151
Biden said to be increasingly frustrated by dismal poll numbers
(www.washingtonpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
151 points (87.9% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2245 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not voting for Joe solely because of his unwavering support for Israel.
I'll vote third party and whatever happens, happens.
If joe-supporters have a problem with it, they can support better candidates in the next election.
Enjoy the Trump presidency then, someone who whole-heartedly supports the genocide even more than Biden.
~~Yeah, I'd rather vote for no genocide than the lesser genocide.~~
~~I guess hurting the genocide-supporters is a bonus.~~
Sorry, I thought about it and there is no 'lesser-genocide.' Genocide Joe has done nothing to curtail Israel's genocide. Literally nothing.
And in so doing you will help get the greater genocide elected. Congrats, you managed to achieve an even worse outcome than you wanted.
Nah, it's the people voting for genocide that got genocide to win.
See how there's no winning unless you support genocide?
Because the US is a two-party system due to first past the post voting. Until the country adopts ranked-choice or single transferable vote, there will only be two parties. A vote against one party is simply a vote for the other party.
So by voting third party you are voting for the Republicans. Congrats on supporting the greater genocide.
Just a reminder, this is what happened in 2016. If you wrapped up all the Green Party and Libertarian Party votes and gave them to Hillary instead in the swing states, she would've won. Instead, those third-party voters helped doom us to a lifetime of higher taxes due to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, the politicization of a deadly disease that is now endemic, a court system with a supermajority that is more interested in stripping away rights rather than granting them, and the very real threat of the discarding of our democracy as we know it.
There's more to it than that, but both of these men are known quantities, and one is orders of magnitude worse. Any vote not for Biden will be a vote for a massive increase in genocide rather than status quo, which while unfortunate gives us a chance for a tomorrow where that doesn't happen.
Why don't the democrats support ranked-choice voting, then?
What has Biden done to curtail the genocide of Palestinians? There is no lesser genocide because Biden is a Zionist.
Because they get elected by the current system.
Helped negotiate a ceasefire that Hamas broke, and has spoken publicly about Israel not doing enough to avoid civilian casualties. Not much I admit, and far from enough, but not nothing.
The US could send more money and weapons to Israel and publicly support the killing of civilians. So yes, there is a lesser genocide.
People abstaining or not voting democrat in 2016 because they were mad Sanders didn't get the nomination led to a Trump presidency. It didn't help make the Dems move more to the left, it didn't help people get more social services. It just led to a vastly more right wing era that was hostile to minorities, removed many LGBTQ+ protections, ended abortion protections, and enshrined a corrupt supreme court for the next few decades.
But I'm sure you're so happy to return to such a government to stick it to Joe Biden.
Really? Looked to me like the prisoner exchange was what got a ceasefire. Do you legitimately believe Biden was the cause of it? I don't, especially considering how little impact he has on everything else happening in the area.
The US is already sending Israel everything it wants and has pledged its support. If you can cite an example of the Biden administration withholding aid to Israel, then you would have a point. All I've seen were empty threats.
I'm happy to do my part in breaking an endless cycle. You're happy to do your part in perpetuating it. If you have a problem with me, then you need to change to get my support.
The US was heavily involved in mediating the talks, and getting the ceasefire extended.
Everything the current administration wants. They could absolutely send way more if they wanted to, and the Republicans certainly would.
That would be you, because a Republican government = more gerrymandering, more fascist laws, more restricted voting, a more right wing judicial system, all of which leads to less ability to vote against them.
Congrats on being a Republican puppet, and making the country more right wing authoritarian.
Really? How?
No, everything Israel wants. Do you have any examples to the contrary?
Maybe once it gets bad enough, people like you will start fighting back instead of rolling over.
To think, we could be talking about a legitimately new president without Trump having ever entered office.
Do you blame the democrats for nominating Hillary Clinton, or the independents who didn't fall in line? Why isn't it the responsibility of those who support Hillary/Joe to fall in line if a Progressive wins the nomination?
IIRC they acted as a go between Israel and Qatar to enable talks in the first place, and they threatened reduced support if Israel didn't agree to a ceasefire. But those articles were from a month ago, and I cannot find them now.
Do you honestly think if the US was like here's $100 billion more Israel would turn it down? The US could send way more money.
Ah yes, let's allowing a fascist dictator with absolute power to rise in order to potentially start a doomed rebellion because I don't like something the government is doing. You think 1 million Palestinians potentially being killed is bad, but you're A-OK with starting a civil war that will result in 10s of millions of deaths? You really have to get your priorities straight.
Them, I blame them. Sanders would not have won a general election, he is too far left for the vast majority of Americans. But the minority that did support him would have been enough to tip the scales in the Dems favor, allowing the country to avoid the ultra-right wing hell it now finds itself in.
That doesn't make any sense. If independents prefer Sanders and Republicans hate Hillary, then you're only going to lose voters by alienating independents.
Republicans were never going to vote for her.
I see what the problem is now. You legitimately believe Hillary was a better choice than Bernie against Trump, even though she lost.
I can't reason with people like you because you refuse to see reason. You will do whatever the establishment tell you to because they're always right and you just have to go along with it (even when they're wrong.)
Sorry, this paragraph just oozes reddit-brain. I'm gonna let you think on why rational people won't take such charged comments seriously. I'd be here all fucking night unraveling this bullshit like it's a Calabi–Yau manifold.
Anyways, I've said my piece. You seem like no matter what you're going to believe you're correct, so I'll just let you have the last word and we can be done with it.
Goodbye.
You're forgetting the moderate Dems, 60 million + people, and a much larger voting Bloc than the socialist independents.
Yes, Bernie would have certainly lost too. And lets not forget Hillary actually did win the popular vote.
Why do you think Bernie would have beat Trump given the vast majority of US voters are right wing?
What do you think a resistance would lead to if not armed conflict?
Funny how often stubborn people who refuse to see reason say this. Nice projection.
Both.
Unless they're a DNC candidate, they won't.
Do you know how many people you need to convince to move over to one, not several, third party?
Let's look at the 2020 election results:
Are you going to convince seventy five million people to choose one single other candidate?
And what then? You realize if they did win, they just become the new establishment, right?
What happens when someone like you doesn't like the way Hawkins handled the mess at the border that Trump left and starts another "shit sandwich, fart taco" fiasco about moving to a 4th party?
The green party got 0.2% of the total vote, man. That's not enough. That's not nearly enough. You need over 50.0%, and they were aiming for 5.0%.
Do you know anything about the electoral college?
Whoever you vote for as a write it, it will be spelled “Trump” in the end.
I get your frustration, but this is the way our system works. You have to vote for the lesser of two evils, more often than not. I wanted Bernie in 2016, but I still voted for that cunt Hillary, because it was either her or Trump. Unless you’re certain your state will go Blue in 2024, a vote for a third party is functionally a vote for Trump. If you’re in a swing state, your protest will only amount to getting a person you like even less than Biden elected, and you’ll be part of the problems that creates.
My real frustration is having to deal with people like you every time I say I'm doing something independent.
Ahh well. I hope Trump wins just so people like you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. That's a boon in my eyes because otherwise you're never going to change.
If you don't like it, run better candidates. Perhaps a few losses will get that through your heads. Hillary clearly wasn't enough.
Good. I love vote shaming.
You lost us Roe v. Wade.
I'm sorry you feel that way. If a certain justice had retired sooner we would've been able to replace them during a Democratic presidency instead of the Trump presidency that we got because Hillary lost.