The poll found 50% of Democrats approve of how Biden has navigated the conflict while 46% disapprove — and the two groups diverge substantially in their views of U.S. support for Israel. Biden’s 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.
It’s Biden vs trump, and there’s zero chance I’m voting for a waste-of-carbon republican traitor. Now or at any time in the future. I don’t 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
You’re 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
If you’re 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 wouldn’t do the same? Or worse? They’re 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 it’s time to put your adult pants on, accept the world is messy, and vote for the least worse option possible, because otherwise you’re just abetting the worst option.
You guys are just trolley probleming but you can add a third rails that says “if enough people pull this lever nobody dies”.
You have roughly equal amounts of people pulling the lever in the “kill one person” direction and the “kill many people” direction.
The only people interested in pulling a lever that adds a third rail are the “kill one person” crowd. The moment enough of them let go, the lever goes in the “kill many people” direction because that crowd has no interest in a third rail, they quite like the “kill many people” option. You’ll 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.
You’re never gonna change anything if you’re 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 “lesser evil” it’s because of this that a third party isn’t taking off.
If you’re voting in the US you’re living on and benefitting from land that was stolen by a full on genocide. Unless you’re voting for someone that wants to vacate the land and hand it back to the Native Americans, then you’re already voting to support genocide. So I wouldn’t 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.
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 they’re going to.
If it’s a choice between one geriatric who endorses genocide and another geriatric who endorses genocide, why should I be voting for either?
I still haven’t decided but atm I’m leaning towards 3rd party
This “lesser evil” 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 doesn’t absolve you of culpability for the consequences.
Refusing to make a decision doesn’t 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.
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, you’re 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.
That’s literally it, that’s the only relevant factor to consider when deciding if you’re going to vote for Biden. I hate him as much as everyone else, but I don’t 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 you’re 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
we’re 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. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. 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 it’s 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 war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.
i wish orwell was around to see it
i didn’t say i’m not going to vote. i’m 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
it’s possible if people stopped towing the democratic party line. they are not our friends. they will do the bare minimum necessary and oftentimes they won’t even do that, just promise to do it. i’ve been waiting for immigration reform my entire life. NADA is the total value of what has come out from Democrats beside’s Obama’s DACA which was a stopgap measure. we’ve 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?
it’s a joke. they don’t 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? It’s 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 haven’t 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 Obama’s term, which is when they hammered out Obamacare. And it would’ve 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 couldn’t be signed into law – you didn’t 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. It’s a grift, they just want your money. If they actually wanted to win, they wouldn’t spend so much on the presidency. They’d 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 they’ll never enact, and they give anti science conspiracy theorists a platform.
This reply sort of makes the point for the OP though – the American system appears to be broken at levels so fundamental that it’s not worth engaging with, much less saving. It’s amazing the evil that people are comfortable shrugging at.
You’re not wrong. Our government is inherently conservative in how difficult it is to change things. It’s a flaw by design, unfortunately. Still, as broken as it is, there’s people I still care about a lot. There’s a lot of good people worth fighting for. So even if it’s fundamentally broken, I’m going to keep maintaining hope that we can fix the fundamentals. If I’m 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 must’ve seemed more hopeless for women’s suffragists and civil rights marchers. But through tenacity, they succeeded. Abolitionists succeeded, gay people succeeded – 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 isn’t 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 “I love you dude, no homo”. Now though? Gay jokes are homoerotic insinuations that you and the guys are all banging. We say “I love you dude, full homo” to laugh at how ridiculous the “no homo” era was.
Where I’m going with this, we’ve lived to see real progress. And it’s 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. I’d 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 don’t 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 it’s 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 jew… etc
It’s especially hurting him with the demographic he’s always struggled with:
Majorities of Democrats younger than 45 (65%) and nonwhite Democrats (58%) say they disapprove of Biden’s 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, it’s getting harder to be supportive of our president and our country in general,” said Brie Williamson, a 34-year-old Illinois resident. Williamson said she “couldn’t see voting for a Republican” 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 Biden’s supporters will say “he’s still better than trump” and that’s true. But it doesn’t 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 “you take what we give you” and that resulted in donald fucking trump.
We could have had Bernie, and sure, he’d 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-committer’s defense.
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 they’re 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.
That’s why they fight progressives harder than Republicans. Republicans aren’t their enemy, they’re the rationale that lets moderates in 2023 act like Republicans in 1980 and still win elections
Ah America. Where we have the great options of genocidal maniac or other genocidal maniac. You see, we’re better, because we have the freedom to choose!
Ah America, you offer the same choice as France and the UK.
And we can’t vote for anyone else, or the wrong lizard might win!
I said this a week ago and got downvoted to hell, but I’ll say it again: this issue will fuck him next November
If so, that’s fucking ridiculous. Jesus fucking Christ democracy will die because Joe Biden didn’t 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 aren’t 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 (I’m only speaking economically, so shut up).
Please vote. No matter what anyone tells you, vote. Get your idiot friends to vote. Remind them of what’s at stake.
Tankies aren’t humans.
What a strange moment to make this statement.
Meh I use Tankies as a term for the “far right” 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 I’m 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 ‘tankie’ was originally used to describe people in support of the state’s 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 wouldn’t pretend to know.
Hamas attacked innocent civilians on the 7th. Didn’t 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 won’t vote.
Which is still absolutely absurd, because any Democrat who doesn’t vote for Biden is implicitly granting his Republican opponent a vote. This opponent may be Trump, but even if it isn’t, it’s still a Republican whose position on Israel and the conflict will make Biden’s response look measured.
Many people are angered by Biden’s response, but for pro-Palestinian supporters it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face to not vote this cycle for Biden. You’re actively allowing an even worse option.
It seemed to me (looking in from the outside) that he merely kept on doing what the US had always done.
Apparently it’s the public opinion that has changed, while the diplomacy plodded on in it’s usual well-travelled trail.
Who knew that Millennials would hate casual genocide?
I have a very strong don’t blow up kids policy, that doesn’t 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.
“The terrorists are using schools as shields though!”
Guess you shouldn’t use artillery strikes and bombing runs then.
“The terrorists are using schools as shields though!”
“Oh damn that’s a genius strategy. Better just give up every military advantage I have and send in my soldiers to be ambushed.”
Is it still called an ambush if you know they are there?
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?
There’s 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?
It’s 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. “We’ll hold our politicians accountable.” 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 that’s just far less publicized in Western media because of press relations forged in the wake of Vietnam, and stories like this don’t 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 don’t focus on changing the policy and scope of their own government’s 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. I’m sure in a few months we’ll have moved on to a new Kony 2012 people are “very upset about and not going to forget about until something is done.”
(Seriously, the idea the current events will have any real impact on an election a year from now is laughable.)
I’d even be willing to bet at least 95% of all the Americans complaining about foreign governments bombing things couldn’t 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 “what about…?”) 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 ‘you too’, 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 one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[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 don’t have any access to their research or the education to know about it? I certainly don’t, so I just listen to what they say and not attack them or who they are related to.
