candidate who has no chance of winning, thus securing the presidency for the party that promises more genocide. That's how you make the problem far, far worse.
You wanna stop genocide? Start with your Representatives and Senators and convince them to forbid the president from taking military action without a formal declaration of war.
"Incompetent" is a stretch. No chance of winning, perhaps, but that's only true because the two major parties continue to work together to make it true. Colluding with a fledgling fascist dictator to lock out other competition and then smirking about "wasted votes" maybe be stabard operating procedure but it shouldn't be.
Trump is a monster. Biden is not a good person. Let's kick then both to the curb and agree to support someone who isn't an objectively terrible person.
You're right; incompetent is a stretch. Some of them probably are, but others are just... I don't know, out of touch with reality? And others are probably there knowing they will lose, but showing up anyway just to make their presence known for one reason or another, whether naive idealism, or cynical attention-grabbing.
I'd love to kick both Trump and Biden to the curb, truly. Well, a little farther than the curb for Trump. But the only way to do that is to change the way the system works. There is no scenario where a) it is realistically possible to elect a 3rd party candidate, and b) a 3rd party candidate, if elected, would have the ability to make any meaningful change to the system.
Remember, we're talking about changing election law here. And who is responsible for changing laws? Not the president. It's the legislature.
If we want something like a viable Green Party or Libertarian Party or whatever, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency. If we want to eliminate FTTP winner-take-all elections for the presidency, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency.
And believe me, I do want all of that. Which is why the puritanical grandstanding about protest votes by people who don't seem to understand the fundamental rules of US government is so painfully frustrating. If people were half as passionate about actual politics as they are about arguing badly about politics on lemmy, change would be possible. Instead, they are bamboozled time and time again, like clockwork, every four years by political insiders who feed them the notion that a protest vote that help the worst possible candidate is the most meaningful action they can take.
Yep. What's truly disappointing is that the voters in one of those major parties are extremely comfortable being complicit in genocide et al. It is entirely within their power to demand that their own party field someone less terrible... but they do not for reasons that only make sense if one looks at the process as one that values winning over all.
I agree that the system is broken. But the process that favors the two parties need not be used to field terrible candidates. THAT part of the process is 100% the responsibility of those who vote for those parties. If the candidates are terrible, then the blame for that rest solely on their shoulders.
Biden has a terrible history of friendship and collusion with racists, bigots, etc. Currently, he's a genocide apologist. I would LOVE it if the Democrats fielded someone I could get behind. It's not about one issue, it's about asking for a bare minimum level of humanity. "Not a bigoted genocide apologist" should not be a stretch goal.
I don't disagree with your assessment of Biden, but you're saying this like he's not the better choice of the two. Everything you accuse him of is amplified by entire magnitudes with anyone in the GOP.
And let's be real here, Israel has been a central pillar of US policy for generations. There are one or two high-ranking politicians in the entire government who don't support Israel, but they have zero chance of becoming president. Biden is being chosen not because of one belief or another, it's because of his track record and his experience. He is capable of one of the most important jobs of the office, which is working with the rest of the government, even the people who hate you, to get shit done.
The Democrats have a membership of millions. If they find someone who isn't objectively a garbage person, I guarantee they win. You'll still see the "must vote blue" crowd vote D because let's be real, they'll do as they're told every time. And you'll also get the votes of the people who believe in a better world.
Win win, but the millions of D voters will continue to sell the line that they are powerless to sway thier own party.
I don't know who's selling this line you think is being sold. I'll happily vote for a better Democrat than Biden. And I don't know of anybody who is so enamored with Biden that they'd throw a temper tantrum if he wasn't the nominee. I actually don't know what you're arguing here other than saying "a better person than Biden would be better." Which is true, but it's just a tautology.
I'm noting that expecting people to vote for the least bad candidate here is easily rectified by the Dems choosing someone less terrible. The base would vote for a pickle sandwich if it had a blue sticker on it. As such, choosing someone who appeals to swing allies is the right move.
Biden, whatever value he has, does not appear to have that appeal. So if winning is important, Democrats hold the key. Choose someone less repugnant to swing voters.
Again, that's just saying someone better than Biden would be better. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that wouldn't agree with you.
I expect people to vote intelligently based on the outcome they want. If there's 2 outcomes and they don't want outcome A, they should vote for B. Complaining that B isn't sparkly and written in glitter doesn't change the fact that they don't want outcome A more.
If choices A and B are both bad and team B has full control of who they're fielding, rewarding them for choosing poorly perpetuates the same. If they're too blind or arrogant to see that B is losing them the contest, then that's their own fault.
What a weird take. You're not rewarding anybody. You're choosing who will be the next president. You're making a choice that will affect you and millions of other people.
I said previously I expect people to vote intelligently. You seem to be implying that allowing Trump to win just to spite the Democratic party for choosing Biden is somehow a rational choice.
You brought up blind arrogance.
Imagine being so blind that you fail to see that the outcome of a Trump victory would be devastatingly worse for yourself and for the world. That you'd be supporting an outcome that leads to more and worse genocide, despite that being a "single issue" for you. That's blind.
Imagine being so arrogant that you'd choose the path that leads to more genocide and greater global suffering, despite genocide apparently being a "single issue" for you, simply to punish a political party made up of millions of people because they didn't field the candidate you wanted them to. You said yourself: "The Democrats have a membership of millions." Yet you are the one stamping your feet and threatening that if they choose Biden, you're going to vote against him just to spite them. And help bring about more genocide, despite that apparently being important to you. That's arrogance.
You don't have to like Biden, you just have to prefer the outcome of a Biden victory over the outcome of a Trump victory. It's akin to choosing between lima beans or rusty nails for everyone's dinner. You don't have to like lima beans, but if you are so arrogant to choose the rusty nails for everybody because you don't want lima beans, you're blind to how you will hurt others and yourself.
I'm sorry man, but you need to take a big step back, read everything that you wrote, and apply it to your own position. Then think on the actual outcomes that the two paths before you lead towards.
Aah, the same old "lesser evil" arguments that put us here in the first place.
Trump is a direct result of this abjectly stupid idea that eating shit every 4 years is necessary because Daddy Blue says so. If he wins, its because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to read the room and select a candidate worthy of the presidency.
And there it is. Not voting for Biden is stamping ones feet. The sheer entitled arrogance. Jesus.
You offer me rusty nails or razor blades and tell me the razor blades are beans. No thanks.
And there it is. Not voting for Biden is stamping ones feet. The sheer entitled arrogance. Jesus.
Exactly. You are stamping your feet and exhibiting sheer entitled arrogance.
Your inability to comprehend the logical outcomes of your decisions is seriously disturbing. You've been polite enough and engaged honestly with me, and I appreciate that. But I don't think we're moving in any productive direction so let's end it here.
I'll just leave you with the same words I said before: You need to take a big step back, read everything that you wrote, and apply it to your own position. Then think on the actual outcomes that the two paths before you lead towards.
And you need to take 7 steps back and seriously considered whether you truly believe in democracy... or you value scoring points for "your" team above all else.
But don't take my word for it. Take a look at Biden's polling and tell me again how the reasonable ones are those trying to shove him down the rest of our throats.
If that's the understanding of my position that you came to after this several-days-long conversation, then I'm disappointed in your complete lack of attention to everything I've said.
I thoroughly read and thought about everything you wrote. You failed to convince me, but I at least listened to your position. It's really disappointing you didn't offer the same basic courtesy, and your last comment was the same kind of non-sequitur regurgitated rhetoric that the troll posters in this thread have been using.
Peace out, man. It's a shame we couldn't have a productive discussion.
You think voting for the GOP isn't voting for genocide? On top of handing Ukraine over and tearing out the rights of women minorities and LGBTQ. Consolidating power into the hands of Trump with the 2025 project is somehow "not voting for genocide?"
One of the golden rules in life is you should act like you want everyone to act.
If everyone voted for what they truly wanted and believed in, there would be no more political duopolies.
I know that's easy for me to say because I have proportional representation, but I don't think you should ever try to shame someone for voting with their conscience.
If everyone voted for what they truly wanted and believed in, there would be no more political duopolies.
I agree. However, this is not the reality we live in. If you vote for a candidate that gets 2% of votes, then they will lose, and the leading candidate that represents your party will not get your vote. This gives your political opponents an advantage by your choosing.
That’s the spoiler effect created by a first past the post system. You won’t get to the first result unless you change how voting works. A good way to get there is to start local instead of what most people do which is nothing until federal elections, then whine how the system isn’t giving them good candidates.
Personally, I believe that Trump would deliver significantly more harm than most candidates. He’s the Republican leader.
I don’t agree with a handful of things that Biden has done. I believe that the situation with Hamas and Israel is much more nuanced than “arm Israel to the teeth.” We’re on the same page with this.
I can decide that I don’t like Biden because of his stance with Israel, and choose to vote for another candidate. Let’s say that the election is extremely close between Biden and Trump. And let’s say that there is a reasonable amount of people like me, who have decided not to vote for Biden.
If enough people do what I would be doing, and vote for a candidate that might get 5% of votes or so, then that’s 5% of the vote that could have gone to defeating Trump. However, because the election was so close, Trump wins.
If you protest the majority candidate in the election, you might as well check the box for your opponent and submit your vote. Voting is a dumb game that shouldn’t be a dumb game, but it is what it is.
Yeah he is the lesser of two evils. I think we all know that. The idea is that some people would rather not take part in the farce known as American elections of the lesser of two evils is still going to support genocide.
The idea is that some people would rather not take part in the farce known as American elections of the lesser of two evils is still going to support genocide.
that is not supporting genocide. it’s opposing it.
this is not my standard. my standard is “do i want them to win”. you get to decide on your own standards. i hope your standards don’t allow you to vote for genocide.
I asked an important question that was not designed to be petulant in any way. I’ll be polite and not bother you if you refuse to answer it due to emotional reasons. Thank you for your conversation.
it’s not about emotions. it’s that your “important question” was in fact not asked in good faith. when i gave you a more complete answer than you wanted, you demanded simple yes-or-no answers so you could continue to brow-beat me. framing my response as emotional when, in fact, you are the one showing petulance, is just DARVO.
I have one apple. I can give it to Joe, to Dobald, or to Claudia. I choose to give it to Claudia. So now our count is Joe +0, Donald +0, Claudia +1. You see how Donald’s number didn’t go up, despite not giving the apple to Joe? That’s how it works.
Now I know what you’re going to say: that since I’m not giving the apple to Joe, that really puts him at -1 apple, but the same could be said about Donald, that I’m not giving him the apple either so he would also be at -1. If you argue that not giving the apple to Joe is the same as giving it to Donald, surely that means the opposite is true as well, that not giving the apple to Donald is the same as giving it to Joe.
So maybe instead of blaming everyone but the Democrats for putting forward a candidate who is openly supporting and facilitating an active genocide if Joe loses next year, you start asking why they deserve your apple at all.
Tell you what, since not voting once for Biden is a vote for Trump, how about I don’t vote for Trump a million times, that way it’s a million votes for Biden. Will that make you feel better?
I don’t know what’s stupider. This obvious bad faith nonsense example, or that the very-predictable outcome, seen repeatedly for longer than any human has lived, is of no concern to you whatsoever-- because you have a point to make, consequences-be-damned. Actually I do, it’s the latter.
A more compelling argument might be to just randomly bash your keyboard a few times and click reply. There’s a far greater chance of you winning the lottery than of your protest vote having a positive impact, so why don’t you go buy some tickets?
You’re incorect: what’s stupider is continually pouring your support into “the lesser of two evils,” and thinking that you’re doing anything other than showing them that it’s perfectly OK for them to be evil, since useful idiots like your good self will continue to spout this sort of party rhetoric without stopping to think for two seconds that they are in fact the problem. The reason other parties won’t succeed is because of people like you who refuse to even consider anything outside the status quo and will just blindly check the “D” column no matter how many drone strikes they launch or hospital bombers they sell the missiles to. So while some of us are trying to stop the mindless murder of innocents overseas by whatever tools we may have at hand, you sit there comfortably and tell yourself that you’re the real hero here by throwing your unwavering support behind the “lesser evil.” The parties will definitely change as long as we keep blindly supporting them no matter what their actions, who cares if thousands are being killed in Palestine. As long as no one tries to make any points about the direction our society is headed, it’s all worth it, right?
I’m not American and not the commentor, I’m observing from far away.
I agree, people should vote for the best possible candidate. Even single issue voters. The alternative is worse for this single issue. If I was American, I’d vote strategically like people on this thread are saying.
However
There are Americans that had friends, family members, and colleagues killed in this conflict, and they can’t stomach going to the polls and voting for Biden after how he’s acted throughout this conflict. I won’t hold it against those people for not voting.
I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have that happen and be told “go vote for him anyways”. As true as it might be, it’s not my place.
I’m not concerned with toppling the bipartisan system right now. I’m simply hoping to grow old in a semblance of a democracy. I appreciate your idealism but it is misplaced. The foe (the Fascists) uses your idealism against you, gaining your cooperation along the way. You think you’re opting out because ‘they’re all so equally evil’ but in reality you end up supporting them through your failure to oppose them; the worst of them.
Regarding Milei, isn’t he right-wing and fascist more or less? I’m hoping to have less of that in the world, not more. God help you if you think someone like that is an improvement.
“The vote represents a desperate attempt at something new, come what may,” said Benjamin Gedan, an Argentina specialist from the Wilson Centre. “The option [voters had] was more of the same in catastrophic economic conditions or a radical gamble on a potentially bright future with a lot of downside risk.”
Gedan believed there would be “a lot of buyer’s remorse in Argentina” if Milei pursued even a small fraction of his ideas. Those ideas include legalising the sale of human organs, dramatically slashing social spending, downplaying the crimes of Argentina’s 1976-83 dictatorship, and cutting ties with Argentina’s two most important trade partners, Brazil and China. On the campaign trail, Milei vowed to abolish Argentina’s central bank and dollarise the economy, and brandished a chainsaw intended to symbolise ferocious cuts he believes will help stabilise the economy and “exterminate” rampant inflation.
“Fascism is when less state control”, plus my point is that he is the president while being third party, not the party itself
Also, how will you grow old in a democracy by voting the same two parties that don’t seem to represent anybody? How will a democracy truly exist when they fearmonger you into voting them “or literal Nazis will kill you tomorrow”? The republicans probably do the same but switching Nazi with any other word. It’s the game they want you to play, and they use fear to do so
To say he hasn’t been better than trump is naive. Everything Biden has done that you hate will be done to a greater extent under trump. Remember this is the guy that moved the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Just look at project 2025 to see the truly fascist intentions of trump and republicans at large. Neither are good but they aren’t close to being equally bad.
Uh, Abolishment of Roe v. Wade?! This happened as a result of Trump and the Republicans! The two parties both worship Mamon, that much is true, but there are important differences that should not be glossed over that will have an impact on the lives of everyday American citizens and all the people around the globe that are impacted by our politics which is a huge number of people. You’re painting with too broad a brush and I respectfully ask that you take a deep breath to clear some emotion and think about what I’m saying.
Trump by default. I mean, you might say Jill Stein when she emerges from her cave of irrelevance for her ten seconds of people remembering she exists, but really all you're doing is getting out of the Grand Old Cult's way.
If the Democratic party wants my vote all they have to do is put up a candidate who isn’t onboard with ethnic cleansing and genocide. If that’s too much to ask, and they lose to Republicans, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Whether by action or inaction, if your vote supports Trump getting elected, then you are a Trump supporter, a GOP supporter, and share a portion of the responsibility for the greater destruction and genocide that is brought about by that result.
So in fact, we all do get to blame you and others who support Trump.
I hate the system, and I genuinely sympathize with people who want to vote for their dream candidates.
I just wish they would open their eyes and understand how the system actually works, and how they are being duped by rich, powerful people into actively working against their own goals.
We can change the system by being active politically at the local level. But change will never come by voting in a dream candidate, because even if hypothetically someone like that won the presidency, they would simply be at the mercy of the legislature with zero support from either party. A third party president would be a lame duck before they even swore their inauguration oath.
By your logic if you voted Hillary in the primary that makes you a trump supporter because your vote delivered him a candidate he can beat. You vote shamers are really reaching for insults this time around.
Sure, that tracks. You'd have a share of responsibility for the result of that choice. But as it's much farther removed from the actual election, it would far less responsibility than someone who voted for Jill Stein, or who wrote-in Bernie Sanders, or anyone other than Hillary in the actual eleciton though.
The sad thing is you think I'm insulting you.
I'm not.
I'm trying very hard to help you understand that you've been fooled into acting against your own interests. There's no reason to take it personally or try to come up with some sort of "gotcha" to throw back at me. Especially since I actually agree with what I guess you thought was some kind of slam dunk take-down.
In fact it's extra tragic, because not only are you fooled so thoroughly, but you're also getting defensive about it rather than just listening to what I and others are saying and examining the consequences of that choice. You should be here for conversation, not for meaningless grandstanding and digging your feet deeper into a misunderstanding.
Their statement was totally relevant to this situation. You may not like it, but it was an accurate observation of what centrists expect from progressives.
Their post was a complete non sequitur. And since they deleted their post and had half their other posts in this thread removed by the mods, they clearly weren't here to have a discussion. It's a weird thing for you to defend.
It's obvious you didn't understand the conversation then, because I didn't say that at all, nor am I a centrist. So let's hold off on the accusations of batshit ignorance, yeah?
Like I said to the troll poster above: if you're interested in engaging honestly, let's do this. Otherwise...
It’s more that the third-party spoiler effect is inherent to the first past the post system, so voting your conscience (for a third party) is effectively the same as not voting, and if enough people vote their conscience, it’s effectively like voting for exactly the opposite of what you want.
Yeah, beyond that I was mostly responding to the assertion that “Americans are stupid and easily manipulated.”
No, they are responding to an imperfect system that punishes them for having strong morals. Far from stupid, it’s actually quite rational. The best thing you can do if you care about not having to choose between genocide and even more genocide is get involved in pushing ranked choice voting through ballot measures, lobbying your state legislature, or hell, start with just municipal elections if you think you can get that done.
I suppose that’s because parliamentary parties are much stricter with their membership. A small difference of opinion could lead to the expulsion of a member. US parties can’t really do that, so instead we have caucuses within the parties that vote along party lines most of the time, but differently on some important issues. In a parliamentary system, the caucus members would be expelled and would have to form their own party to have their views represented.
It’s definitely leaning that way… Still, it’s been a while since someone had their ass beaten on the floor of the House or Senate, that seems to happen in Parliament more often. :)
The statement was that Jewish people would not be safe anywhere without Israel
There are Jewish people living safely in many parts of the world, and those people are protected and loved by the communities they live as a part of.
The irony is that the statement was made to Jewish people in such a community outside of Israel. The other bit of irony is that statements like this are further divisions. Divisions that make life unsafe for everyone
There are millions of Jews in Israel (or their children), right now, who are there because they were forcibly expelled from other Arab countries in the Middle East.
Why do you think there's a 3000 year old synagogue in Aleppo, and only around four Jews in all of Syria?
So what, my ancestors built a brick house in Minnesota 180 years ago and its still there, I live in Califoria. Also did the Jews even exist as an identity back 3000 years ago? Pretty sure they had just barely split from the cananites by that point and were still largely isolated to the southern mountains.
I would like to bring a counter point for you to consider.
When I put all my money in a bank, I have a guaranty from a regulatory body /government that in case of bankruptcy I will still get my money back, even if the bank goes bust.
This is similar for Jews around the world - Israel is an insurance policy. If your local country starts leaning towards fascism and looking for a scapegoat (which is usually Jews), then you’d have the option to go to Israel immediately. Because historically they’ve seen and still see how refugees are being treated and not welcome globally.
If your local country starts leaning towards fascism and looking for a scapegoat (which is usually Jews), then you’d have the option to go to Israel immediately.
That’s a great plan, since Jews are completely safe and definitely not in any danger in Israel.
I didn’t say it’s a great plan. But it’s better than no plan.
I don’t understand all the down votes. You don’t have to agree with it, it doesn’t even mean that I agree with it… But I just wanted to shine some context to why it’s not ironic to many Jews.
The whole rape narrative is just a way to push local politicians into unquestioning support of Israel. A way to dehumanize Palestinians by painting with a broad brush. Ironically these “left leaning” outlets pushing this narrative are doing EXACTLY what Trump did by calling Mexicans murderers and rapists.
By itself it is a weird thing to say, like I thought the usual strategy (and apparently the Israelis’) is to publicly assume good behavior so they have something to lose.
You can say this situation is different, but still the only use for that kind of speculation is to emotionally load support for Israel (which is already high), and it may certainly further endanger the hostages, regardless of gender.
this is going to be locked for a variety of reasons:
this is essentially propaganda/an extremely biased opinion piece
it uncritically adopts the framing of Elise Stefanik when she is neither a good faith actor generally, nor asking questions about “calling for the genocide of the Jews” in good faith. it’s very clear she just means “pro-Palestinian demonstrators” when she talks about people “calling for genocide” and that’s stupid.
it’s just not a good article, generally. there are plenty of other, better articles that can be used as a vessel to talk about Israel-Palestine (including ones that have a pro-Israeli voice)
I know in one case this is a bs slant. The person said its abhorrant but measures would only be taken if action was taken. IE the speech will not be silenced by the university but actually violence will not be allowed.
timesofisrael.com
Hot