what they get done outside of the supreme court since 2016?
Mostly on a state level with their relentless crackdown on Abortion, LGBTIQ+ rights and so on, on a nationwide level? Not so much and hopefully this stays so with Trump losing in November.
what they get done outside of the supreme court since 2016?
I heard some political commentators and people saying that the war in Gaza might hurt Biden's reelection. I find that kind of funny because do people really think Trump would handle it differently? I guess people may just not vote as a protest if that is the most important issue for them. But I think it would be crazy to think that Trump/republicans would handle it differently.A lot of people are now learning that the mild-mannered, 'a bit ineffectual but ultimately well-meaning' image of the democrats (including their 'progressive' wing) is a total lie. I'm really happy to see this be exposed so clearly for so many people.
The point is that your vote is your leverage that you can withhold (or threaten to withhold) to compel your political party to act differently. If people go "well Biden is the lesser evil", he has no incentive whatsoever to change his current policy or acknowledge the discontent in his base. But if Biden knows he might lose Michigan (and possibly the election) because of his stance in Gaza, then he might have an incentive to act differently.I heard some political commentators and people saying that the war in Gaza might hurt Biden's reelection. I find that kind of funny because do people really think Trump would handle it differently? I guess people may just not vote as a protest if that is the most important issue for them. But I think it would be crazy to think that Trump/republicans would handle it differently.
I don't think it should surprise you that committing a genocide hurts a president's re-election chances. It would seem to me that it is a less-than-bare-minimum ethical responsibility to not vote for someone actively and enthusiastically facilitating a genocide. There are many Arabs and Muslims in the United States who take this quite seriously as well, which should not surprise anyone either.I heard some political commentators and people saying that the war in Gaza might hurt Biden's reelection. I find that kind of funny because do people really think Trump would handle it differently? I guess people may just not vote as a protest if that is the most important issue for them. But I think it would be crazy to think that Trump/republicans would handle it differently.
I guess I'm accustomed to people believing in a "pragmatic" approach which is that given that Trump and Biden are virtually identical on this issue, you would still vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't have any problems with a protest no-vote, I think its a good sign that people are willing to do that rather than simply clicking the box for whichever personI don't think it should surprise you that committing a genocide hurts a president's re-election chances. It would seem to me that it is a less-than-bare-minimum ethical responsibility to not vote for someone actively and enthusiastically facilitating a genocide. There are many Arabs and Muslims in the United States who take this quite seriously as well, which should not surprise anyone either.
this is literally just the "I can't tell the difference" meme but redwashed and vague. If you can't tell the difference between a fascist paramilitarist party that actively flirts with neo-Nazis and a milquetoast liberal government that's historically moved on foreign policy at a crawl, you're very simply not the antifascist you think you are. There's no rational justification for this position and it's impossible to look at it any different from that of the "what about antifa!!!" concern trolls.I feel like the only good thing about Biden winning in 2020 is that it revealed the hypocrisy of the most enthusiastic sections of the democratic voter base, as well as 'progressive' democratic politicians. in an alternate reality where won and did the *exact* same things as biden, you would have had total outrage from almost all of those people. they also would have said things like "biden would have stopped this," etc. so it is at least good to see that hypocrisy made more obvious to us!
This really strikes me as a very American (derogatory) take on the situation. Under the Biden administration we've seen the greatest shift against giving Israel free reign in the region among any administration. Same goes for Canada under Trudeau. In my city, "pro-Palestine" student activism is mostly dominated by people who aren't from the Middle East, mostly white (except for one very large Black woman) self-identified communists. A few months ago, these individuals spent an hour crashing a Liberal Party event to lecture a room full of Muslims in the Middle East that they "support genocide." They didn't move anyone on the issue and clearly didn't try to (at one point telling the room "we don't care what you think"). Instead of getting people to talk about Palestine, they ended up shutting down discussion on the subject among attendees ON TOP OF having the people who showed up to actually advocate for Palestine (including myself, which I've been doing for a decade) heckle them for being such shitty activists. It's been months since and these people still don't have a website with more than 20 minutes of effort put in. They're pretending to advocate for genocide victims but can't be fucking bothered to put in any real effort to further any concrete goal for improving life in Gaza. Meanwhile, literally every Palestinian I know except one is VOLUNTEERING for the Liberals because they quite literally have family on the line during the next election.I think if you zoom in and look at individual policies, you can find areas where the democrats are 'better' than the republicans for sure. The problem is when you zoom out and recognize that this is just an expression of their strategy for maintaining rule of the rich: make small concessions in order to placate their population, playing the 'good cop' while doing nothing to actually significantly curtail the republicans because they actually share the same goal, just with different strategies.
We can see this clearly right now because of the genocide the democrats are currently facilitating. They are searching for some kind of token concession they can make that will stop their population from rising up in rejection of their mass slaughter of Palestinians. So we see antony blinken periodically expressing 'concerns,' biden doing some sort of temporary pause on arms shipments in order to make it look like he's not fully committed to this genocide, weird calls for 'temporary ceasefires,' and so on.
We can also see the limitations to the strategy and how the democrats will abandon this strategy when needed. What the people are demanding is something that the elites are unwilling to give; if token concessions don't work, okay, just have the cops beat the shit out of college students and professors if that's what it takes. And this when the demand is 'stop murdering children'!!
A lot of people are now learning that the mild-mannered, 'a bit ineffectual but ultimately well-meaning' image of the democrats (including their 'progressive' wing) is a total lie. I'm really happy to see this be exposed so clearly for so many people.
So not only are we now escalating to accusing Joe Biden of committing a genocide, we're now actively "hoping" that a fascist victory will "motivate" people to "join movements." I'm not going to lie, I'm thoroughly disgusted by this take, which speaks again to my point about Westerners absolutely disregarding the interests of those they've appointed themselves as advocates for, in the self-absorbed pursuit of building a nonspecific "movement" that doesn't exist. If Joe Biden is committing a genocide because he's not doing enough on Gaza, what does that say about you backing a victory for the party whose leaders openly fantasize about glassing Gaza and completely eradicating the presense of Palestinians? If your preference is for Trump to win, you can stop pretending you care about Palestinians.I don't think it should surprise you that committing a genocide hurts a president's re-election chances. It would seem to me that it is a less-than-bare-minimum ethical responsibility to not vote for someone actively and enthusiastically facilitating a genocide. There are many Arabs and Muslims in the United States who take this quite seriously as well, which should not surprise anyone either.
I don't think the framing of this as a generational issue is correct. It's true that younger people are more supportive of Palestine and less supportive of Israel, but there are many many people of all ages who are of course against the United States facilitating a genocide.
As for whether Trump would handle it differently, here is the difference as I see it: I think a large number of democratic voters and 'progressive leaders' who are currently doing little to nothing about this genocide, would be in an uproar and out in the streets on a regular basis if it were Trump doing it instead. So yes, I think it is pretty likely that Trump does win in November. What we can be hopeful about is the possibility that this will motivate some people who are currently apathetic into actually taking action and joining movements that aim to create real change.
Quintessentially American-ass take. They literally killed a million people during COVID and tried initiating a paramilitary coup that saw half a dozen people die. They rolled back civil rights to the fucking McKinley era. Several minorities are now the target of violent campaigns aimed at intimidating them and muting civil society responses.what they get done outside of the supreme court since 2016?
Sorry dude, but if Joe Biden isn't the fascist dictator ruling by fiat that we pretend to be against, he's actually just as bad as the actual fascists [/s]. American political discourse is so poisoned that if everything isn't magically solved in 4 years that there's genuinely a segment of the population that will just entirely abandon any principles or values they pretend to have, because the FEELING of power (specifically, of "punishing the establishment") matters more than any amount of Palestinian life.This tweet is extrapolating the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate portion and other climate legislation so far, not the Biden admin’s or the Democrats ultimate aims on the climate front. Read the disclaimer at the bottom for the scenarios considered. Additional legislation could drive it down even more and is not factored into the projections. We weren’t going to hit the target in one bill or even one presidential term, but not everything has to be done in one fell swoop. The positive vision is “look what we did with one piece of legislation, that’s a lot of progress! Think about what we could do with more opportunities?”
Withholding a person's vote has never, ever convinced parties to take the withholders' position. Literally all it does is push parties to attract more reliable swing voters by taking more middling positions. Mark my words, a Biden loss will push the Democratic Party rightward.The point is that your vote is your leverage that you can withhold (or threaten to withhold) to compel your political party to act differently. If people go "well Biden is the lesser evil", he has no incentive whatsoever to change his current policy or acknowledge the discontent in his base. But if Biden knows he might lose Michigan (and possibly the election) because of his stance in Gaza, then he might have an incentive to act differently.
He's not fucking facilitating a genocide, he's literally made an entire 180 on US foreign policy on Israel. Stop pretending to care about Palestinians when you can't even approach the issue honestly. It's one thing to say he's not doing enough and another entirely to act as if Joe Biden is personally ordering the IDF.Your post is basically you wildly misrepresenting me, complaining about some very specific group that bothered you personally, and yelling at someone else for simply asking a question.
Not really sure how to address the parts that are directed at me. You claim that I say that it's impossible to tell the difference between the democrats and republicans--not something I said. You claim that I support Trump winning--not something I said. Is it reasonable for you to misrepresent me in this way, and should I feel obligated to respond?
Back in 2020 when many people, possibly including you, supported Biden and said he would be amazing and progressive and that it's absolutely imperative to vote for him, probably 0% of those people predicted that he would end up actively facilitating a genocide. That is something they only would have ever thought Trump capable of. And if Trump had won, and if he was instead the one committing a genocide, as we speak we would be seeing those people in this very thread, crowing about how "biden would have stopped this" and blaming people for not holding their noses and voting for him. Yet, here we are, and in our reality biden did win, and those same people who would have been crying on their hands and knees if trump had murdered palestinians are now defending it because it's biden who's doing it. So, the very benign little point I made there was: at least those people have been exposed. It's a sad thing, it's not exactly a win because there is no winning when your country is actively facilitating a genocide, but at least those people are exposed, will continue to be marginalized forever, and hopefully will never become relevant ever again.
Because the Democratic Party isn't undertaking an attempt to shape the US into an autocracy. Y'all pretend that you're against fascism until it comes to demanding Democrats rule an American dictatorship. Aside from the fact that becoming head of state is literally the definition of a successful organised crime figure, this REEKS of that tired American exceptionalist belief that America is uniquely capable of restraining authoritarian leadership.I don't get why people say "Democratic Party is UwU small bean, they don't have to do major big things at once, long-term legislation and compromise!" while at the same time believing that the least competent crime boss in America becoming President (again, he's already been it before) will allow him to Prestige into a God Emperor that kills Democracy and gets a 25+ killstreak and Nuke it all forever.
For you, I guess? If someone else genuinely reads that part of my post and is confused, thinking it might mean i actually support trump and think he is great, please let me know, and I will be happy to clarify for you. I will not clarify for this guy because he is being rude and it feels like he might be intentionally misinterpreting me to try and make me look bad, rather than genuinely wanting clarification.There's no way to interpret "What we can be hopeful about is the possibility that this will motivate some people who are currently apathetic into actually taking action and joining movements that aim to create real change" as anything other than hope for a Trump victory.
I feel like your messages here have the idea that establishment Liberals actually hate fascism, or is opposed to fascism in an actual effective sense.Because the Democratic Party isn't undertaking an attempt to shape the US into an autocracy. Y'all pretend that you're against fascism until it comes to demanding Democrats rule an American dictatorship. This REEKS of that tired American exceptionalist belief that America is uniquely capable of restraining authoritarian leadership.
I was reading that post as a new observer and thinking in my head, "holy shit what is this dude's problem? Is this how these people communicate?" And the first reply let's me know I'm not insane. I was so relieved.Your post is basically you wildly misrepresenting me, complaining about some very specific group that bothered you personally, and yelling at someone else for simply asking a question.
People said this? From what I remember, the progressive consensus on Biden in 2020 was that he was a thoroughly uninspiring candidate who almost certainly wouldn't keep many of the promises that he was making. It was only Trump's catastrophic botching of COVID that motivated such a large wave of support for his opponent; rhetoric about "harm reduction" and "lesser evils" dominated the discourse that I saw. To this day, I wholeheartedly believe that Trump would have cruised to a second term with ease if he had come out in March with a statement about how masking and social distancing were the patriotic things to do.Back in 2020 when many people, possibly including you, supported Biden and said he would be amazing and progressive and that it's absolutely imperative to vote for him
To your questions: No, no, and it doesn't. All I intended to point out there is that both Israel and the larger Muslim world are responsible for amping up the mutual ethnic division/hatred in what was 2,000 years ago a single culture (though so is imperialism from the Seleucids onward), but it seems some people can't help but read it as "Muslims are even worse than Jews" instead because I expressed some degree of support for Israel. Incidentally, the Atlantic article I quoted (which I'm going to repost, because it contains about 75% of my points: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ization-narrative-dangerous-and-false/675799/ -- at this point I think I should just have posted the link without comment) mentions this in the same way as well (if cautious to add that "this cannot be compared directly against each other", which I really should have added as well).
In general, nearly everyone who responded to me (with the exception of Divine Retribution) seems to argue that I said something entirely different from what I did. GatoDelFuego apparently thinks I wrote or meant "I'm on board with Israel bombing refugee camps". Obviously not. If my comment on Ukraine didn't indicate it, I would prefer if not a single shot were fired. The reason I included it was specifically to show I'm aware of Israel not being "the most moral army in the world".
Divine Retribution: You have a good point that we should not withhold judgment until a genocide is finished, and I'm sorry for phrasing it as though the total number of Palestinians killed couldn't possibly matter even if it was 200,000 or some such (when I reread it now, it does read that way). I should have said it differently, simply: 1% of the total population killed does not seem like an indicator of genocide yet IMHO, even if these were largely civilians (especially given the percentages of the undisputedly genocidal Nazi state... though their genocides also often happened after the military campaign, not during it; the war against the USSR is an exception) and the 2 million / >90% displaced worry me much more. An allegedly high proportion of civilians killed may be due to Israeli strategy rather than genocidal intent (aerial bombardment inherently kills more civilians than ground operations -- let's leave aside that it's hard to say who has correct numbers in this war), though you could well argue that this should be a reason to change said strategy. Again, I don't envy the people who make these sorts of decisions: if you send in ground troops instead, you're probably risking the death of proportionally more Israelis. "Should X more Israelis die so Y more Palestinians don't have to" is not exactly an easy question to answer.
EDIT: Dresden alone killed about 25,000 Germans. That was a single day of airstrikes on a city of decidedly less than 2 million inhabitants (treating the Gaza Strip as basically one single city is fair, I believe). And it was not genocide. I don't "gloss over" the death of 30,000 Palestinians, every one is one too many, but I do still think the apparent death toll is remarkably low given six months of (not uninterrupted) aerial bombardment.
I don't know how the Gazans (not even all Palestinians) are all that different from the WW2 Germans, TheMantyke. They voted a totalitarian dictatorship into power (probably not knowing entirely what that would entail) which started a war against a superior "Western" opponent it despises so much that it tries to ethnically cleanse them (or what else was Oct 7?). They may be less complicit in the actions of said dictatorship (who knows), it is certainly ridiculous to think they all supported it, but they are suffering all the same for it. Even so, the main reason I brought up WW2 at all was to point out that terrible civilian casualties (some sources claim 1.5 - 3 million out of 70 million Germans total -- yes, the number of military casualties is even higher, but this is still worse than the Israel-Hamas war at present) can occur in war without making the side inflicting them genocidal (which is not to say that you cannot criticize e.g. the bombing of Dresden as strategically senseless etc.). I could have brought up other wars, but this is simply the one I'm most familiar with. If comparing Hamas (not Palestinians as a whole) to the NSDAP was too much for you, I apologize, but at the same time I'm really not ready to retract it, either.
Oglemi: I think you very much missed that what I called "necessary" is the existence of a Jewish nation-state, not its war against Palestine (though admittedly I implied Hamas specifically was as bad as the Nazis... I stand by that, but I think by defending Neville Chamberlain over Churchill I also showed how "necessary" I think war is) and what I called "barbaric", a word I used not "throughout" but exactly twice, is the attack of Hamas on October 7 (and the Nazi government of Germany), not Gazans or Palestinians as a whole at all. If anything, by comparing them to Germans under Nazism I showed sympathy for them (inb4 I now get accused of "Nazi apologia". Consider that the Germans of Germany today might have been 30% or 70% Nazi if they had simply been born earlier; consider that they are not innately different from the Germans of 1932 or 1945, it is all education and environment. Yet no one doubts that Germans today are largely not notably more terrible people than anyone else, right?) That isn't "teetering on hate speech". I guess the streak of me being unable to make a single political post on any internet forum without it getting deleted continues.
I might be mistaken, but I don't think the post above yours was referring to the Dresden bombing campaign but rather the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and I'd also put the fire-bombing of Tokyo here as well). Minimizing civilian casualties was not remotely a concern in either case.Hi, I research neo-Nazis and right wing paramilitarism. I also have a strong grasp of their history.
Bombing Dresden was not a war crime. At all. Whatsoever. Dresden was a densely populated industrial centre in a conflict that did not feature the same precision munitions utilised in war today, which Israel has access to. Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Gaza), there was a considerable effort to avoid civilian casualties in Dresden. There is a reason why Krauts quite literally celebrate the Dresden bombings and Bomber Harris.
Yeah i considered adding LeMay's actions jn Tokyo. It was mostly in response to the "war crimes in Dresden" part. I don't think that person was definitively saying they were, but it's necessary to get that comparison out of the way.I might be mistaken, but I don't think the post above yours was referring to the Dresden bombing campaign but rather the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and I'd also put the fire-bombing of Tokyo here as well). Minimizing civilian casualties was not remotely a concern in either case.
You're right, Dresden wasn't a war crime, no, but your depiction of the events, particularly the "it's celebrated for a reason" part, still appears slightly callous. I would like to know which "considerable effort to avoid civilian casualties" was made in Dresden that at the time of the bombings was filled with refugees seeking as much safety as possible under the obviously heavily precarious circumstances in Germany and particularly its east at that time. Furthermore, while I acknowledge the importance of Dresden's infrastructure that was a valid target in a war the allies fortunately won, I would also like to know how one can cheer at the death of as many (20000 - 30000) civilians. I'm well aware that right wing extremists are using Dresden as a fallacious argument to suggest the military campaign against Germany wasn't justified and to deflect blame which is shown by the shameful protests taking place in Dresden to this very day. I clearly condemn such frivolous actions, but at the same time glorifying the bombings is something that doesn't sit right with me. Dresden might've been a necessary evil, but even a necessary evil doesn't deserve being "celebrated".Hi, I research neo-Nazis and right wing paramilitarism. I also have a strong grasp of their history.
Bombing Dresden was not a war crime. At all. Whatsoever. Dresden was a densely populated industrial centre in a conflict that did not feature the same precision munitions utilised in war today, which Israel has access to. Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Gaza), there was a considerable effort to avoid civilian casualties in Dresden. There is a reason why Krauts quite literally celebrate the Dresden bombings and Bomber Harris.
I proudly defend Joe Biden in 2024 for the simple fact that either Biden or Trump will be the next President in 2024. With Biden, I can confidently say he will not “be a dictator for a day.” If people think we can “just vote out” Trump in 4 years after he gets in there again they are fooling themselves.I will also say that some of the 'harm reduction' and 'we must vote in Biden so we can push him left' people really did not seem to do any pushing left once he actually came into office, and seemed to spend more time just defending him. Similar to the dwindling number of people who are willing to defend him right now.