284
submitted 9 months ago by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 67 points 9 months ago

The guy running against Biden has far worse policies with regard to Muslims. If that guy wins it "proves" America wants the worse policies, potentially causing Democrats to switch to those policies to try to win.

Luckily, this is a publicity stunt that I don't foresee changing any actual votes.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago

If Biden's stance on Israel is driving away voters, that's just normal. This is one of those important polarizing issues, and he can't avoid accountability, for good or bad. The death count and coverage has guaranteed that.

As for "America wants" language, that doesn't mean anything. Different people have different goals.

[-] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Who are Zionists actually voting for? If it's not the Democratic party, then why would he continue to be pro-Israel? Whom is he pandering to with that stance?

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

There are many reasons politicians might be pro war. The military industrial complex is too powerful, among other things.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee -4 points 9 months ago

for "America wants" language, that doesn't mean anything. Different people have different goals.

Sure, it's shorthand, but the idea is that the Democratic Party might nominate a presidential candidate who has harsher views about Muslims and Palestine, if they see those views being the reason they lost, or among the reasons they lost.

They would see that they had the "better" policies and still didn't get the votes from the people who care most passionately about them, so their approach did not work. Maybe they go closer to the protesters view to try to get their votes, or maybe they give up on the protesters as a voting bloc since they couldn't even get their vote when they had the "better" policies. That would entail going further away from the protesters views.

Either could happen, I don't know the polling, but my point is that it isn't just "we will take 4 years of Trump to make our point and make Democrats listen," they may be taking 4 years of Trump and then proving that no one should align their policy views with theirs going forward because it hurts more than it helps.

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Rationally, you have a valid point.

But I can totally understand people who can't bring themselves to vote for someone actively supporting a genocide. Something that Trump didn't do during his tenure in office.

Lesser of two evils only works when the distinction is clear to everyone.

Biden needs to separate himself from Israeli genocidal politics, and it seems his cabinet is trying to shift.

So in conclusion, you might consider this a publicity stunt. And maybe it is. But recent elections have shown that you can't ignore your base, you need to fire them up to really turn them out.

So this is definitely a good move.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

But I can totally understand people who can't bring themselves to vote for someone actively supporting a genocide. Something that Trump didn't do during his tenure in office.

Trump provided military assistance, approved arms sales, and personally vetoed a bill to end US military assistance to the Saudis in Yemen which is considered a genocide as well.

And his Israel "peace plan" was literally just giving the Israelis everything they wanted so if you're giving him credit for Israel/Palestine actions you're literally just giving him credit for not being the president when this happened. He absolutely would have been worse for Palestinians, he just didn't have the power at the time.

[-] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 0 points 9 months ago

Then they stay home to vote "neither of the above" or in more active form cast ballot voting for "Mickley mouse" aka foiled ballot.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

But I can totally understand people who can’t bring themselves to vote for someone actively supporting a genocide. Something that Trump didn’t do during his tenure in office.

Trump was trying to oppress them personally. Maybe sympathy for those suffering a genocide is more important to them than their own safety, but maybe it shouldn't be.

Also, do you really think Trump wouldn't support Israel killing every last Palestinian they could?

[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

...and the American base never fails to show its sheer, utter stupidity.

this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
284 points (87.4% liked)

politics

18821 readers
4696 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS