Conservatives joke that progressives just blow with the wind from one controversy to the next. But I can’t help but notice the anti-Biden “left” shifted hard from Genocide Joe to Bad debate Performance without skipping a beat or looking back.
Almost like the people stoking these fires don’t really care about left issues at all.
russian troll farms be out here like
“no we’re innocent socialists!” “democrats aren’t progressive enough and therefore must be defeated” “you can’t accuse me of parroting russian disinformation talking points just because I’m using the same words and arguments”
I love how anyone who disagrees with you is a Russian troll. You go around insulting people and then try to claim the high ground. Grow up.
Not everyone, just the people who are spreading lines known to originate from Russian trolls.
can you give a source for these lines?
Someone feeling seen?
They’re only talking about things Russian troll farms do, not pointing at anyone in particular. Feels like this might be a self report
Yup, absolutely. You got me.
anyone
You’re the only one dealing in absolutes here.
Another lovely strawman.
I love how you try to victimize yourself by twisting what others say to turn it into an all-encompassing blanket statement that you can then use as an excuse to permit yourself to use blanket statements in your own accusations.
Without ever even acknowledging the hypocrisy.
Accelerationism is a position that is literally only possible to hold from a position of privilege.
I’m sure crashing through the decline into fascism looks like a great idea when you know you’re high enough on the kill list to avoid the actual consequences of fascism happening.
The white left never saw us as allies, only as fodder.
Accelerationism is a position that is literally only possible to hold from a position of privilege.
And boy do they get butthurt when you tell them that they’re privileged.
I got one person really indignant with me when I called them privileged because they were pushing accelerationist bullshit about Palestinians being genocides because they didn’t have to deal with the results of their rhetoric.
I’ve seen the same in someone I know personally. He’s a pacifist, and being against funding Ukraine is at least consistent with that, if completely shortsighted and demonstrating how pacifism is an end goal, not praxis that we can do right now. He’s also smart enough to realize what a losing argument that is and focuses on Palestine instead.
I’m not sure of the term for this, but I’ll call it “billionaire blindness”. Not blindness to billionaires but a blindness that affects billionaires. And it works like this: because they overestimate their own abilities – their ego cannot handle the large part that luck played in their success – they correspondingly underestimate the abilities of their lackeys.
In this particular context, they vastly underestimate their political pawns. They fail to realize that once Trump and Taylor-Green and cohorts gain dictatorial powers, then those former lackeys will become the masters. To quote Jello Biafra, “In the real fourth reich you’ll be the first to go.” I don’t know what we’ll call it tho. “Night of Long Knives” is too poetic.
Night of the faces getting eaten
“The white left” … (?)
White self proclaimed socialists and leftists who will theory their way all around why it’s everyone else’s job to praxis in even the bare minimum ways, and who see queer folks and PoC effectively as pawns to throw into the meat grinder of fascism until it eventually chews its teeth out.
See also, when the french communists outed immigrant resistance leaders to the retreating Nazis to take all the credit with the dead unable to correct the record for themselves.
I understand your definition and can relate to this being a (privileged) element of left discourse. That being said I question if your attribution of this definition to a broader category of your own making… “the white left” is helpful to anyone. If you feel it is keep throwing it around I guess
deleted by creator
“Progressives” with enough privilege that they think that if it comes down to it, they can always bend the knee to avoid the wall.
These people tend to be rabidly accelerationist, cause it’s not their lives and livelihoods on the line.
This line of thinking allows you to be an ideological purist and denounce any incrementalism or harm reduction as antithetical to the cause, stirring up infighting.
It also happens to be an excellent strategy outlined in the CIA’s saboteur handbook. (Literally, Google it, download the PDF from CIA.gov)
Removed by mod
Sure it is. It’s not sufficient, not by a long shot, but it’s a start.
harm reduction is recognizing the bad thing is going to happen, and helping people mitigate the consequences. it has a specific meaning, and voting is not harm reduction.
The bad thing that will happen is Project 2025. We can mitigate that by voting for candidates that want nothing to do with Project 2025.
your falling for (or perpetrating) an informal fallacy called “equivocation”. voting is not harm reduction.
Literally? As in figuratively? Or are you one of those “a vote for anyone other than Biden is literally a vote for Trump” people?
Oh, is it an election year already?
Must be… all the radlibs are starting to get all hysterical about the “accelerationists” (supposedly) hiding under their beds again.
Almost like the people stoking these fires don’t really care about left issues at all.
It’s pretty easy to prove that many of them don’t.
Now, remember kids: if an unpopular Democratic presidential candidate doesn’t win an election, who do we blame? That’s right: literally everyone to the left of us. That’s how you make progress in a country, after all: Demonizing the left in the same way conservatives do. And why do we do that? That’s right, it’s because we’re secretly conservative, too. We just tolerate gay people more, but don’t want actual social or economic progress. Repeat after me: “unfavorable political outcomes are everyone else’s fault but mine!”
I think it’s funny that people think you can just change nominees at this point and still have a chance at winning the contest.
Would you mind elaborating on this? Polls don’t favor Biden right now and obviously his debate performance was really REALLY bad. I mean, if he’s the nominee, you gotta vote for him, but I’m curious why you think it’s so crazy that a person would feel like another Democratic nominee has a better shot. Especially considering how dissatisfied almost everyone in the country is regarding the two choices we have before us, and how often the explanation of that dissatisfaction ends up being because of age.
I think it’s a pretty reasonable take to want someone other than Biden to run, considering those things I mentioned. Even if you personally think another candidate besides Biden kills the chances of us beating Trump, why do you think it’s so absurd of a position to want someone to take Bidens place?
It seems right now your position, that Biden is the only chance we have against Trump, is the one that is kinda illogical, but I’m curious what your take on that is because there’s a chance I’m not accounting for something big, like the logistics of getting a replacement candidate in there and publicized.
Because Biden is currently doing a good job as president and the poll you linked show Trump and Biden polling within 1.5% of each other.
Why would you decide to try something never done before and switch up nominees four month before the election?
That’s the position that seems illogical and almost wanting Trump to win.
I mean, regardless of whether you personally believe Biden is doing well as President, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the general population’s disposition toward him. And also, I just averaged the spread of each general election poll listed on that site, all of which have Trump leading.The number came out to 4.63%. That’s kinda a far cry from 1.5% that you mentioned.
Let me be clear. I do not want Trump to win. Please do not put that in my mouth. Thinking he will win and actively hoping and voting for him are not the same. I do not want to be right in my feeling that he will win.
Why try something that’s never been done before? Well, I think Trump broke politics already. We are already in unprecedented territory regarding presidential power, this particular election being between two previous Presidents, etc, so I personally don’t think the “established norm” argument holds too much water. And then you have my other arguments: The polls aren’t looking good, and we just came off a terrible debate performance.
This isn’t all to say another candidate would definitely beat Trump, or that I even think it’s a good idea to get someone else in there. But I don’t think it’s a silly or idiotic to want that, as it seems you’re making it out. I can empathize with people who feel that way, because I am also frustrated with having to choose Biden.
I was just wondering why you think its so silly, and I guess the answer is, “because it’s never been done before.” Thanks for responding.
Actually i think the ‘why do this’ question about a replacement isn’t much about it hasn’t been done before. I think it’s more to do with custom and party politics. To a very large degree Biden leads the DNC and there would need to be a huge show of support to get him to step aside that I think people are not really interested in doing.
Once again the benefits of being a selfish, power-hungry, assholish party are given to republiQans. Hell they’ll throw each other under the bus for fun. But the DNC isn’t like that.
That may change. I’m watching Obama, if he says something that’s the sign they’re making a move, but absent that I tend to doubt it.
I definitely agree with all that. I think its highly highly unlikely Biden steps aside. I guess I was trying to get at why OP thinks it’s so silly that a person would think that another candidate has a better shot of beating Trump.
Huh. I took your position as the opposite of that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Okay - well, sorry - agree! Moving on 😄
Where are you getting 4.63%?
Oops, I didn’t see that they had a weighted average there, I literally just counted the spread and divided. Well that’s better than I thought, but I’m still just not feeling good about November.
You can laugh me off, but I think even the fact that there are mainstream publications coming out with articles about the logistics of replacing Biden shows it’s, while not probably in any sense, still a thing on many people’s minds. I still empathize with those people and don’t think they’re laughable. But thank you for correcting me.
I don’t think I’ve laughed you off yet.
Nah, you haven’t, I appreciate that
It seems right now your position, that Biden is the only chance we have against Trump, is the one that is kinda illogical
Mmmmpretty sure that is the case. All the “replacement” talk is not something they’ve asked for input on, although there is a lot of it available should they ask. As it stands today, right now, Biden is the only chance we have against trump
You’re technically right there, but I think you know what I mean: the OPs position is that if any other candidate replaced Biden, they will not have a chance of beating Trump.
Humanity fools itself into believing a lot of unbelievable things. Like there’s a man in the skies causing virgin births turning water into wine like a stage magician. It’s Harry Potter with genocide all the way down.
I think Harry Potter only killed Voldemort so he didn’t commit genocide.
I think they’re referencing the series lol.
What series?
Harry Potter, the books.
He only killed Voldemort in the books, right?
I consider anyone pushing anyone over Biden as part of the Trump campaign. This is a two party system. Creating indecisiveness like this is a very viable and practical subversion tactic and with Trump’s Kremlin backers as the Russian candidate as Putin’s puppet, anyone that fails to recognise this ploy is being foolish and falling for their nonsense. The Platonic sophism tactic is hard for the simple minded to see through. Unplug from the news cycle and think for yourself outside of the sophist spin doctor nonsense. Ask your own questions and seek out those answers without distraction and exercise skepticism about all sources. If your general media leads your thoughts, you have no real thoughts of your own.
100% on point. The pivot from “Genocide Joe” to “Anyone/Anything Else Now That Names Are Already On Ballots” is very telling. Also on this list are all the “leftists” pointing fingers at other “leftists” instead of the fascists and centrists.
A list crypto-Trumpists:
- The New York Times: “If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.”
- David Remnick of The New Yorker: “For him to remain the Democratic candidate, the central actor in that referendum, would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment. It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism. To refuse to do so, to go on contending that his good days are more plentiful than the bad, to ignore the inevitability of time and aging, doesn’t merely risk his legacy—it risks the election and, most important, puts in peril the very issues and principles that Biden has framed as central to his Presidency and essential to the future.”
- The Economist: “There are a lot of arguments for resisting such a drastic step, but the main one is that the election is barely four months away. That may be enough time for Mr Biden to recover in the polls. But with the Democratic convention in August, it would be too brief for the party to find another candidate who could campaign and win. Replacing him could divide Democrats at a time when they need to stay united. Those assertions may have been convincing once. Not any more.”
- Chicago Tribune
- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
You’re underplaying the severity of his failure. All of these publications understand what you’re saying. Every single one of them know that creating uncertainty now is risky, but in their calculations, it’s worth it. I, ultimately, think they are wrong, but calling them part of the Trump campaign just has to be something only someone trying to win internet points would say.
I’ll end by quoting
Steve BannonPod Save America co-host Jon Favreau, “Anyone who says this is easy or that we shouldn’t have this debate is not being honest.”Nancy fucking pelosi is questioning his candidacy, is she a paid Russian troll? This is high stakes situation that we need to discuss and calling anyone who disagrees with you a Russian troll or crypto trump supporter is counter-productive and serves only to divide two groups who both want to stop fascism. To do that both sides need to recognize the validity of each other’s arguments and move from there not dismiss them as foolish.
Nancy isn’t questioning Joe’s health that quote is mis interpreted. She is responding to a reporter who asked her that question and she said it’s a fair question to ask of both candidates. Here is the full response so you can make your own mind up.
“So he has a vision. He has knowledge. He has judgment. He has a strategic thinking and the rest. He has a bad night. Now, again, I think it’s a legitimate question to say, is this an episode or is this a condition? And so when people ask that question, it’s legitimate of both candidates, because what we saw on the other side was a line of just, you know, I tore up his speech when he lied to the Congress on every single page of his State of the Union.”
It would only work in some kind of magical scenario.
Magic 1) Biden agrees to … revoke his renomination or whatever.
Magic 2) The Dems can produce an actually good candidate.
Its maybe possible that Biden would step down, as in 1% chance, but they’d just run with Kamala, who would lose.
I think there’s a shot of it only because Trump is genuinely hated enough at this point that “unnamed democratic candidate” probably could beat him at this point.
I’ve done my fair share of shutting down bullshit being spread about Biden, but he definitely got into this game way later than he should have. His golden opportunity was when he skipped 2016 to grieve, I don’t begrudge his reasons but the results speak for themselves.
Why would that not be the case? People despise both candidates, a new candidate free of all Biden’s bullshit would be nothing but good.
At this point I’m convinced people who reject the idea of Biden stepping down want a Democratic loss in November. There’s no one actually this committed to Joe Biden.
Biden, the current president, is actually doing a pretty good job.
Who would you suggest take over?
Agreed, I’m getting pretty sick of morons on the left holding him to unreasonable standards. So what, he had a bad performance at a debate. That doesn’t mean his politics aren’t good, that doesn’t mean he didn’t do a fine job as president. He isn’t an existential threat to America like Trump is.
Okay, we can say he’s done a fine job in aggregate and that he’s probably our only shot at beating Trump, but that does not mean his politics are good.
He’s doing an alright job, but it doesn’t matter what I think, or what you think, it matters what the country as a whole thinks and his approval ratings are lower then Trump’s were at the depths of covid
As for who would replace him, looks like Michelle Obama’s got the best chance but even with the others it seems, besides Kamala, they suffer more from lack of name recognition since they put more voters in the don’t know. If Biden would open the question up and allow them to “campaign” up into the convention maybe we could get a clearer sense of what people want. Maybe it is Biden but with the lack of a real primary this season and his decline in the polls we don’t know.
When was the last time a sitting president had a primary?
Biden and Trump are sitting within 1.5% in polls right now, it’s neck and neck.
Biden and Trump are sitting within 1.5% in polls right now, it’s neck and neck.
Those numbers are from polls taken before the debate. According to leaked internal polls, Biden is down in Pennsylvania (which is the tipping point state) by 7.3%, following what was the worst week of the campaign. Once new polls come out, we’ll get a clearer picture of how much further behind he is than he was before.
It was 1980 , which was also the last time a democrat had an approval rating this low . Before Carter that was lbj and at least he had the good sense to not even run.
Did you miss the part where Biden and Trump are neck and neck in the polls?
Why change 44 years of tradition if they’re both within the margin of error?
Fuck tradition, this election is unprecedented. His opponent is a CONVICTED FELON and he’s still down in the polls. He has historically low approval numbers, is the oldest person to ever take office, and his opponents seem lined up to deny the election and orchestrate a coup regardless of the result.
Also we still have the electoral college, being neck and neck and barely squeaking by 1% will not win us the election. Hillary won the popular vote by 2% and still lost. Biden had to win by 4.5% to win a close race in the electoral college by barely taking Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona, states where he’s currently down by 2-5%.
The situation is not looking good and the stakes are high after the supreme Court ruling. Something’s gotta change, whether that be Joe stepping down or his team hopping him up on Adderall and going on a mass speaking and press tour to ensure the American people.
it’s not 44 years: it’s two. 1996 and 2012 were the only years a sitting Democrat ran for president.
Biden, the current president, is doing a milquetoast job. In fact, most of the things I hate about the current administration, like their bizarre about face on border policy and their love of genocide, have been things he’s directly worked on.
The very few precious wins this administration has achieved have been thanks to the FCC and bipartisan work done by House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries. Great wins, certainly love our government not shutting down after months of gridlock, but the kinda wins any Democrat’s administration could get.
Biden’s term has been defined by him doing the bare minimum. I think it’s fair for people to think any other Democrat could step in and continue doing the bare minimum.
I remember the last election, with the pandemic, economy and country going to absolute shit and I’m very happy that things are calm and quiet this time around.
Biden is doing a good job.
Lowering your standards to “not causing an immediate disaster” is a pretty poor idea, especially when there’s an ongoing genocide supported by the U.S. and fascists are actively destroying our government before our eyes.
Navigating us out of that mess was impressive.
I’ll vote Biden again and work with my next preferred candidate to hopefully get some fresh young blood on as the DNC nominee in 2028.
Anyone/anything. A dog, a pile of sawdust, don’t care as long as it’s not a genocidal right-winger.
Very vague but I asked you for a specific person you think has a chance.
What? How is that vague? I’m saying I’m open to whoever replaces him, why is that difficult to understand? It’s an incredibly flexible position, dealers choice as long as it’s not Biden or Clinton.
Does the super low bar make it difficult for you to try and make me seem unreasonable or uncompromising? Is that what this is? It just breaks the script you had prepped or something?
No, I’m asking what you say is an easy question but you’re unable to answer it.
Why are you unable to accept that I’d literally vote for anyone besides Biden or Clinton, that makes no sense.
If he steps down it’s not going to be an open primary, so it doesn’t matter what my ideal preference is because it’s the convention that would be picking the nominee, or it would possibly be Harris.
So I’m saying whoever that party pick is, I’d vote for them, and you’re saying that’s unacceptable for whatever reason. It’s Schrodinger’s politician, I don’t know who they’re going to pick until they pick them, and at the moment that they do select someone I will know who I’m voting for.
Anyone/anything. A dog, a pile of sawdust, don’t care as long as it’s not a genocidal right-winger.
This tells me you don’t have zero idea what it takes to satisfy the gape of the fence-sitters needed to beat Trump.
Democrats win when the left comes out, not the vapor that is undecided voters.
Anyone undecided about Trump at this point is not worth wasting your breath on.
Democrats, have for a decent period of time, showed up. Look at the votes in major elections since 2008. Republicans have only won on technicalities for a while now, exploiting weak points of our system like voter suppression/partisan judges/foreign assistance. When all that fails they attempt a coup.
You may think centrists are not worth your time, but they decide the purple electoral votes, and those are pivotal to winning outright. You will die of lack of oxygen holding your breath for them.
Are there fence-sitters? Pretty sure there are basically only dedicated Trump voters and people who’d vote for anyone but Trump.
If you have to ask if there are centrists who vote for whoever ruffles the least amount of feathers, I don’t even know what to say to you. You have literally zero idea why both parties spend millions on capturing that vote. You can’t fathom that there are people just fine with the status quo.
I can’t believe you actually asked that lmaoooo
Accelerationists would be encouraging people to plow ahead with Biden so trump wins…
Not trying to maximize chances to beat trump while there’s still time before the candidate is named.
trump is a huge threat to American democracy, and I dont see any other reason why so many people insist on a sub optimum candidate except they don’t care if trump wins.
It might be different if Biden didn’t have a 37% approval rating or a 56% disapproval rating.
But people just don’t like Biden, for various reasons he’s just not popular with voters. That’s why people bring up multiple reasons why Biden isn’t a good candidate, there’s just a lot of them. And added together they might let trump win like he did in 2016
Aren’t you making the same mistake you criticize here?
This issue is contentious because we’re all scared of Trump and we all know he has a real chance of winning. And the reality is we genuinely don’t know for sure which strategy can defeat him. People who don’t like Biden respond to this fear by calling for Biden to step down, because they genuinely think someone else would have a better shot. People who like Biden are doubling down because they’re afraid of a contentious replacement process or an untested candidate falling flat and they genuinely think Biden is the best option in this context.
But I don’t think there’s any reason to believe any of this stems from a place other than genuine concern for American democracy. Assuming ill intent just creates pointless anger among the left coalition and doesn’t get us any closer to actually defeating Trump.
People who like Biden are doubling down because they’re afraid of a contentious replacement process or an untested candidate falling flat and they genuinely think Biden is the best option in this context.
I don’t particularly care for Biden. He’s better than I expected, but certainly not ideal. He’s still pretty clearly the best option this election. Certainly not the best choice to run the country, but once you account for odds of success, there’s really not a viable alternative
Yeah, yeah, we’ve heard you regurgitate the same anti biden rhetoric for the last few months.
Because the seasons Biden is a bad candidate now are the same reasons he was a bad candidate a few months ago.
Genuine question. Why doesn’t Biden step down and let another Democrat run? Is there literally no other Democrat that could do better than Biden?
Regardless of what this tiny slice of politics you see here on Lemmy, there’s no way another Democrat has a chance this close to the election. I mean, can you name anyone who you think would do better?
Part of the problem I see is a major progressive generation gap at the top levels of elected government. Not even proper leftists, mind you, just progressives. Bernie Sanders is even older than Biden. The next oldest prominent name is AOC, who is almost 50 years younger and is only barely constitutionally eligible this year (by less than a month, even). There’s probably someone political wonks can name in between those two, but they’re not household names and would be unlikely to be able to spin up a campaign this quickly.
Decades of centrism have gutted the Democrats of anyone who could possibly stand up right now.
Maybe this is the difference between American and Canadian politics? In Canada, it isn’t unusual for a Prime Minister to step down and another person gets selected as Prime Minister. Not voted, selected, by the party in power. Biden would have been rotated with someone else by now.
During Brexit, that happened 4 times in a row! David Cameron stepped down and Theresa May took his place. She stepped down and Boris Johnson took her place. He stepped down and Liz Truss took his place, she stepped down (after just 40 days settings the record for shortest time as prime minister) and Rishi Sunak took her place. The general public didn’t vote for these people to be Prime Minister. They were selected by the party in power.
That’s why I’m sort of confused why Democrats don’t just pick someone else. In a parliamentary system it wouldn’t be a big deal. The general public are voting for a party, not a person.
If Biden steps aside, he won’t be president…
He’s not willing to do that to beat trump.
Which is one of the reasons people don’t like Biden. He’s all talk, but won’t actually do what he can to fight fascism.
Accelerationists would be encouraging people to plow ahead with Biden so trump wins…
Not trying to maximize chances to beat trump while there’s still time before the candidate is named.
I think this kind of highlights why the term “accelerationist” is a political fabrication, not an actual movement. No one I’ve met self-applies that label or wants fascism. I’d guess it’s because that term was created as short-hand pejorative to suppress or dismiss those who are trying to create real pressure or who simply can’t vote for someone so unapologetically genocidal.
I will not be voting for Biden ever again, but I will vote for nearly anyone else who might replace him because that would be enough of an indicator that Democrats can actually listen when pressed. They need to prove that if they want to win over voters who’ve been disillusioned by Biden’s genocide support.
I think you kind of articulated something that was puzzling me about how uncompromising some people are being about the possibility of Biden stepping aside and how they refuse to even entertain what a boon that would be to democratic chances in November – it’s one thing to say people should vote Biden because you believe he’s the only choice, it’s an entirely different and more suspicious thing to try and pre-empt the possibility of someone else with less baggage replacing him.
There’s signs of actual momentum in the party after the debate to try and find a way to convince Biden to step down (maybe by flattering his ego with his accomplishments or something and making him feel like he’ll have a legacy besides that of a mass murderer). I don’t see why anyone would dismiss that opportunity, given what we all know about Biden’s rock bottom approval.
I will not be voting for Biden ever again
Got it, so you want Trump to win.
Such a bullshit response.
Yeah? How so? Come November and the only viable choices are Biden and Trump, saying you’re never voting Biden means you’ll be helping Trump.
Gnash teeth and stomp feet all you want, but that’s the reality. Want more progressive candidate? Start local and start early.
If you think leftists “just” shifted to hating Biden, I’ve got news for you. In fact, I don’t know anybody, I mean ANYbody on the left that has nothing but distain for Biden for the last several years. Did you ever consider that people are allowed different opinions from you without being paid operatives.
So you’ll help destroy everything because biden bad to you?
Cool.
Yup. Don’t make me post the Goofy meme.
Tell me you’re white and straight without telling me you’re white and straight.
You won’t be distinguished from any of the other collaborators who brought about the fall.
Well enjoy our new hell. You have a chance and you’re gonna piss it away. Brilliant. You probably can read and everything.
If Trump wins then all these “Genocide Joe” people are going to learn the real meaning of that term, that’s for sure.
Are you suggesting that half a million people being intentionally starved somehow doesn’t constitute a genocide?
No, but I am suggesting that if Joe Biden isn’t still president this time next year, then there’s a good chance everyone in Gaza will be either dead or Israeli by then.
Thanks for clarifying, the ‘real meaning’ part was something I’ve heard people use to minimize what’s currently happening. I agree that Trump is going to be worse if he’s elected, I just don’t think that should stop people from criticizing the current response to it.
You’re off by a factor of four, but same idea I guess.
Not sure if you’re saying 10000x more or 10000x less people are starving, but that number seems off too. Half a million is the number I saw in an AP article from around a week ago.
I’m saying 4x. All of Gaza is being starved to death. You’re probably thinking of Northern Gaza, which is where the famine is at its worst, but that’s not because the rest of Gaza isn’t being starved. It’s just a matter of time.
Oh, I see what you mean now!
A factor is 10x more, that’s why I was confused about what you were saying.(edit: ignore this; I am dumb) The figure I saw might have been for people in acute starvation vs severe food insecurity or something like that. I know the situation is fucking dire regardless.A factor is 10x more
Isn’t that an order of magnitude?
Shit, you’re right, I confused the two terms. Thank you for the correction!
Not a tankie. I don’t want the US to collapse and burn, that’s going to end badly for a lot of people. I want us to reform and do better, though I’m now convinced that that’s not going to happen. I point this stuff out because I don’t think Biden can win. I didn’t think he could win last time, in all fairness, but he was and is a weak candidate, whose only shot lies in the democrats making the gamble that his opponent is weaker, which is kind of a stupid gamble to make imo. I don’t want Trump to win, I want the democrats to hit the republicans like a run away steam engine and smash this fascist bullshit into the dirt. I WANT NOTHING MORE THAN FOR RONALD REAGAN’S GRAVE TO BELCH BLACK SMOKE FOR A WEEK STRAIGHT THIS NOVEMBER. Instead we’re gambling if the guy who would have got sent home from being a Wal-Mart greeter with his debate performance can beat the guy who wants to hold military tribunals for political opposition. When Biden loses, I’m going to skullfuck the first Democrat who high-mindedly tells me this is really the fault of people not voting for their guy. No shit, do you want a gold star for that? Turns out when people don’t vote for candidates, they don’t win, whoda thunk it? Apparently not the goddamn DNC, since they keep seeing the ever-lowering RNC bar as an excuse to run correspondingly worse candidates each year instead of running a rock star that would shatter the Republicans. OH, what’s that, the republicans have opened a portal to Hell and are running just Hitler and Charlie Manson for their ticket? Oh boy, Joe Biden might be too far left to win against that, we better see if we can get the actual corpses of Milton Friedman and Henry Kissinger to run for us. Fuck off. Of course people aren’t excited to vote for a shitty candidate, because they’re a shitty candidate. Get someone who can speak in complete sentences for God’s sake.
My friend, I hear ya. And I agree. But you need to know that the time for those discussions was both years ago and constant, just not now.
We are 5 minutes to curtain.
No, you. I’ve been beating this drum since 2016 and “I get it, but now now” has always been the answer, and it was the answer in Obama II when we wanted codified gay marriage rights and more. If you’ve always just missed the boat, one starts to wonder if the boat was ever in the port to start with. And I think we both know the answer to that.
No amount of dithering about the conditions of things just now is going to change the fact that the candidate fucking sucks and, realistically, has not great chances of beating the bastard that wants to start having military tribunals for his political opponents. Biden has been looking and sounding pretty rough for the last six ish months, at least, and that debate performance was just the most pitiful thing I’ve ever seen. I’ve been watching the debates since Bush/Kerry, including Biden’s previous performances, and I’ve never seen a candidate perform so badly. On average, Biden was barely intelligible, and at worst he rebooted on stage and beat medicare. And that was not his stutter, we have previous debate performances to reference that can show that well enough. He would get sent home from helping people pay for their car wash, he is not up to the fucking job and everyone knows it. The last ten years have been pretty fucking stupid, but this is taking it to a new level.
No, you. I’ve been beating this drum since 2016 and “I get it, but now now” has always been the answer
What the heck are you talking about? What drum have you been banging for eight years? not-Biden?
You sound like maybe you don’t do a lot of work with political parties? It takes years for someone to get to a place to run for President. At least until trump, Putin, and Moscow Mitch all colluded to break everything for fascism.
You’ve got roughly NINE WEEKS to change the DNC nominee, and you’re like “Ugh this always happens! I think this is rigged!” C’mon.
Do you even have someone you want? Who?
Banging the drum of “why is the DNC throwing its full weight behind a garbage candidate and then shaming people for not being excited?” Or, more succinctly, “why, in the face of fascism, is the DNC sending us its worst candidates?” Hillary was wildly unpopular, everybody knew it, including the HRC campaign, which is why they worked with media organizations to promote Trump, because they figured they had their best chances against him. Biden didn’t exactly get anyone excited, especially when he showed up to the first primary debate looking half dead. Now we’ve got Biden again, who seems to put off the vibe that he’d struggle just with activities of daily living, much less running the country, and that’s the best the democrats can do to save us from straight up unironic fascism?! Are you fucking kidding me?
How about Newsom? He’s no flaming radical, and while he does have baggage from California, he’s a competent and well-spoken politician who’s used to an executive office. AOC? I’d go for fighting fascism with a (at least for USPol) “flaming radical”. I’ll fucking take Al Gore at this point. I’ll fucking take Vermin Supreme, and he’s more progressive than Obama was on gay rights. More seriously, I know there was somebody that I read up on, liked, and voted for in the CA primary, but I don’t recall their name and I don’t think they’d be a good fit because they’d be a real nobody. I honestly think Newsom, AOC, or a (politically) resurrected Al Gore would be among the better candidates, if only for name recognition.
I like Biden. He did very well, better than I think anyone expected. So don’t act like he’s shit-on-our-shoe. Yes, when he was on the tv box he didn’t throw a car or swing a magic hammer like we wanted, agreed it sucked, but this is becoming the new “Biden gEnOSiDE” carping point that means waaah we don’t participate in shit, and the people that do picked bad. Where the fuck were these people in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023? Possibly not of age to vote I guess, if so; fair enough.
I think Newsom has too much baggage for a sixteen week Presidential run. We move fast but that’s probably going to be a wash as far as can he do better than Biden. I’d think worse, actually. AOC isn’t old enough. I’m voting for her when she is. Al Gore - man, I dunno. He fucking had 2000 in the bag and dropped it. Maybe. I think he’s qualified and capable but the Murdochian Sewer Gremlins will have a field day with him. Also not worth it, I think.
No love for Deez Nutz? Okay, okay, going the traditional route with Vermin Supreme. Hey someone said Jon Stewart. I say hell yes. Let’s go pick him up and carry him to Washington and take care of business.
I’ve been voting reliably, including in midterms, since Obama I, so I don’t feel too bad about talking shit. Straight up, Biden surprised me positively quite a few times during his presidency. I’m a HUGE fan of what he and Pete have done to help revive rail infrastructure in the US. The genocide weighs, very, very heavily for me, such that I’d eagerly vote for a realistic alternative, but I recognize that Trump will make that situation far, far worse. All that said, my chief concern at this point is can Biden keep Trump out, and I have grave doubts about that.
AOC would be old enough by the inauguration IIRC, and I don’t personally think Newsom has too much baggage. What, specifically, does Newsom have as baggage besides the high crime of being governor of CA? As for Gore… Yeah, I feel like his concession was the first time this fascist bullshit was heavily rewarded at the federal level, but in his defense, I don’t think anyone understood the gravity of the situation at the time, USPol still had an air of respectability. Sure, I’d go for Stewart, as long as he could answer effectively about his SIMA policies.
What, specifically, does Newsom have as baggage besides the high crime of being governor of CA?
Nothing so much as he’s a magnet for right-wing media to shit on. That can’t be discounted because as we’ve seen every single time, the MAGAts love that crap, smear it around, and win elections wtih it.
(Edit: oh and being married to junior’s wife is going to be a thing)
Sure, I’d go for Stewart, as long as he could answer effectively about his SIMA policies.
I don’t know what SIMA is? Apparently either search is so befucked it can’t find somethign simple like SIMA or SIMA isn’t known to it. Is it Steel trade agreements? That’s the only thing I could see that was even remotely likely.
Yeah how dare people expect the self declared only ones who take the threat of fascism seriously in this country to fucking act like it then and recognize that letting the nation lose because you weren’t excited enough about the candidate is about as anti-fascist as calling the cops because you saw a black kid.
Use more periods, it’s free and the cops can’t stop you.
I think you are confusing showmanship with the ability to run a country in the state they come to the position and how much they can do from that point on.
Yes, showmanship is ever more relevant in winning elections, if not has been the most relevant thing even before. So it makes sense to put forward a good entertainer to win an election.
What you are wrong about is that most of the time, show people are just goddamn big liars and completely incompetent fools at ruling anything. It is fitting, tho, since all they do in their primary skill is to make people forget about problems by making them pay for a brief period of entertainment, nothing more.
Biden is an old bastard with a foot in the grave. He shouldn’t be out there running a country, but the current alternative is Trump that just plays to the audience and has no experience or aptitude for directing.
Yes, Biden should not have been running for president, and a balanced mix of showman and leader should have been out there instead, but who is that or who was that? A no-name in the political sense can’t be considered a showman, and we saw what other options could the left procure without stooping to Trump levels. They were not enough of a showman at all. So, why not go with the decently-competent decision maker instead of an unfunny showman?
The blame for not producing a balanced showman and a decision maker falls on two groups: One is the political organization of the Democrats, the other is their voter base. The political organization is corrupt to an extent no matter what you do about it. People with power careers form pacts within pacts. A full education reform is needed for quite some generations to get rid of tribalism and corruption. The voter base is irresponsible. They have lots of other responsibilities and pursuits in life, but a core decision about these falls on taking on the political responsibility, maybe more than other decisions directly affecting the daily lives at this period of the world’s history. Voters should not isolate themselves from being a talking part of candidate production of the political organisation, even if they don’t actively take part in the local representation. Even just been keen about which names are being talked about in the political organization would give the voters years ahead of an election, and those years would decide if a candidate candidate is popular or not liked within the political organization. Voter dislike for a candidate months before the election, and when the campaign process has already started, will hardly make an impact on even bringing the topic to a discussion of a change of candidate, let aside producing a better one.
On the contrary to asking for a change in candidate for a better one just months before an election is a complete show disunity, and such a lack of show of unity in voter base is even more damaging than a lack of show of showmanship in a candidate.
You keep hearing not now because you assholes are always picking this fight when it’s time for an election.
You’re not making a well considered demand for action, you’re wielding your privilege to threaten everyone else with letting the nazis come back again if they don’t fall in line behind whatever single issue of the day you’ve decided to tell people is moving you.
And the most infuriating part is that your lack of participation under those threats is exactly the goddamned problem. 30 million people participated in the 2016 primary, if y’all had spent as much of the energy turning out for it as ya did complaining about how everyone else did, Bernie would have won in a knockout. Double that for the general, green voters got to feel real high and mighty with their protest votes that would have flipped every single swing state and saved us from Trump in the first fucking place.
I have been voting, reliably, including in primaries and midterms, since Obama I. Somehow, mysteriously, we’ve arrived at this place where our last best hope of staving off full tilt Christian fascism for the next four years is probably too senile to be a night clerk at a gas station, which would tick me off a lot less if the democrats had been a little bit responsible and groomed Kamala as a successor or been a little more honest than letting people find out in the first presidential debate. I don’t want these assholes to win, pal. I’ll be fine, but lots of people won’t, and I’m not about that. For my part, I’m not comfortable sleepwalking into Christian Fascism because it offends mainstream Democrat sensibilities.
I’m convinced they’re just astroturfers. One of the many voter suppression tactics of the right.
So, voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t work. We’ve done that for 50 years, and all it’s achieved is a political duopoly that’s so far to the right that Democrats are now where Republicans were. How does your political strategy of voting for right-wingers change that?
Is all you have to offer “slow the slide into fascism marginally until the general public acclimates to fascism”? Because that’s what the lesser of two evils gets us.
-
I don’t see that the US has tried voting for the lesser of two evils. The Democrats have only had full control of Congress and the presidency for… I think it ended up being like 11 months or so in modern history. The brief period of Obama’s term when the planets aligned and some intra-term weirdness happened in Congress that allowed the ACA to pass.
-
I never proposed a strategy of voting for right-wingers.
-
What do you propose and how will that help?
Yes, the ACA was born as a Republican bill, and this was after Obama promised abortion would be the first thing on his list when they got the super majority. Then he simply said it “wasn’t a priority any longer” when that chance came. It illustrates exactly why establishment Democrats are complicit in the loss of our fundemental rights, they are not willing or prepared to seize on opportunities to fight fascism the way fascists are prepared to seize opportunities to undermine our democracy.
Dems don’t want to resolve issues like abortion, if they didn’t have that they’d have to start talking about campaign finance reform and election procedures (proving how we vote) etc. It’s much easier to just be locked in an unwinnable struggle with other corporate conservatives from the other team.
I never proposed a strategy of voting for right-wingers.
Joe Biden is a right-winger, having a D next to his name doesn’t change that. I’m talking about right-wing Democrats.
What do you propose and how will that help?
If you want the party to change, you stop rewarding them for propping up MAGA chuds to make their own right-wing candidates appear more palatable. You draw a line (maybe at something like genocide support) and don’t cross it until the Democrats are starved enough to stop their games. The politicians are suppose to work for us, not vice versa, and they simply will not listen until their power is seriously threatened.
Lol exactly you’re just spouting GOP talking points.
Even the simplest question of “what do you propose we do” you a see with “stop supporting the only chance to stop the GOP right now”. 100% complaints with no actual solutions.
I think we’re trying to solve different problems, that’s what you’re confused about. You’re thinking in the immediate term, about what’s right in front of your face right now making you so scared. That’s how you get led around by the nose every election cycle, voting for Republican-lite, solving nothing, leading us further down the road to fascism with every wasted administration.
I’m thinking in terms of solving the long term problem that has brought us to the point of fascism; the corruption and ineptitude of the Democratic party. The Democratic party represents the only potential avenue out of the fascist predicament that the GOP and right-wing Democrats have put us in, but they aren’t equipped or willing to actually fight, they need to be made so. The only way that happens is by twisting their arm and not giving into their extortion tactics, they need to be shown that it’s not politically viable.
You see the American people as fragile, I do not. I think that’s the fundamental difference in our approaches here. You’re afraid of personal discomfort, sacrifice and conflict and that’s how you operate politically, trying to save your bubble of comfort at all costs. But there is no saving it, and many other Americans and people around the world have been living (and being killed) outside that bubble already for a long time.
We don’t live in an era where we get to just be comfortable and pretend everything is fine, the Boomers got that. We live in an era where we have to face tyrants and our democratic institutions have been corrupted pretty much beyond function by the two parties.
The starting point is reform of the Democratic party through whatever means necessary, the rest is secondary until we have politicians willing to fight. Filling political offices with empty suits and fascist-lite politicians is counter-productive. Don’t let the lesser of two evils be the enemy of good.
-
You just said a lot of things that are wrong in a very short amount of time, try to fact check yourself instead of spreading FUD and misinformation.
This is the only thing I’m going to correct, you can fix yourself on the rest:
So voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t work. We’ve done that for the past 50 years…
No we haven’t. We vote for the lesser of two evils every other election or so, then get butt hurt and stop voting because Clinton’s emails, or because Gore is boring, or some other dumbass reason like that.
No one’s spreading “FUD”, I’m quite certain that less evil Democrats have not stopped our slide into fascism because I’ve witnessed it. We’re living the results of your strategy right now at this very moment. Does it feel like you’re “slowly winning”?
It sure fucking did til people like you landed us trump
That was Clinton and the DNC who gave you Trump, not the voters.
Biden isnt to blame for gaza, but you still hate him for not doing all he can to stop untold suffering
Same thing here, but voting is a lot simpler, and a lot less negative consiquences for the one doing it
Ah yes, it’s a good thing there was only 35,000+ people murdered (half of them children), doctors executed and imprisoned, patients left to die in their beds, 70-80% of infrastructure decimated, millions displaced and forced into a tiny space with no food, water, fuel or medicine where they’re now dying en mass to starvation and the ones that do survive will suffer the consequences of acute malnutrition for the rest of their lives.
I’m so glad we avoided “untold suffering” by continuing to deliver bombs and aid to the far-right genocidal government.
Providing cover for Biden’s complicity here is utterly disgusting.
Oh no, you don’t understand, if you’re not for Biden, you’re obviously a pro-Trump shill. There’s no room left for nuance.
It’s why political discourse is all but dead. You see this same braindead take all over the place. Dems constantly saying how braindead Reps are, but then constantly throwing out bad faith arguments and strawmen. But if you point out the flaws, you’re just a shill who can be ignored.
We’re doomed.
I don’t want trump, I’ve said before that I think that his complicity in Gaza isn’t only abhorrent but will lose him the election. Not exactly a stretch to then say “Oh and it turns out he is sunsetting too?” It sure seems like somebody else would be a better call to again not have trump. Give me Whitmer, Warren, Buttigieg, Duckworth, Ocasio-Cortez, Warnock, or Abrams and I’ll be happy.
But it’s just not that simple. Israel is inextricable from a huge area of US power in the region - for better or the obvious worse that’s the case. We’ve been given what we’ve been given. If you think we should shut down all ties and delete the existing structure, say that. The ramifications may not be wonderful, particularly if one is unfamiliar with what those ramifications are.
And. AGAIN. As we know Trump has suggested Israel nuke them, he’s 100% on board for complete displacement, and I’ll bet large dollars he’ll collect real estate in the ensuing debacle. Biden is THE option. Trump or Biden. Certain death or a good government.
Every other conversation at this time is secondary at best, or in many cases deliberately inflammatory at worst.
It could be as simple as Biden releasing a new report to update the one where they said “gee it looks, acts, and talks like a genocide, but we are still going to give Israel plausible deniability so we can keep sending them bombs” and firmly conclude its a genocide thus legally requiring the US to stop supplying arms.
Like I said in my first comment, twice even, I don’t want trump. So I don’t give a shit what his policy would be. I know it would be horrific, that’s not even a question. I think replacing Biden is more likely to save us from Trump, so trying to convince me Biden is better than Trump about foreign policy fully doesn’t matter.
You’re saying Biden is the option, but clearly myself and a significant portion of other voters in swing states would like another candidate more. Biden’s performance was awful, something that appears to be particularly relevant to swing state voters: https://puck.news/biden-plunges-in-swing-states-in-leaked-post-debate-poll/
I think nominating a feeble old man in his twilight years is going to be our doom if we let it happen. There should have been a primary, Biden is unfit and his staff know it. You can plug your ears and march into fascism saying Biden is the only choice, but passing the nomination to someone who is still all there might actually turn things around.
You’re saying Biden is the option, but clearly myself and a significant portion of other voters in swing states would like another candidate more.
Hahaha. Oh man. You know how many times they’ve gone with the candidate I didn’t like as much? EVERY. TIME. EVERY! TIME! something like forty fucking years of “oh for fuck’s sake . . well, it’s better than Idi Amin the republicans are running”. Joe’s administration has done a lot of great things even Obama didn’t (okay, wait, i guess i lied - I did want Obama the first time. The second time it wasn’t a choice. But he was kinda the only one in my entire voting life)
It comes down to: trump or not. You’re saying you’re gonna let trump win and it’s the democrats’ fault.
You can plug your ears and march into fascism saying Biden is the only choice
Unless he steps aside HE IS. THE ONLY CHOICE. Does it suck not having my preferred candidate? Yes!! Is it much better than trump? YES.
I’m not putting a lot of stock in them replacing him, but you seem to think it’s likely for some reason. It just smells like one of those month-long (or god forbid, longer) news stories that doesn’t mean shit. Hey, if you wanna get in there and scrap with them to replace him, better get to it, time’s almost up.
But if you’re the average reasonable literate person seeing this in the news and thinking “let me join the comments about how bad Biden is”, I don’t care. The Democrat Who Will Beat Trump is getting my vote. And that person is who the DNC picks. And one ill-conceived debate performance (i fucking said it would blow up in their faces and - here we fuckin’ are) does not mean let’s crack each other’s heads open and feast on the goo inside.
Who’s on this just-about-to-happen DNC Presidential ticket change that you want to see? Who would get you to be 100% on board? Anyone? 90% on board?
I literally gave you seven names in my first comment. I understand you’ve given up on ever making the world better, but try not to get in the way just because you’re so fucking bitter.
Give me Whitmer, Warren, Buttigieg, Duckworth, Ocasio-Cortez, Warnock, or Abrams
AOC is too young atm, unfortunately. Warnock is . . inexperienced. Warren ran and lost a couple times already. Buttigieg still needs time and Whitmer will whip a stapler at your head. Abrams, like Stacey Abrams? You wanna put her in place of Biden when she just lost the governor’s race for the second time in a row? Hey, I love Stacey Abrams, I’d love her in office but you’re not going to win that. And that as a suggestion tells me you’re not familiar enough with backing failed campaigns. My bitterness is earned. I hope you don’t get any.
AOC can run, she will be 35 before inauguration which is what counts.
Biden ran and lost a couple times before he made it against Trump, Warren is more progressive than most of Congress and has already endured Trumps barrages of insults and came out of the wringer intact. Berners are going to struggle to accept her, but she is a compromise candidate between the center and the left.
Buttigieg could do with some more time perhaps, but he’s aces in interviews and at least competent in debates. I’m not fond of his work history, but he’s better than Biden. Young is also a bonus when you’re shifting off of a candidate because they are ancient and can’t reasonably do the job anymore.
Being from Michigan I think I like Whitmer less than most of the country, but she’s popular here and a recognized name in most States. I really doubt we would get Medicare for all with her, but she’s at least a continuation of Biden’s agenda on a way more marketable individual.
As for Abrams she lost in a race where her opponent ‘oversaw’ the election. Personally I don’t know if Georgia will go Blue this election, but I think she is recognized in other States and has the kind of activism experience I wish more candidates came to the table with.
Put that against Biden, who has been quietly helping a genocide along, whose single primary win was because he made deals with his opponents to get them to drop out, and who gave a debate performance that was so bad Trump’s deranged lying couldn’t even hold the news cycle.
Put that against Biden, who has been quietly helping a genocide along
“quietly helping a genocide along”? C’mon man. He’s been as vocal as a responsible president can be to say Israel is way out of line and he’s pissed off about it. He’s blocked the arms sales the republiQans eventually forced him to make. He’s told Blinken to kick Bibi in the nuts repeatedly. Quietly helping. Please. Is there no one who understands what agreements are? What a treaty is? What foreign policy is FOR? The situation is dire and super fucked up - I don’t think Biden would disagree at all. Quietly helping. FFS. Like he’s all tee hee this will hurt Palestine for sure heh heh heh. Quietly helping.
whose single primary win was because he made deals with his opponents to get them to drop out,
Yeah it’s usually not done to run against a sitting President who has declared for re-election. For a number of reasons. Those people ran to make those deals. (And to stroke their egos) That’s not Biden buying people off that’s Biden understanding how politics works. Yes it’s gross. Duh.
and who gave a debate performance that was so bad Trump’s deranged lying couldn’t even hold the news cycle.
Well. You got me there. It’s true. Agreed on your assessments of the other politicians as well, with the exception of Abrams - she was absolutely cheated in her first run but in her second she had worked for four years to get her voters, who where highly motivated, together and still lost. She’d get my vote but I don’t think she’d come close (yet).
Nope, genocide is still the number one issue.
TIL that CNN and the NYT are the “online left”.
But I can’t help but notice the anti-Biden “left” shifted hard from Genocide Joe to Bad debate Performance without skipping a beat or looking back.
How are people using this like it’s some kind of own? A person can be bad for two reasons lol, he’s still Genocide Joe and he’s also senile.
Also accellerationism is dumb.
