Would you sacrifice the possibility of a better world for this one?
March 2, 2024 7:03 PM Subscribe
Ezra Klein calls for Biden to step aside. Decrying the seeming inevitability of the Biden nomination, Klein calls for a hard look at Biden's many weaknesses (Gaza, age, polling against TFG), and points out that a candidate can be selected at the convention. Subsequent discussions focused on historical convention selection and answering a wide range of listener questions.
(Title is a reference to Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota, which is all about the danger and promise of disrupting societal shibboleths. And flying cars. Well, other things, too. You should read it.)
(Title is a reference to Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota, which is all about the danger and promise of disrupting societal shibboleths. And flying cars. Well, other things, too. You should read it.)
Again with the whole Trump-is-too-virile thing.
posted by aramaic at 7:26 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 7:26 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
So handsome and virile and totally overpowering and wow isn't he big and shiny? Like just even looking at him is pretty amazing. Can you get close enough to smell him? OMG! He's like pumpkin spice only even better!!!
I get the panic. But Trump isn't going to win in the general.
That's the chant I use every day all the time. I don't think it's wrong. I hope it's not wrong.
posted by hippybear at 7:28 PM on March 2 [18 favorites]
I get the panic. But Trump isn't going to win in the general.
That's the chant I use every day all the time. I don't think it's wrong. I hope it's not wrong.
posted by hippybear at 7:28 PM on March 2 [18 favorites]
Do you want 45/47? Because this is how you get 45/47.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:31 PM on March 2 [33 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:31 PM on March 2 [33 favorites]
> But Trump isn't going to win in the general.
People get tired of voting against the other guy. And the argument, “But yeah this time it’s really important” isn’t always enough to get it done.
Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden or are we all just trying to make sure Trump doesn’t win again?
If it’s the latter, Trump has a real shot.
posted by paulcole at 7:36 PM on March 2 [38 favorites]
People get tired of voting against the other guy. And the argument, “But yeah this time it’s really important” isn’t always enough to get it done.
Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden or are we all just trying to make sure Trump doesn’t win again?
If it’s the latter, Trump has a real shot.
posted by paulcole at 7:36 PM on March 2 [38 favorites]
Am I wrong to expect an answer to the “if not him, than who” question in any of these articles?
posted by Selena777 at 7:43 PM on March 2 [97 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 7:43 PM on March 2 [97 favorites]
People get tired of voting against the other guy
This is why nazis are inevitable; they simply have greater endurance than leftists. They don’t get tired, they don’t quit, they just keep trying. They only need a few errors to win, and their opponents need to win every single time or they’ll demoralize themselves and choose to fail.
posted by aramaic at 7:44 PM on March 2 [68 favorites]
This is why nazis are inevitable; they simply have greater endurance than leftists. They don’t get tired, they don’t quit, they just keep trying. They only need a few errors to win, and their opponents need to win every single time or they’ll demoralize themselves and choose to fail.
posted by aramaic at 7:44 PM on March 2 [68 favorites]
Is Biden my first choice of candidate? Nope. Does he do everything that I want him to do? Nope. Does he do way more for me than any of the alternatives being proffered? Fuck yes.
posted by drewbage1847 at 7:45 PM on March 2 [112 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 7:45 PM on March 2 [112 favorites]
So the plan is for Biden to win all the primaries, then just quit for no reason, and we'll have a big knife fight at the convention?
That's a stupid fucking plan!
posted by ryanrs at 7:46 PM on March 2 [135 favorites]
That's a stupid fucking plan!
posted by ryanrs at 7:46 PM on March 2 [135 favorites]
Ezra's kind of right although he's basically saying there's no path to victory. Campaigns are about appearances, about advertising, and Biden, no matter your position on him, simply does not look good. The problem is, if you jettison Biden, no matter who you pick is not going to have Biden's name recognition. People aren't going to know who the new person is. (Which...okay, that's scary for a whole other reason, but still.) So if Biden can't win because he's no longer capable of putting on a convincing show, and some other Democrat can't win because they haven't been carefully spoonfed to low-information voters...well.
posted by mittens at 7:51 PM on March 2 [12 favorites]
posted by mittens at 7:51 PM on March 2 [12 favorites]
Some people think the world can be so much better if we just believe in our ideals. I'm not sure what those people were doing during the Obama administration, but okay. We need idealists I guess. Some of us just feel lucky that the world isn't more fucked up than it already is and don't have very high expectations. That's okay too. We're probably fucked regardless of who wins that particular argument.
posted by rikschell at 7:54 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 7:54 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
So, the fully capable and currently serving Vice President is the obvious choice right? Because if Biden drops out Mdm Harris would control all of the money and electoral votes right?
No? Gov. Newsom? Who has been one of the loudest Democratic attack dogs leading the charge for the Biden/Harris campaign?
Who gets the money? Who gets the Electoral votes? Why completely throw in the towel when TFG might be sentenced to serve time IN NY STATE.
If it's Biden or the end of the US experiment as we know it I'm not throwing away my support for "DGAF"
(don't get a future)
posted by djseafood at 7:57 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
No? Gov. Newsom? Who has been one of the loudest Democratic attack dogs leading the charge for the Biden/Harris campaign?
Who gets the money? Who gets the Electoral votes? Why completely throw in the towel when TFG might be sentenced to serve time IN NY STATE.
If it's Biden or the end of the US experiment as we know it I'm not throwing away my support for "DGAF"
(don't get a future)
posted by djseafood at 7:57 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden
I am!
I am excited to vote for someone who believes in American democracy, civil rights for all, that women are fully people entitled to their own decisions and who belong everywhere, especially the federal bench.
posted by stevis23 at 7:57 PM on March 2 [150 favorites]
I am!
I am excited to vote for someone who believes in American democracy, civil rights for all, that women are fully people entitled to their own decisions and who belong everywhere, especially the federal bench.
posted by stevis23 at 7:57 PM on March 2 [150 favorites]
Klein says “no” on Harris and follows up with a rhetorical shrug regarding why she polls poorly. Lucky for the party all he runs is his mouth.
posted by Selena777 at 7:59 PM on March 2 [19 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 7:59 PM on March 2 [19 favorites]
I think Biden is good, thanks. He's done a ton!
Klein's Desired Perfect is counterbalanced by The World's Biggest Narcissistic Blackhole, so maybe set aside Perfect until we can undo some of the damage.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:03 PM on March 2 [49 favorites]
Klein's Desired Perfect is counterbalanced by The World's Biggest Narcissistic Blackhole, so maybe set aside Perfect until we can undo some of the damage.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:03 PM on March 2 [49 favorites]
Amazing that some people think the candidate crushing all the primaries isn't popular.
It's almost like they want someone less popular because then Trump will win.
That can't be right though, can it?
posted by PennD at 8:27 PM on March 2 [17 favorites]
It's almost like they want someone less popular because then Trump will win.
That can't be right though, can it?
posted by PennD at 8:27 PM on March 2 [17 favorites]
This is just Green Lanternism written large. If the argument is essentially that we can't risk a Biden candidacy, then your "solution" is that somehow the Democrats will create the perfect anti-Trump candidate--a sort of Barack Obama II--by sheer gut-wrenching force of will. Sure, buddy.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:30 PM on March 2 [24 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:30 PM on March 2 [24 favorites]
What's the saying about Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line? I read the Josh Marshall post first and I think this whole thing is inside baseball. In the real world an incumbent president doesn't step down from the ticket without a better reason than "some pundit known best to the terminally online thinks he ought to".
Yeah yeah yeah Biden is old and not in the best of health, and he still looks and sounds better than TFG.
Also yes there is a serious danger we get TFG back with Biden as candidate. There is a serious danger of that no matter what at this point because a lot of people want TFG/Christofascism/white supremacy/etc. and apparently too many of us on the left side of the aisle are nitpicking a guy who's done a good job on domestic issues over terrible American foreign policy, which if it disqualifies Biden, absolutely ought to disqualify everybody on the right side of the aisle and most of the left.
I know this is a boring race for pundits because the same two guys are going to be running as four years ago. But that's the way it is. The Fort Worth paper has columnists who are just sure Nikki Haley can win out over Trump (without Trump going to jail or being DQed) and those folks are out of luck and sound just as delusional.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:34 PM on March 2 [27 favorites]
Yeah yeah yeah Biden is old and not in the best of health, and he still looks and sounds better than TFG.
Also yes there is a serious danger we get TFG back with Biden as candidate. There is a serious danger of that no matter what at this point because a lot of people want TFG/Christofascism/white supremacy/etc. and apparently too many of us on the left side of the aisle are nitpicking a guy who's done a good job on domestic issues over terrible American foreign policy, which if it disqualifies Biden, absolutely ought to disqualify everybody on the right side of the aisle and most of the left.
I know this is a boring race for pundits because the same two guys are going to be running as four years ago. But that's the way it is. The Fort Worth paper has columnists who are just sure Nikki Haley can win out over Trump (without Trump going to jail or being DQed) and those folks are out of luck and sound just as delusional.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:34 PM on March 2 [27 favorites]
Finally somebody says it.
posted by iamck at 8:35 PM on March 2 [8 favorites]
posted by iamck at 8:35 PM on March 2 [8 favorites]
This is a stupid idea, and I can’t believe that in this year of 2024 any remotely woods person would make that case. Makes me think a lot less of Ezra Klein right away, and makes me wonder what weird bubble he’s in.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:37 PM on March 2 [23 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 8:37 PM on March 2 [23 favorites]
People get tired of voting
Have I got good news for you!
posted by torokunai at 8:39 PM on March 2 [20 favorites]
Have I got good news for you!
posted by torokunai at 8:39 PM on March 2 [20 favorites]
Did Ezra use the word “fascinating” a dozen times like he does in every podcast where he expresses his “great genius” in not-so-subtle ways?
posted by glaucon at 8:44 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
posted by glaucon at 8:44 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
There's a ton of wishcasting going on surrounding the idea that Biden Is Old. The thing is, Trump cannot win the general election. He's gigantically popular amongst the Republican voters, but how many Republicans are there amongst the general electorate? Fewer than 45%. And if he's winning 55% of that 45%, then, well...
He's only going to become more unpopular between now and November, as the populace who aren't high information voters start to see him more and more often are become reacquainted with how loathsome he truly is.
Trump will not win this general election. I'm sure of it even though while I type the words I'm terrified to my bone that I'm wrong. Because if I'm wrong the people he will bring into power will round up the faggots like me into camps and I'll maybe get one telephone call to my parents who are in their eighties.
So that's what I'm banking on going right in this election and what I feel I have on the line if it goes wrong!
posted by hippybear at 8:45 PM on March 2 [40 favorites]
He's only going to become more unpopular between now and November, as the populace who aren't high information voters start to see him more and more often are become reacquainted with how loathsome he truly is.
Trump will not win this general election. I'm sure of it even though while I type the words I'm terrified to my bone that I'm wrong. Because if I'm wrong the people he will bring into power will round up the faggots like me into camps and I'll maybe get one telephone call to my parents who are in their eighties.
So that's what I'm banking on going right in this election and what I feel I have on the line if it goes wrong!
posted by hippybear at 8:45 PM on March 2 [40 favorites]
Age doesn't bend character, and the race is about character and it will come down to that because preserving democracy is about the character of the voter.
posted by Brian B. at 8:47 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 8:47 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
At this point I really don’t give a shit if every single person who votes for Biden absolutely loathes him and everything he has and will ever do, and pulls the lever just because they hate TFG more. That’s what it’s worth this time.
posted by gottabefunky at 8:49 PM on March 2 [18 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 8:49 PM on March 2 [18 favorites]
I like Biden. But he's in a very precarious position, and for reasons I don't understand he is apparently determined to throw away Michigan - a key swing state - by repeatedly vetoing the UN's call for ceasefire in Palestine.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:53 PM on March 2 [25 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:53 PM on March 2 [25 favorites]
Am I wrong to expect an answer to the “if not him, than who” question in any of these articles?
Gretchen Whitmer.
She will at least win Michigan.
posted by Gadarene at 9:00 PM on March 2 [14 favorites]
Gretchen Whitmer.
She will at least win Michigan.
posted by Gadarene at 9:00 PM on March 2 [14 favorites]
I like the line about how voting is like catching a bus. Of course you don't expect a bus to take you exactly where you want to go. You'll never get that bus.
Your best option is to use the system to move you closer to where you want to be.
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:00 PM on March 2 [34 favorites]
Your best option is to use the system to move you closer to where you want to be.
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:00 PM on March 2 [34 favorites]
The reason Biden is vetoing the UN calls for ceasefire is that you can't call for a unilateral ceasefire.
Biden is working aggressively for a negotiated ceasefire -- the recently widely publicized ice cream cone thing with Seth Meyers where he was asked about getting to a cease-fire and him saying he was being told it would be by the weekend...
Well, obviously we're at the weekend and we're not there yet.
But you can't have an international body that has no personnel involved in the conflict declare a ceasefire and have it mean anything at all.
EVERYONE IS FRUSTRATED AT HOW THIS IS HAPPENING.
The more I read about Biden and this situation the more it is becoming obvious he hates how this is being carried out and he wants it to change. But he has zero power.
Biden could stop all aid to Israel right now and it would not change what Bibi is deciding to do.
I wish that were different, but Bibi isn't some Elmo with Biden's hand up his ass working him like a puppet. Bibi is going to Bibi all over the fucking place and Biden can't decide and Biden can cut off aid for him today and it would be a long time before the Bibi stopped doing the thing.
posted by hippybear at 9:04 PM on March 2 [52 favorites]
Biden is working aggressively for a negotiated ceasefire -- the recently widely publicized ice cream cone thing with Seth Meyers where he was asked about getting to a cease-fire and him saying he was being told it would be by the weekend...
Well, obviously we're at the weekend and we're not there yet.
But you can't have an international body that has no personnel involved in the conflict declare a ceasefire and have it mean anything at all.
EVERYONE IS FRUSTRATED AT HOW THIS IS HAPPENING.
The more I read about Biden and this situation the more it is becoming obvious he hates how this is being carried out and he wants it to change. But he has zero power.
Biden could stop all aid to Israel right now and it would not change what Bibi is deciding to do.
I wish that were different, but Bibi isn't some Elmo with Biden's hand up his ass working him like a puppet. Bibi is going to Bibi all over the fucking place and Biden can't decide and Biden can cut off aid for him today and it would be a long time before the Bibi stopped doing the thing.
posted by hippybear at 9:04 PM on March 2 [52 favorites]
Gretchen Whitaker.
Really undermines the "then who" argument when you get her name wrong (it's "Whitmer.")
posted by stevis23 at 9:07 PM on March 2 [36 favorites]
Really undermines the "then who" argument when you get her name wrong (it's "Whitmer.")
posted by stevis23 at 9:07 PM on March 2 [36 favorites]
Biden could stop all aid to Israel right now
Yes. Yes, he could. He should give that a try.
posted by mittens at 9:12 PM on March 2 [55 favorites]
Yes. Yes, he could. He should give that a try.
posted by mittens at 9:12 PM on March 2 [55 favorites]
I can't help but imagine that, Klein, who wrote this same "What if we fuck around?" article is going to be writing a "Well, now we found out why we shouldn't have fucked around" think piece after everything goes to hell.
The high-minded think piece is great and all, but it's just not realistic. Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Stop shooting all of us in the foot with wistful thinking about some dreamy progressive ideal we all want but cant have.
posted by Avelwood at 9:15 PM on March 2 [17 favorites]
The high-minded think piece is great and all, but it's just not realistic. Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Stop shooting all of us in the foot with wistful thinking about some dreamy progressive ideal we all want but cant have.
posted by Avelwood at 9:15 PM on March 2 [17 favorites]
I hate that every time one of these kinds of articles comes out, I have to consider if it is someone legitimately spitballing and speculating, or a disinformation campaign intended to get a few more potential Biden voters to stay home.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:36 PM on March 2 [46 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 9:36 PM on March 2 [46 favorites]
I too lost a ton of respect for Ezra Klein when I read this. I agree he is probably in some group chat with a bunch of real special boys who think they've got it all figured out, but this argument just shrivels up in the cold light of reality. I'm sorry but we just do not live in a country in 2024 where people will tolerate party insiders picking some other candidate after the primary process has selected someone else. I am a true blue Democrat but even I would have a hard time voting for that candidate in the general, just on principle. It just doesn't play and it gives the Republicans the most obvious "Democrats are undemocratic" line of attack ever. It's just such a fractally bad idea.
Not to mention, like, WHOM?! Is there some magic candidate out there that hasn't been considered? If you look at the betting, people are putting more money on Michelle Fucking Obama than on any of the people who actually want the job.
It's just such an unserious proposal it actually made me wonder what the hell was behind it. Because to me it really really feels like Ezra Klein was told to make the case for Trump and this is how he's doing it...by being a "concerned Democrat" undermining his party's candidate.
posted by potrzebie at 9:40 PM on March 2 [39 favorites]
Not to mention, like, WHOM?! Is there some magic candidate out there that hasn't been considered? If you look at the betting, people are putting more money on Michelle Fucking Obama than on any of the people who actually want the job.
It's just such an unserious proposal it actually made me wonder what the hell was behind it. Because to me it really really feels like Ezra Klein was told to make the case for Trump and this is how he's doing it...by being a "concerned Democrat" undermining his party's candidate.
posted by potrzebie at 9:40 PM on March 2 [39 favorites]
Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden
The last politician I was excited to vote for was Obama. Perhaps because he was too new to be tainted by D.C.
So that's what I'm banking on going right in this election and what I feel I have on the line if it goes wrong!
Right now I have about 12 contracts on Trump 24 WTA, not because I think he will win but because I think he will make to the general and make it a much tighter race than the markets currently forecast, and that should drive contract prices closer together. The US corner of the internet has a consistent liberal bias and MeFi is hardly the exception.
Plus if something happens and Trump becomes an overwhelming favorite, well, I've at least got a twelve dollar consolation prize.
posted by pwnguin at 9:41 PM on March 2
The last politician I was excited to vote for was Obama. Perhaps because he was too new to be tainted by D.C.
So that's what I'm banking on going right in this election and what I feel I have on the line if it goes wrong!
Right now I have about 12 contracts on Trump 24 WTA, not because I think he will win but because I think he will make to the general and make it a much tighter race than the markets currently forecast, and that should drive contract prices closer together. The US corner of the internet has a consistent liberal bias and MeFi is hardly the exception.
Plus if something happens and Trump becomes an overwhelming favorite, well, I've at least got a twelve dollar consolation prize.
posted by pwnguin at 9:41 PM on March 2
I don't get this age thing. Yes they're all old, that's how it's always been. So what?
Yes I do like Biden. I'm not excited -- government is not about getting excited, it's about doing the work. Boring and competent work. It really gets my goat when people say "I'm not excited about any of the candidates." So fucking what?! Has Biden done things I really hate? Absolutely. But I remember the Trump years. I have to assume that all these people wringing their hands about how unexciting and old Biden is must be well-off straight white men.
Sorry I get a little emotional with all this "I must love anyone I vote for" crap. I think I read it here on MeFi that you're voting for the best battle-ground for your causes. Because the fight doesn't end with the presidential election, it's the four years after the election. As we fight for Palestinians, for abortion rights, for trans people to not get killed, which candidate is more likely to listen to us? You only get the two choices, that's the world we actually live in.
posted by phliar at 9:43 PM on March 2 [48 favorites]
Yes I do like Biden. I'm not excited -- government is not about getting excited, it's about doing the work. Boring and competent work. It really gets my goat when people say "I'm not excited about any of the candidates." So fucking what?! Has Biden done things I really hate? Absolutely. But I remember the Trump years. I have to assume that all these people wringing their hands about how unexciting and old Biden is must be well-off straight white men.
Sorry I get a little emotional with all this "I must love anyone I vote for" crap. I think I read it here on MeFi that you're voting for the best battle-ground for your causes. Because the fight doesn't end with the presidential election, it's the four years after the election. As we fight for Palestinians, for abortion rights, for trans people to not get killed, which candidate is more likely to listen to us? You only get the two choices, that's the world we actually live in.
posted by phliar at 9:43 PM on March 2 [48 favorites]
The reason Biden is vetoing the UN calls for ceasefire is that you can't call for a unilateral ceasefire.
The only way this argument makes sense if we still agree it's a "war" between two equal parties. Never mind during the run-up to negotiations that fell apart in the last eight weeks there was a discernable pause from the Palestinian resistance side (collectively called Hamas) for about a week until Bibi said no anyway. And even if "war" is the correct framing, the argument still falls even more on its face if the implication is that most other countries on earth including those still providing arms support don't understand the meaning of "ceasefire" that they are themselves asking.
posted by cendawanita at 9:44 PM on March 2 [21 favorites]
The only way this argument makes sense if we still agree it's a "war" between two equal parties. Never mind during the run-up to negotiations that fell apart in the last eight weeks there was a discernable pause from the Palestinian resistance side (collectively called Hamas) for about a week until Bibi said no anyway. And even if "war" is the correct framing, the argument still falls even more on its face if the implication is that most other countries on earth including those still providing arms support don't understand the meaning of "ceasefire" that they are themselves asking.
posted by cendawanita at 9:44 PM on March 2 [21 favorites]
VP Harris is why I am voting for Biden.
And Harris has signaled to move the White House to be more humanitarian towards Palestine. And it would be awesome to have a Howard University graduate be president.
Biden can keep on Biden-ing. I trust the transfer of power if we lose President Biden to any sort of health or cognitive problems.
Harris, when she gets traction and a chance, will rock the f-ing house that rock built and rock that house that night.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 9:48 PM on March 2 [19 favorites]
And Harris has signaled to move the White House to be more humanitarian towards Palestine. And it would be awesome to have a Howard University graduate be president.
Biden can keep on Biden-ing. I trust the transfer of power if we lose President Biden to any sort of health or cognitive problems.
Harris, when she gets traction and a chance, will rock the f-ing house that rock built and rock that house that night.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 9:48 PM on March 2 [19 favorites]
Stop shooting all of us in the foot with wistful thinking about some dreamy progressive ideal we all want but cant have.
Did you listen to his argument? I honestly don’t know if what he’s proposing is a good idea or not, but nothing in his argument had anything to do with being progressive enough! It was, in fact, an argument about his ability to win the election.
posted by flamk at 9:54 PM on March 2 [15 favorites]
Did you listen to his argument? I honestly don’t know if what he’s proposing is a good idea or not, but nothing in his argument had anything to do with being progressive enough! It was, in fact, an argument about his ability to win the election.
posted by flamk at 9:54 PM on March 2 [15 favorites]
For the life of me, I don’t see how ‘Throw away the incumbent’ doesn’t say ‘The incumbent did a poor job and we should replace him’, and how do you mount a campaign admitting your enemies were right but give us another chance anyway?
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:54 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:54 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
It’s a very silly piece.
No one is going to switch their vote from Biden to Trump because Trump is a couple of years younger and spryer.
The idea of a candidate who is more opposed to Israel will do better against Trump is crazy. If Michigan is so close as to be lost because of angry Arab Americans, than Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia are gone, and the election is lost anyway. And a candidate who is opposed to Israel is going to see Trump get billions with a B of added GOTV dollars and a much less critical NY Times setting the tone for coverage.
He doesn’t mention the two things people who aren’t committed Trump voters actually don’t like about Biden - inflation, and the border and illegal immigrant/fraudulent asylum seeker crisis - maybe because no Democrat who oils win an open convention would act any differently or mitigate those exposures.
posted by MattD at 9:59 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
No one is going to switch their vote from Biden to Trump because Trump is a couple of years younger and spryer.
The idea of a candidate who is more opposed to Israel will do better against Trump is crazy. If Michigan is so close as to be lost because of angry Arab Americans, than Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia are gone, and the election is lost anyway. And a candidate who is opposed to Israel is going to see Trump get billions with a B of added GOTV dollars and a much less critical NY Times setting the tone for coverage.
He doesn’t mention the two things people who aren’t committed Trump voters actually don’t like about Biden - inflation, and the border and illegal immigrant/fraudulent asylum seeker crisis - maybe because no Democrat who oils win an open convention would act any differently or mitigate those exposures.
posted by MattD at 9:59 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
Really undermines the "then who" argument when you get her name wrong (it's "Whitmer.")
Autocorrect.
Jesus Christ.
posted by Gadarene at 10:03 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
Autocorrect.
Jesus Christ.
posted by Gadarene at 10:03 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
No one is going to switch their vote from Biden to Trump because Trump is a couple of years younger and spryer.
I mean, they might if this extremely unequal coverage of the two equivalently dotty old men running for president continues!
posted by potrzebie at 10:04 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
I mean, they might if this extremely unequal coverage of the two equivalently dotty old men running for president continues!
posted by potrzebie at 10:04 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
Sorry I get a little emotional with all this "I must love anyone I vote for" crap.
Again, did anybody actually listen to his argument? I mean, really?
posted by flamk at 10:04 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
Again, did anybody actually listen to his argument? I mean, really?
posted by flamk at 10:04 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
>I get the panic. But Trump isn't going to win in the general.
I wonder if everybody here remembers as vividly as I do what it was like reading comments in here on election night in 2016 when Trump wasn't going to win in the general.
>Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden or are we all just trying to make sure Trump doesn’t win again?
>If it’s the latter, Trump has a real shot.
Nobody cares what you're excited about. You don't get to vote extra times if you're excited.
Democracy is absolutely always about the lesser of two evils. The greater wins when people get whiny about the lesser.
It's going to be Biden or Trump.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:09 PM on March 2 [16 favorites]
I wonder if everybody here remembers as vividly as I do what it was like reading comments in here on election night in 2016 when Trump wasn't going to win in the general.
>Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden or are we all just trying to make sure Trump doesn’t win again?
>If it’s the latter, Trump has a real shot.
Nobody cares what you're excited about. You don't get to vote extra times if you're excited.
Democracy is absolutely always about the lesser of two evils. The greater wins when people get whiny about the lesser.
It's going to be Biden or Trump.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:09 PM on March 2 [16 favorites]
I'm more excited to vote for Biden than I have been for any other Democratic candidate in my life. Is he perfect? Hell no.
But he's been more progressive than any nominee since at least 1984. Yeah, he's old and he doesn't look great on TV. His opponent looks like shit though, unless you happen to like the look of incoherent vocalizing shit.
Biden is going to be the nominee. Get behind someone who's not only the better choice, but is actually a good choice.
posted by Ickster at 10:16 PM on March 2 [23 favorites]
But he's been more progressive than any nominee since at least 1984. Yeah, he's old and he doesn't look great on TV. His opponent looks like shit though, unless you happen to like the look of incoherent vocalizing shit.
Biden is going to be the nominee. Get behind someone who's not only the better choice, but is actually a good choice.
posted by Ickster at 10:16 PM on March 2 [23 favorites]
Hell no, Sing or Swim, I wasn’t here. I was with my family and a cake emblazoned with the phrase “Stronger Together”
posted by Selena777 at 10:18 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 10:18 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
Really, the more I see the reactions to this piece, the more obvious it seems that any objections to the status quo of the Democratic Party, even those based purely on non-ideological factors such as “can this candidate actually win?,” is framed by some folks as some sort of “progressive” challenge and thus easily dismissed as childish, silly, petulant and not serious.
Unless I’m really misremembering his argument from his podcast a few weeks ago, nothing Kline states is based in a preference for progressive politics. But it’s good to know that calling someone a hippie first means it’s okay to then punch them and dismiss them out of hand. Glad that’s still a thing.
posted by flamk at 10:23 PM on March 2 [18 favorites]
Unless I’m really misremembering his argument from his podcast a few weeks ago, nothing Kline states is based in a preference for progressive politics. But it’s good to know that calling someone a hippie first means it’s okay to then punch them and dismiss them out of hand. Glad that’s still a thing.
posted by flamk at 10:23 PM on March 2 [18 favorites]
Yes they're all old, that's how it’s always been.
This seems wrong, unless we mean that Biden & Trump have always been the same age in which case yes.
But according to Wikipedia’s “List of presidents of the United States by age”, the median age of the president when they assumed the office was 55. So half of them dudes were between 35 and 55! Per a lil’ graph (I am not researching this hard) only five presidents were 65 or older when they took office. It’s not a young man’s game, but a gerontocracy isn’t the norm unless you're a teenager in which case yes, absolutely.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:33 PM on March 2 [25 favorites]
This seems wrong, unless we mean that Biden & Trump have always been the same age in which case yes.
But according to Wikipedia’s “List of presidents of the United States by age”, the median age of the president when they assumed the office was 55. So half of them dudes were between 35 and 55! Per a lil’ graph (I am not researching this hard) only five presidents were 65 or older when they took office. It’s not a young man’s game, but a gerontocracy isn’t the norm unless you're a teenager in which case yes, absolutely.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:33 PM on March 2 [25 favorites]
I think it's way too late to introduce a new democratic nominee. My personal best case scenario is Biden is elected, then dies of old age in office and we see what Kamala Harris gets up to.
And I don't care about their age, but let's not pretend our presidents have always been This old. "On average presidents are sworn in at 55 years old." Biden and Trump are already our top 2 oldest presidents.
posted by pfeffernusse at 10:35 PM on March 2 [9 favorites]
And I don't care about their age, but let's not pretend our presidents have always been This old. "On average presidents are sworn in at 55 years old." Biden and Trump are already our top 2 oldest presidents.
posted by pfeffernusse at 10:35 PM on March 2 [9 favorites]
I agree he is probably in some group chat with a bunch of real special boys who think they've got it all figured out
Didn't this actually get outed in the glory days of the blogerati in the aughts?
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:45 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
Didn't this actually get outed in the glory days of the blogerati in the aughts?
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:45 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
Yes they're all old, that's how it’s always been.
Trump and Biden were the two oldest presidents when they were each elected last time.
Here's a fun thing to do some time: look up the ages of our past presidents and VPs. Did you know that Bill Clinton is younger than Biden & Trump? So is Dan Quayle. These guys were in the White House literally 3+ decades ago.
Biden and Trump are OLD.
posted by nushustu at 10:53 PM on March 2 [29 favorites]
Trump and Biden were the two oldest presidents when they were each elected last time.
Here's a fun thing to do some time: look up the ages of our past presidents and VPs. Did you know that Bill Clinton is younger than Biden & Trump? So is Dan Quayle. These guys were in the White House literally 3+ decades ago.
Biden and Trump are OLD.
posted by nushustu at 10:53 PM on March 2 [29 favorites]
- ezra klein is not smart and his ideas are bad, but also
- democratic centralism in the defense of milquetoast liberalism is about as effective a way to hold power as democratic centralism as used by the trotskyists is an effective way of taking power
Jesus Christ.
While I'm sure his liberal platform would do well with Dems and he has brand name recognition with the religious right, Jesus Christ is substantially than both Trump and Biden combined, and he was in the wrong Bethlehem to qualify for US citizenship.
posted by pwnguin at 10:59 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
While I'm sure his liberal platform would do well with Dems and he has brand name recognition with the religious right, Jesus Christ is substantially than both Trump and Biden combined, and he was in the wrong Bethlehem to qualify for US citizenship.
posted by pwnguin at 10:59 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
I'll interject a little bit of political trivia: the last time a political party did not support an incumbent President of their own party was with Franklin Pierce in 1856. The acrimony and rancor of the 1856 Democratic Convention (which chose Buchanan over Pierce_ set up the circumstances of the 1860 election (where the Democrats split into two campaigns, Stephen Douglas and John Breckenridge).
The civil war ensued.
So from a historical point of view, Ezra Klein is modestly proposing that the Democratic party should combine together two of the greatest debacles of the party's history- the Democratic Convention of 1856, and the Democratic convention of 1968, together with the characteristics of the 'smoke filled room' Republican conventions of 1912 and 1940 (which were GOP electoral disasters).
I don't know that Klein is historically literate, but as a political historian (BA Political Science, JD, MA in History) and as a seasoned political campaign (CDP official with multiple gubernatorial, senate, and congressional campaigns under my belt) this Ezra Klein essay is some of the dumbest horseshit that I've read this year.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 11:00 PM on March 2 [76 favorites]
The civil war ensued.
So from a historical point of view, Ezra Klein is modestly proposing that the Democratic party should combine together two of the greatest debacles of the party's history- the Democratic Convention of 1856, and the Democratic convention of 1968, together with the characteristics of the 'smoke filled room' Republican conventions of 1912 and 1940 (which were GOP electoral disasters).
I don't know that Klein is historically literate, but as a political historian (BA Political Science, JD, MA in History) and as a seasoned political campaign (CDP official with multiple gubernatorial, senate, and congressional campaigns under my belt) this Ezra Klein essay is some of the dumbest horseshit that I've read this year.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 11:00 PM on March 2 [76 favorites]
>I think it's way too late to introduce a new democratic nominee.
Yep, but I would go a little further and say it was too late in January of 2020. The only reason for an incumbent not to run again is that he's a disaster. If the incumbent steps aside it amounts to an open acknowledgement that people don't like him and he didn't do a good job. And he's clearly the winningest guy you've got, because he won the last time. To say "yeah, Biden's the incumbent, but we'd really like you to consider this other guy you've never heard of instead" would be the Kiss Of Death.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:01 PM on March 2 [9 favorites]
Yep, but I would go a little further and say it was too late in January of 2020. The only reason for an incumbent not to run again is that he's a disaster. If the incumbent steps aside it amounts to an open acknowledgement that people don't like him and he didn't do a good job. And he's clearly the winningest guy you've got, because he won the last time. To say "yeah, Biden's the incumbent, but we'd really like you to consider this other guy you've never heard of instead" would be the Kiss Of Death.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:01 PM on March 2 [9 favorites]
Team Blue has an insufficient bench, because due to overwhelming hubris, the gerontocracy of the party thinks somehow that they will never die. The Grim Reaper eventually comes for us all, no human is immune (and no human is singled out, either). NEWS FLASH: Everything made of cells dies. Humans over 80 moreso than those under, say, 55.
Do you think maybe 30 years ago Biden should have realized he was mortal and started grooming some successors? How about 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
Standing atop an eight-decade tall Jenga tower is not a smart way to enter the most powerful job on the planet. Some might even call it the toughest job or one of the toughest, too.
I'm sorry, but Biden has clearly lost his edge mentally. When people call it out and are accused of disloyalty or trying to get Trump to win, this is just absurd bad-faith argumentation. It is not disloyal to note that people who are 80+ years old are very subject, often, to lack of mental sharpness ranging into dementia and total mental infirmity. Do Biden boosters somehow have a crystal ball and can tell us that five years from now, at the end of the 47th presidency, he will be as mentally sharp as he is today? Can they guarantee that?
Do we need a repeat of Dianne Feinstein, or will we take the really hard-won lesson we learned from her refusal to retire to heart? No? How about Reagan? He was mentally infirm by the end of his last term, too. RBG it turns out, was also mortal. She could have stepped down and retired under a Democratic president, but chose to take a gamble. Woops. Who suffers? Do I need to detail the damage from the demise of Roe v. Wade to this crowd?
Anyway, I would not be surprised in the slightest if any of the numerous Classic Old Age Medical Problems took out either or both candidates before election day. Imagine the chaos if it was *right before* election day, or *right after*. Good Lord. This can be avoided, you know. How about the Less Chaos option, please?
posted by cats are weird at 11:28 PM on March 2 [36 favorites]
Do you think maybe 30 years ago Biden should have realized he was mortal and started grooming some successors? How about 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
Standing atop an eight-decade tall Jenga tower is not a smart way to enter the most powerful job on the planet. Some might even call it the toughest job or one of the toughest, too.
I'm sorry, but Biden has clearly lost his edge mentally. When people call it out and are accused of disloyalty or trying to get Trump to win, this is just absurd bad-faith argumentation. It is not disloyal to note that people who are 80+ years old are very subject, often, to lack of mental sharpness ranging into dementia and total mental infirmity. Do Biden boosters somehow have a crystal ball and can tell us that five years from now, at the end of the 47th presidency, he will be as mentally sharp as he is today? Can they guarantee that?
Do we need a repeat of Dianne Feinstein, or will we take the really hard-won lesson we learned from her refusal to retire to heart? No? How about Reagan? He was mentally infirm by the end of his last term, too. RBG it turns out, was also mortal. She could have stepped down and retired under a Democratic president, but chose to take a gamble. Woops. Who suffers? Do I need to detail the damage from the demise of Roe v. Wade to this crowd?
Anyway, I would not be surprised in the slightest if any of the numerous Classic Old Age Medical Problems took out either or both candidates before election day. Imagine the chaos if it was *right before* election day, or *right after*. Good Lord. This can be avoided, you know. How about the Less Chaos option, please?
posted by cats are weird at 11:28 PM on March 2 [36 favorites]
I wouldn't worry too much about the age of a presidential candidate. Whether they're too young or too old, they're always surrounded by a bunch of people who average things out.
And no voter is going to switch teams because their candidate is too old or too young. I'm sure the same Trump fans who said Biden was too old four years ago would never say that about Trump, who is now older than Biden was four years ago. And Bernie Sanders could be 100 years old and the same people would still vote for him.
You just have to get Biden through November. If anything happens after that, Harris is just about old enough to be president now.
posted by pracowity at 11:31 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
And no voter is going to switch teams because their candidate is too old or too young. I'm sure the same Trump fans who said Biden was too old four years ago would never say that about Trump, who is now older than Biden was four years ago. And Bernie Sanders could be 100 years old and the same people would still vote for him.
You just have to get Biden through November. If anything happens after that, Harris is just about old enough to be president now.
posted by pracowity at 11:31 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
Biden doesn't have a capacity problem. Everyone who works with him directly -- even Republicans -- admit he's sharp, engaged, and thoughtful. His doctor has just given him a clean bill of health and ruled him fully fit to serve. And politically, he's run rings around Republicans, and Democrats have consistently outperformed polling expectations.
The problem is optics. He looks old. He sounds old. It's clear compared to video even from a few years ago. The lingering stutter doesn't help. But he plays it straight, unlike a certain heavily bronzed, toupeed and blustering rival.
So the question is whether the electorate will go for style or substance, when the substance at issue is easily the starkest contrast in American history. Team Biden is betting Americans will go for character and responsibility over flashy chaos. It worked for them in 2020, it worked in the '22 midterms (see Hobbs vs. Lake for the perfect case study), and there's a good chance it will work again. Frankly, if the American electorate can't look past something as superficial as "he looks old" and embraces open fascism instead, maybe we're the ones that are no longer capable of, y'know, having a democracy.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:02 AM on March 3 [20 favorites]
The problem is optics. He looks old. He sounds old. It's clear compared to video even from a few years ago. The lingering stutter doesn't help. But he plays it straight, unlike a certain heavily bronzed, toupeed and blustering rival.
So the question is whether the electorate will go for style or substance, when the substance at issue is easily the starkest contrast in American history. Team Biden is betting Americans will go for character and responsibility over flashy chaos. It worked for them in 2020, it worked in the '22 midterms (see Hobbs vs. Lake for the perfect case study), and there's a good chance it will work again. Frankly, if the American electorate can't look past something as superficial as "he looks old" and embraces open fascism instead, maybe we're the ones that are no longer capable of, y'know, having a democracy.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:02 AM on March 3 [20 favorites]
We have an amazing, accomplished, experienced 59 year old VP right there who will step up and do a great job if anything happens to Biden. She has indeed been trained and mentored by him just like folks are saying the older generation was supposed to do. Anyone who ever watched her speeches in the Senate knows she was already up to the task before she got 4 years experience as VP. Anyone suggesting that we need a brokered convention where a few well connected people debate who the best nominee is, anyone suggesting the obvious successor to President Biden is anyone other than Vice President Harris, has to come up with some reason other than "I don't like her" which always will always sound like misogynoir always.
posted by hydropsyche at 12:12 AM on March 3 [40 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 12:12 AM on March 3 [40 favorites]
It’s amazing to me for democratic intelligentsia to look at the results of 2020 and think that all those people who voted against Trump in 2020 will now suddenly vote for him when 1) He’s been indicted 91 times, 2) the Republicans have overturned Roe v Wade, and 3) have effectively doubled down by outlawing IVF ( I know in Alabama only, but optics).
The Republicans have been shellacked in every contest since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Remember Glenn Youngkin and the rising star that he was before he cashed against the fallout of the SC decision?
I know democrats like to cry doom and gloom. Because lives are on the line. But really, and I mean really dispassionately look at the numbers. Trump is not gaining more votes. He’s hit his ceiling, and that ceiling doesn’t win the general election.
I didn’t even mention that in one of the critical swing states, Michigan, the Republican Party has essential split into open civil war 8 months before the general election and 6 months before the convention. What kind of GOTV operation can two warring factions effectively run in November?
I think polling is going to be off, because I think there are a multitude of women out there who are responding to pollsters with their aggressive Trump loving husband sitting in the same room and towing the lines but when it comes time to vote, they’ll do what they did in Virginia, NY, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc. After Alabama, this is not going to get better for them. People in the general don’t vote on foreign policy. They vote domestic, and the data is screaming it.
posted by herda05 at 12:45 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
The Republicans have been shellacked in every contest since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Remember Glenn Youngkin and the rising star that he was before he cashed against the fallout of the SC decision?
I know democrats like to cry doom and gloom. Because lives are on the line. But really, and I mean really dispassionately look at the numbers. Trump is not gaining more votes. He’s hit his ceiling, and that ceiling doesn’t win the general election.
I didn’t even mention that in one of the critical swing states, Michigan, the Republican Party has essential split into open civil war 8 months before the general election and 6 months before the convention. What kind of GOTV operation can two warring factions effectively run in November?
I think polling is going to be off, because I think there are a multitude of women out there who are responding to pollsters with their aggressive Trump loving husband sitting in the same room and towing the lines but when it comes time to vote, they’ll do what they did in Virginia, NY, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc. After Alabama, this is not going to get better for them. People in the general don’t vote on foreign policy. They vote domestic, and the data is screaming it.
posted by herda05 at 12:45 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
> Yes. Yes, he could. He should give that a try.
And as the US constitution gives congress the power to control the purse and not the president, that would be a dereliction of his duties of office and give the Republicans in congress an actual, legitimate reason to impeach him. And all they would need is a few democrats to take the side of procedure rather than idealism to remove him.
He could probably delay support to the Israeli government for long enough for an impeachment proceeding to get through congress and cause a minor constitutional crisis, but that's about it.
We can't protect democracy by nursing dreams of a benevolent dictator.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:37 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
And as the US constitution gives congress the power to control the purse and not the president, that would be a dereliction of his duties of office and give the Republicans in congress an actual, legitimate reason to impeach him. And all they would need is a few democrats to take the side of procedure rather than idealism to remove him.
He could probably delay support to the Israeli government for long enough for an impeachment proceeding to get through congress and cause a minor constitutional crisis, but that's about it.
We can't protect democracy by nursing dreams of a benevolent dictator.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:37 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Trump is senile. He recently referred to Biden by Obama's name.
But people will still use him as a dictator, if he gets elected.
Don't make the same mistake Weimar Germany made by electing Hitler. Don't vote for Trump. Don't abstain from supporting Biden and support Trump in the process.
The stakes to humanity are vast. Not just in Gaza, but especially Gaza. Not just to every woman, every trans kid, every married LGBT couple, every Muslim, every Jew. But especially to all of those folks, as well.
Republicans are serious about killing trans children, as we just saw in Oklahoma. Republicans are serious about imprisoning and murdering women who need abortions for medical reasons (or whatever reasons they need an abortion), as we saw in Texas and Alabama. Republicans are serious about keeping Muslims out of the country and deporting naturalized citizens.
They have told us exactly what their plans are: Please, for the love of God, listen to them.
Stop supporting Republicans with academic exercises. This exercise in bullshittingcould will kill millions of people. Maybe billions, given climate change and what Republicans think about environmental laws.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:49 AM on March 3 [32 favorites]
But people will still use him as a dictator, if he gets elected.
Don't make the same mistake Weimar Germany made by electing Hitler. Don't vote for Trump. Don't abstain from supporting Biden and support Trump in the process.
The stakes to humanity are vast. Not just in Gaza, but especially Gaza. Not just to every woman, every trans kid, every married LGBT couple, every Muslim, every Jew. But especially to all of those folks, as well.
Republicans are serious about killing trans children, as we just saw in Oklahoma. Republicans are serious about imprisoning and murdering women who need abortions for medical reasons (or whatever reasons they need an abortion), as we saw in Texas and Alabama. Republicans are serious about keeping Muslims out of the country and deporting naturalized citizens.
They have told us exactly what their plans are: Please, for the love of God, listen to them.
Stop supporting Republicans with academic exercises. This exercise in bullshitting
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:49 AM on March 3 [32 favorites]
Klein sounds like one of the smartest podcasters out there, but it seems that he is actually an idiot. He did a follow up episode largely dedicated to answering questions about this silly idea and his answers were mostly “that doesn’t matter” or “it will work itself out.” Like, his rationale is that Biden doesn’t have the energy to campaign, but when asked if a candidate not chosen until the convention can then spin up a campaign he says that it’s not an issue because there will be a lot of glorious convention coverage that reaches even low info voters, and the candidate can probably just use whatever campaign infrastructure Biden has set up. I don’t really understand how (or why?) he can say this stuff with a straight face. But he also did a fawning interview with Sam Altman, so maybe he is just dumb.
posted by snofoam at 2:44 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 2:44 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
Sorry, barring his own death or incapacitation, it's Trump. If those Democrats wanted it and thought they had a good chance at it, they would have been more competent about getting Biden to step down--it's their big shot, after all. I think they prefer the idea of fundraising off Trump.
posted by kingdead at 2:50 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
posted by kingdead at 2:50 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
I really think the Republican superpower is just knowing when to shut up.
It's not really true that the right can turn every event to their advantage by using it to generate outrage. It's more that they've mastered something the left and liberals haven't: the art of just keeping quiet on unfavorable stuff.
Like when Trump was ordered to pay $83m to E. Jean Carroll. There was talk in the Mefi thread of how his supporters would use it as fuel and claim persecution. But when I checked Fox and The American Conservative, the story was just buried in a tiny link, screenfulls of paging below the top.
Or as MiraK pointed out about /r/Conservative:
But the people like Ezra Klein always fall into the trap of talking about whatever the right want them to talk about. They always let the right set the agenda.
In 2016 it was "But her emails". They went on and on about Hilary Clinton's misused emails, sometimes excusing or defending it sure, but it was always high on the agenda.
In 2024 they're doing the same thing with "Is Joe Biden senile?" Republicans have decided that's the agenda, and liberals are going to spend most of the time to the election jabbering on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it.
Why not talk about Trump's dementia? Or how Trump doesn't even know who his wife is. Mercedes? Melania?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:16 AM on March 3 [41 favorites]
It's not really true that the right can turn every event to their advantage by using it to generate outrage. It's more that they've mastered something the left and liberals haven't: the art of just keeping quiet on unfavorable stuff.
Like when Trump was ordered to pay $83m to E. Jean Carroll. There was talk in the Mefi thread of how his supporters would use it as fuel and claim persecution. But when I checked Fox and The American Conservative, the story was just buried in a tiny link, screenfulls of paging below the top.
Or as MiraK pointed out about /r/Conservative:
A lot of the regular folks on the right have now gotten into the habit of waiting to hear the party line before reacting to news events. You can see it especially clearly on r/conservative.... Trump's hidden document stash, for instance: the moderators were banning all new threads on the subject until the right wing position on each development had hardened in the media. People on the subreddit weren't allowed to post anything or even comment on anything until the party line became clear, so that the loyal contingent would have something to say in answer when the less loyal asked questions. These days the whole group is well trained. Trump announced that he was selling off pieces of his suit in which he got arrested, for $5000 per piece of indeterminate size, and they barely had any reaction. The conservative media has ignored it for most part THEREFORE they all have nothing to say about it. They know now not to even comment on it without guidance from up top.The right don't always try to turn fundamentally unfavorable stories to their advantage: they just shut up and take the issue off the radar.
But the people like Ezra Klein always fall into the trap of talking about whatever the right want them to talk about. They always let the right set the agenda.
In 2016 it was "But her emails". They went on and on about Hilary Clinton's misused emails, sometimes excusing or defending it sure, but it was always high on the agenda.
In 2024 they're doing the same thing with "Is Joe Biden senile?" Republicans have decided that's the agenda, and liberals are going to spend most of the time to the election jabbering on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it.
Why not talk about Trump's dementia? Or how Trump doesn't even know who his wife is. Mercedes? Melania?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:16 AM on March 3 [41 favorites]
In 2016 it was "But her emails"…
There was also a lot of noise about her health coming from the right wing and/or the Russians. If she stumbled a little getting in or out of a car it became incontrovertible proof that she was suffering from some terminal disease that would leave her unfit to govern within weeks or even days of taking office. Of course, last time I checked she was doing fine, at what should have been the last part of her second term.
posted by TedW at 3:43 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
There was also a lot of noise about her health coming from the right wing and/or the Russians. If she stumbled a little getting in or out of a car it became incontrovertible proof that she was suffering from some terminal disease that would leave her unfit to govern within weeks or even days of taking office. Of course, last time I checked she was doing fine, at what should have been the last part of her second term.
posted by TedW at 3:43 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
Biden is working aggressively for a negotiated ceasefire
whatever else one wants to say about US politics, this is bullshit and the possibility of a US domestic catastrophe should Trump be elected is of secondary importance compared to the real-time, ongoing catastrophe being perpetrated by a US client state which the Biden administration is absolutely not wielding maximum leverage to curtail. there's no realistic way to punish him electorally for genocide that doesn't involve electing Trump, which means that the notion that the US has a democracy that needs to be protected, rather than a hypothetical democracy that needs to be created, is a lie; meanwhile, the way to mobilise people against fascists is not to blow smoke up everyone's ass.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:57 AM on March 3 [31 favorites]
whatever else one wants to say about US politics, this is bullshit and the possibility of a US domestic catastrophe should Trump be elected is of secondary importance compared to the real-time, ongoing catastrophe being perpetrated by a US client state which the Biden administration is absolutely not wielding maximum leverage to curtail. there's no realistic way to punish him electorally for genocide that doesn't involve electing Trump, which means that the notion that the US has a democracy that needs to be protected, rather than a hypothetical democracy that needs to be created, is a lie; meanwhile, the way to mobilise people against fascists is not to blow smoke up everyone's ass.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:57 AM on March 3 [31 favorites]
Josh Marshall's rebuttal linked in the first comment is very good, including this:
Then there’s another issue...How do we get there? Klein is refreshingly candid about this while somehow not being remotely realistic about how wildly improbable it is. You do it by mounting a public campaign to convince the people in Biden’s inner circle — Mike Donilon, Anita Dunn, Steve Ricchetti, maybe Barack Obama and whoever else — to convince Biden to step aside. That’s almost word for word the plan. Let’s drill down on what that means. Your plan is to convince the people who are pretty much by definition the most loyal to and invested in Biden — more than anyone in the entire political world — to abandon the plan they’re already two-thirds of their way through and convince Biden to step aside...That to me is not remotely a serious plan. It’s not a serious anything.
posted by mediareport at 4:40 AM on March 3 [26 favorites]
Then there’s another issue...How do we get there? Klein is refreshingly candid about this while somehow not being remotely realistic about how wildly improbable it is. You do it by mounting a public campaign to convince the people in Biden’s inner circle — Mike Donilon, Anita Dunn, Steve Ricchetti, maybe Barack Obama and whoever else — to convince Biden to step aside. That’s almost word for word the plan. Let’s drill down on what that means. Your plan is to convince the people who are pretty much by definition the most loyal to and invested in Biden — more than anyone in the entire political world — to abandon the plan they’re already two-thirds of their way through and convince Biden to step aside...That to me is not remotely a serious plan. It’s not a serious anything.
posted by mediareport at 4:40 AM on March 3 [26 favorites]
> Nobody cares what you're excited about. You don't get to vote extra times if you're excited.
Yes, except my point is that for many people unless they’re excited about the candidate (as opposed to voting against the other candidate) they probably won’t vote once.
Obama got people excited to vote for him. Kerry and Hilary didn’t. They both thought they were going to win because people didn’t like their opponents. That just wasn’t enough those years. It was enough in 2020 for Biden to beat a historically unlikeable Trump.
Will it be enough this year? Guess we’ll find out.
posted by paulcole at 5:16 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Yes, except my point is that for many people unless they’re excited about the candidate (as opposed to voting against the other candidate) they probably won’t vote once.
Obama got people excited to vote for him. Kerry and Hilary didn’t. They both thought they were going to win because people didn’t like their opponents. That just wasn’t enough those years. It was enough in 2020 for Biden to beat a historically unlikeable Trump.
Will it be enough this year? Guess we’ll find out.
posted by paulcole at 5:16 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Between now and November 6, any article, podcast, video, mailer, or other media designed to get Biden to step aside for another candidate is functionally a Republican op. Serious public consideration of other candidates at this point is a Republican-supporting activity. You’re ridin’ with Biden and telling everyone why he’s the good choice, or you’re supporting Trump. There has never been less of a third option in a U.S. presidential election in my entire life, and I am so tired of the pretense that it is otherwise after the border, after civil rights erosion, after Dobbs, and after a motherfucking attempted insurrection—to name only some of the many disasters that can be laid at Trump’s feet.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:16 AM on March 3 [63 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:16 AM on March 3 [63 favorites]
Lots to unpack here. First, Mr. Klein should keep these thought pieces to himself. This is a pipe dream - IF we’d had this discussion 3 years ago and lined someone up fast, then maybe. Today? Not a chance. Biden is being held to a higher standard than Drumpf for reasons I can’t explain but all sound like “but her emails” to me. How does anyone on the left/middle who has this size of an audience not ask some interesting questions about policy?
Second, Mr. Klein seems like the kind of guy who won’t have his life turned upside down with Drumpf 2.0, at least for the first few years. As he gets loaded onto a train, or more likely a boxcar on the back of a semi, I wonder if Mr. Klein’s last thoughts will be “I should have backed Biden somewhat more vociferously?”
Third, yes, Biden should be doing more in Israel right now - this isn’t really open to debate in my mind. However, if the other guy wins, the death toll will be 10x as it’ll be the “Bibi/Drumpf love fest” that will have the IDF in Lebanon, Egypt, etc to ensure that “Israel has a buffer zone…” or some BS.
Fourth - can we find out where the RNC and all these R’s are getting their funding from cause Mike Johnson really looks like a Russian agent with the Ukraine vote. Oh, right, we can’t because of a Supreme Court packed by the right wing. “Did Not Vote” really is the problem - which is solvable but please shove your “I need to be excited” perspective as we’re not 13 year old school children.
Bill Clinton’s quote that “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line” seems accurate today. Let’s get Biden back in office, then recreate a meaningful Democratic Party where we develop leaders with some foresight vs. whatever it is the DNC is doing these days.
posted by Farce_First at 5:26 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Second, Mr. Klein seems like the kind of guy who won’t have his life turned upside down with Drumpf 2.0, at least for the first few years. As he gets loaded onto a train, or more likely a boxcar on the back of a semi, I wonder if Mr. Klein’s last thoughts will be “I should have backed Biden somewhat more vociferously?”
Third, yes, Biden should be doing more in Israel right now - this isn’t really open to debate in my mind. However, if the other guy wins, the death toll will be 10x as it’ll be the “Bibi/Drumpf love fest” that will have the IDF in Lebanon, Egypt, etc to ensure that “Israel has a buffer zone…” or some BS.
Fourth - can we find out where the RNC and all these R’s are getting their funding from cause Mike Johnson really looks like a Russian agent with the Ukraine vote. Oh, right, we can’t because of a Supreme Court packed by the right wing. “Did Not Vote” really is the problem - which is solvable but please shove your “I need to be excited” perspective as we’re not 13 year old school children.
Bill Clinton’s quote that “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line” seems accurate today. Let’s get Biden back in office, then recreate a meaningful Democratic Party where we develop leaders with some foresight vs. whatever it is the DNC is doing these days.
posted by Farce_First at 5:26 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
I suspect that Ezra is trying to have it both ways. If Trump wins, Ezra'll just inhale his own fumes and chirp, "Why didn't you listen to me, the all-knowing Ezra Klein?" for the rest of his life. If Biden wins, well, "we dodged a bullet" and Ezra knows he'll never face any pushback for his position. Ezra knows exactly what he's doing. He's a man trying to capitalize on his own cynicism, which is par for the course at the New York Times.
posted by Roentgen at 5:39 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
posted by Roentgen at 5:39 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
I haven't seen much discussion about Trump's very serious money problems. It's a small bump towards more hope, for me, since they've been saying since forever the candidate with the most money wins. Lovely democracy we have, I know.
And lots of secret votes from women voting for the right to have medical care. Again, I hope.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:42 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
And lots of secret votes from women voting for the right to have medical care. Again, I hope.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:42 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I don't have a problem with Biden - he's worlds away from Trump. Like, you can't even see Trumpland from Bidenworld.
They are both elderly. They both make verbal slipups from time to time. But, I feel like Biden's come from having a lot to say, but fighting against his stutter, he doesn't have time to say it, or it's fighting other thoughts to get out. I don't think it's because his brain is wading thru the beginning of dementia.
Trump ... well, he's just fucking nuts, at best.
He has dementia, unfortunately. I say "unfortunately" because it allows people to dismiss his many sins, when what he actually deserves is to never see the outside of a haydite block cell ever again, while watching his fortune be drained away to pay off people he's maligned over and over again.
Now, that said - there isn't anyone else for Biden to step aside for. There's no other politician with a nationwide recognition who can inspire confidence - which is what we absolutely need right now. There are plenty of people who can be ready for the next election in 2028, but we just do not have the time to build them up now. We need someone with the leadership capability to manage a fractious Congress and a partisan Supreme Court while establishing and maintaining sane policy both nationally and internationally. I'm sorry, but there just isn't anyone close to there, yet. I, maybe, 75% agree with Biden's choices, but I 0% agree with the MAGA Republicans.
I feel that if Biden steps aside, we are so very fucked that the word "fucked" will barely describe the kind of horror that will be visited upon us. Not because a new person doesn't mean well, but because they just don't have the level of experience to deal with what's coming. I think maybe Biden doesn't even have it, but I know no one else has it.
If Biden does step aside, I'l support whomever he endorses, or failing that, the leading Democrat. Because the alternative is a death sentence.
Literally and figuratively, for person and country, for ethics, morality and legality.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 5:47 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
They are both elderly. They both make verbal slipups from time to time. But, I feel like Biden's come from having a lot to say, but fighting against his stutter, he doesn't have time to say it, or it's fighting other thoughts to get out. I don't think it's because his brain is wading thru the beginning of dementia.
Trump ... well, he's just fucking nuts, at best.
He has dementia, unfortunately. I say "unfortunately" because it allows people to dismiss his many sins, when what he actually deserves is to never see the outside of a haydite block cell ever again, while watching his fortune be drained away to pay off people he's maligned over and over again.
Now, that said - there isn't anyone else for Biden to step aside for. There's no other politician with a nationwide recognition who can inspire confidence - which is what we absolutely need right now. There are plenty of people who can be ready for the next election in 2028, but we just do not have the time to build them up now. We need someone with the leadership capability to manage a fractious Congress and a partisan Supreme Court while establishing and maintaining sane policy both nationally and internationally. I'm sorry, but there just isn't anyone close to there, yet. I, maybe, 75% agree with Biden's choices, but I 0% agree with the MAGA Republicans.
I feel that if Biden steps aside, we are so very fucked that the word "fucked" will barely describe the kind of horror that will be visited upon us. Not because a new person doesn't mean well, but because they just don't have the level of experience to deal with what's coming. I think maybe Biden doesn't even have it, but I know no one else has it.
If Biden does step aside, I'l support whomever he endorses, or failing that, the leading Democrat. Because the alternative is a death sentence.
Literally and figuratively, for person and country, for ethics, morality and legality.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 5:47 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
They're not going to bring up Trump being demented because it's not really an obstacle for him and it brings up the nastier reality that the only people who want to lead one of the great powers of the world are 80 year old blowhards. There should be people ready for leadership who can still walk and talk, but anyone with any intelligence or charisma is in business or media, so the few people left are the most vile and disgusting freaks known to mankind. I'm not Republican but I understand why primary voters still want Trump, if the alternative was Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis I'd also think Trump was the second coming of Christ. I can't think of a Democrat with any chance to replace Biden who isn't a complete and utter sleaze, either. Who cares, all the same.
posted by kingdead at 5:58 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by kingdead at 5:58 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I haven't seen much discussion about Trump's very serious money problems.
Because, deep down, it really isn’t a problem. The biggest issue Trump has, as far as money goes, is how to hide/rearrange his money adequately, in order to skirt paying the fines.
He’s now in official control of the RNC, so it’s a given that will now become a stream for paying his legal fines. There’s also the $2-billion of Saudi funds sitting-around out there just begging to be used somehow. Funneling some of it it through the RNC washing machine seems like an idea.
Don’t believe all the breathless “ he’s bankrupt!” shouting. Has he put-up any of his big properties for sale? No? He isn’t close to being penniless. His funding is simply going dark. And, as usual, he’s using his seemingly-bottomless well of lawyers to run-out the clock, betting that he’ll win in November.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:05 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
Because, deep down, it really isn’t a problem. The biggest issue Trump has, as far as money goes, is how to hide/rearrange his money adequately, in order to skirt paying the fines.
He’s now in official control of the RNC, so it’s a given that will now become a stream for paying his legal fines. There’s also the $2-billion of Saudi funds sitting-around out there just begging to be used somehow. Funneling some of it it through the RNC washing machine seems like an idea.
Don’t believe all the breathless “ he’s bankrupt!” shouting. Has he put-up any of his big properties for sale? No? He isn’t close to being penniless. His funding is simply going dark. And, as usual, he’s using his seemingly-bottomless well of lawyers to run-out the clock, betting that he’ll win in November.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:05 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
I loathe Biden and I think he's going to lose.
But Ezra Klein is an idiot, and we'd lose harder if Biden withdrew now. If, way back in 2020, he'd said he had stepped up to be a one term President because he knew the confluence of history was such that he alone had the best chance of beating Trump [1] and had spent the last four years building up his chosen successor then MAYBE, POSSIBLY, he could be dropping out in favor of that successor and not have it turn out to be a total catastrophe.
But in this timeline where Biden suffers from the Feinstein/Ginsberg delusion that he's immortal and has spent the past 4 years presenting himself as a two term President?
Biden dropping out would more or less guarantee any Democratic successor would lose.
I continue to feel sometimes that reality is slipping away from us and we've gone down the wrong leg of the trousers of time. How the hell did it come to the point where in the USA the two biggest political parties picked Joe Biden and Donald Trump as their star players?
I feel like we're in some Disney dog playing basketball type comedy. "Well, there's nothing in the rules that says an orange sexual predator who is obviously stupid and senile CAN'T be president!" on one side vs "well, there's nothing in the rules that says a segregationist who called Anita Hill a slut and got Clarence Thomas on the bench and is now clearly suffering from dementia as well as being so old he's likely to drop dead next week CAN'T be president!"
I often find myself wondering how it came to this.
But it has.
And god help us our best shot is to hope that somehow our senile very poor insurance risk can beat their senile very poor insurance risk.
[1] Which I don't think is true but nevermind that
posted by sotonohito at 6:12 AM on March 3 [19 favorites]
But Ezra Klein is an idiot, and we'd lose harder if Biden withdrew now. If, way back in 2020, he'd said he had stepped up to be a one term President because he knew the confluence of history was such that he alone had the best chance of beating Trump [1] and had spent the last four years building up his chosen successor then MAYBE, POSSIBLY, he could be dropping out in favor of that successor and not have it turn out to be a total catastrophe.
But in this timeline where Biden suffers from the Feinstein/Ginsberg delusion that he's immortal and has spent the past 4 years presenting himself as a two term President?
Biden dropping out would more or less guarantee any Democratic successor would lose.
I continue to feel sometimes that reality is slipping away from us and we've gone down the wrong leg of the trousers of time. How the hell did it come to the point where in the USA the two biggest political parties picked Joe Biden and Donald Trump as their star players?
I feel like we're in some Disney dog playing basketball type comedy. "Well, there's nothing in the rules that says an orange sexual predator who is obviously stupid and senile CAN'T be president!" on one side vs "well, there's nothing in the rules that says a segregationist who called Anita Hill a slut and got Clarence Thomas on the bench and is now clearly suffering from dementia as well as being so old he's likely to drop dead next week CAN'T be president!"
I often find myself wondering how it came to this.
But it has.
And god help us our best shot is to hope that somehow our senile very poor insurance risk can beat their senile very poor insurance risk.
[1] Which I don't think is true but nevermind that
posted by sotonohito at 6:12 AM on March 3 [19 favorites]
Biden could stop all aid to Israel right now
Yes. Yes, he could. He should give that a try.
And lose the fucking election. Like it or not, and I don't, the US and Israel have been staunch allies for 76 years now, Israeli interests have embedded themselves everywhere in the US government, especially the Democratic Party, and to extricate ourselves from that is going to be a long, slow and careful process, which Biden has already begun. Were he to stand up to that monster Netanyahu, not only would it not change a thing on the ground, but it would slaughter Biden, as all of the Republicans and half his own party would start hollering about it.
He's doing it right: he's very gradually sliding from 110% on the Israeli side in such a way that by the middle of the summer, when people who aren't political junkies even begin to start paying attention, his policy is going to be way more nuanced and about protecting ordinary Palestinian people from both Likud and Hamas. The performative food drops are just the first step. By October, he's going to be making the case for an independent, secular, thoroughly demilitarized and democratic West Bank state, with the "settlers" all kicked out, and some kind of UN-run "free city" on the same principles for Gaza. It's all going to be about "doing what's fair" or some other platitude, and 90% of those people in Michigan are going to be like okay, not perfect, but he listened to us and made changes, and he's not Trump, who wants us and Gazans all murdered.
And this slow approach, however frustrating it might be to the sort of Ardent Progressive who wants Performative Morals Now!, will be far, far more effective than Standing Up For Justice or whatever the fuck.
Ezra Klein is one of the class of Privileged People Who Could Be Doing Something Useful where, when progressives say the Democratic Party has been captured by technocrats who don't give a shit about the working class, even I have to nod and say, "Yeah, him you've absolutely got a point with." Put him to work cleaning trash out of the ocean.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:13 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
Yes. Yes, he could. He should give that a try.
And lose the fucking election. Like it or not, and I don't, the US and Israel have been staunch allies for 76 years now, Israeli interests have embedded themselves everywhere in the US government, especially the Democratic Party, and to extricate ourselves from that is going to be a long, slow and careful process, which Biden has already begun. Were he to stand up to that monster Netanyahu, not only would it not change a thing on the ground, but it would slaughter Biden, as all of the Republicans and half his own party would start hollering about it.
He's doing it right: he's very gradually sliding from 110% on the Israeli side in such a way that by the middle of the summer, when people who aren't political junkies even begin to start paying attention, his policy is going to be way more nuanced and about protecting ordinary Palestinian people from both Likud and Hamas. The performative food drops are just the first step. By October, he's going to be making the case for an independent, secular, thoroughly demilitarized and democratic West Bank state, with the "settlers" all kicked out, and some kind of UN-run "free city" on the same principles for Gaza. It's all going to be about "doing what's fair" or some other platitude, and 90% of those people in Michigan are going to be like okay, not perfect, but he listened to us and made changes, and he's not Trump, who wants us and Gazans all murdered.
And this slow approach, however frustrating it might be to the sort of Ardent Progressive who wants Performative Morals Now!, will be far, far more effective than Standing Up For Justice or whatever the fuck.
Ezra Klein is one of the class of Privileged People Who Could Be Doing Something Useful where, when progressives say the Democratic Party has been captured by technocrats who don't give a shit about the working class, even I have to nod and say, "Yeah, him you've absolutely got a point with." Put him to work cleaning trash out of the ocean.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:13 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
If you're willing to dig into the limited polling that's come out so far....Biden does better against Trump than the commonly floated alternatives (Harris and Newsom are typically the ones in these fantasy polls). And the Dean Phillips debacle has shown pretty clearly that an active attempt to run as an alternative to Biden has almost no support among actual voters.
That said, the electoral college status at this moment is even odds. Trump could win.
The state races that will determine electoral college votes are falling into four buckets:
Deep-blue and medium-blue states where Biden has lost support. Biden will still win these, assuming no dramatic further slide in Biden support, which there's no evidence of yet.
Northern swing states (WI, MI, PA) which are basically right where they were in both 2016 and 2020. They're going to be close. But, they're not changing dramatically.
Deep-red states are also not changing. Trump support is right where it's always been, but it looks maxed out.
The concern is about Sunbelt swing states that Biden won (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada) or almost won (North Carolina is an example). These did a swing towards Democrats in 2020, the polling in this cycle looks more like a reversion to 2016. (Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina fit this pattern; Nevada voted for Clinton and Biden, Trump is leading Nevada at this moment.) If the election were held today (it's not, but if it were) Trump would win all these.
If you want more things to worry about, here are a couple of scenarios:
Biden 270, Trump 268 in the electoral college. A contested election in a single state, even a relatively small one like Nevada, could have big consequences. Another related possibility: if enough people stay home in places like California and New York, you could see Trump win the popular vote, but Biden win the electoral vote.
Another scenario: Biden 269, Trump 269, which is a viable possibility this year. This would throw the election to the House, where a contingent election would be held. Each state delegation would get one vote, and as you might guess, it's widely expected that Republicans would win this. A buried detail of this, though--the House could reconvene and vote another president in at any time. This could lead to chaos if Republicans hold the House, given that they have trouble even electing a speaker. Also, it would mean that the 2026 elections for Congress would, by proxy, also be elections to decide who would be President for the period from 2027 to 2029.
Note also that in the first scenario, if a single state's electoral votes get thrown out, you'd get the contingent election in the House that way, too. Democrats have to win 270 or more electoral votes outright. Republican attempts to interfere with electoral votes in 2020 were bogus and criminal, but the effect would be real--it's a near certainty that Republicans would "win" the contingent election that would follow.
Pleasant dreams, everyone!
posted by gimonca at 6:15 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
That said, the electoral college status at this moment is even odds. Trump could win.
The state races that will determine electoral college votes are falling into four buckets:
Deep-blue and medium-blue states where Biden has lost support. Biden will still win these, assuming no dramatic further slide in Biden support, which there's no evidence of yet.
Northern swing states (WI, MI, PA) which are basically right where they were in both 2016 and 2020. They're going to be close. But, they're not changing dramatically.
Deep-red states are also not changing. Trump support is right where it's always been, but it looks maxed out.
The concern is about Sunbelt swing states that Biden won (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada) or almost won (North Carolina is an example). These did a swing towards Democrats in 2020, the polling in this cycle looks more like a reversion to 2016. (Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina fit this pattern; Nevada voted for Clinton and Biden, Trump is leading Nevada at this moment.) If the election were held today (it's not, but if it were) Trump would win all these.
If you want more things to worry about, here are a couple of scenarios:
Biden 270, Trump 268 in the electoral college. A contested election in a single state, even a relatively small one like Nevada, could have big consequences. Another related possibility: if enough people stay home in places like California and New York, you could see Trump win the popular vote, but Biden win the electoral vote.
Another scenario: Biden 269, Trump 269, which is a viable possibility this year. This would throw the election to the House, where a contingent election would be held. Each state delegation would get one vote, and as you might guess, it's widely expected that Republicans would win this. A buried detail of this, though--the House could reconvene and vote another president in at any time. This could lead to chaos if Republicans hold the House, given that they have trouble even electing a speaker. Also, it would mean that the 2026 elections for Congress would, by proxy, also be elections to decide who would be President for the period from 2027 to 2029.
Note also that in the first scenario, if a single state's electoral votes get thrown out, you'd get the contingent election in the House that way, too. Democrats have to win 270 or more electoral votes outright. Republican attempts to interfere with electoral votes in 2020 were bogus and criminal, but the effect would be real--it's a near certainty that Republicans would "win" the contingent election that would follow.
Pleasant dreams, everyone!
posted by gimonca at 6:15 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
IMO, there is a problem with liberal-leaning journalists where they know they have to be critical thinkers, but they don't know what that is. They confuse the common language meaning of critical with the philosophical meaning. And end with Hillary's emails or Biden's age, just to prove how smart they are. Which is literally stupid.
Another thing, that I have mentioned in another thread: I'm pretty certain that the Hamas attack on Israel was a direct result of the Abraham Accords, initiated by the Trump administration. If anyone thinks Trump will do anything meaningful for the Palestinian people they must have their heads up their asses.
Biden till now has been the most progressive president since FDR. That's just a fact. I hope his campaign gets better at telling that truth, but given the American political landscape, they might be scared of it. After all, Trump has successfully conflated the left with fascism and old-style communism. Words don't mean anything anymore. Who'd have thought that Big Brother would be an orange New York failson?
posted by mumimor at 6:25 AM on March 3 [11 favorites]
Another thing, that I have mentioned in another thread: I'm pretty certain that the Hamas attack on Israel was a direct result of the Abraham Accords, initiated by the Trump administration. If anyone thinks Trump will do anything meaningful for the Palestinian people they must have their heads up their asses.
Biden till now has been the most progressive president since FDR. That's just a fact. I hope his campaign gets better at telling that truth, but given the American political landscape, they might be scared of it. After all, Trump has successfully conflated the left with fascism and old-style communism. Words don't mean anything anymore. Who'd have thought that Big Brother would be an orange New York failson?
posted by mumimor at 6:25 AM on March 3 [11 favorites]
If there is one political pundit in this sad, benighted country who is NOT cynical, it is Ezra Klein -- possibly, probably, to a fault.
I've always liked Klein, an optimistic progressive who is all about exploring ideas. He's a weird fit for NYT, a stodgy, conservative institution that's forever finding ways to normalize the worst social positions on anything. But they've given him a big platform, and that's great. He's worth listening to, which I feel I should point out, since it's clear a lot of the people who've objected to what he's said didn't actually listen to him. I know that listening isn't as much fun as saying stuff, but you might enjoy it.
I generally hold Klein in high enough esteem that, ironically, his stirring defense of Joe Biden as president has forced me to consider whether I have been to harsh. Klein thinks a lot more of Biden than I do.
His objection to Biden is that Biden can't seem to get people on board with him, basically because he seems like a doddering old fuck. Klein thinks this perception is so overwhelming and uncorrectable that the only solution is for Biden to step aside for an exciting new player to rush the stage and defeat Trump. This idea is a lot of things, but the one thing it is not is cynical. It's blindingly Pollyannaish, and that's something so foreign to US politics in the last fifteen years that I can understand why no one can see it.
Unfortunately, I myself am much too cynical to recognize anything in this idea as a thing that could transpire in reality. Joe Biden has been running, actively and passively, for president most of his life. He will be a withered lich king holding on to this shit with his soul's last breath, and only a visionary with the heart of a child could believe anything else. I really think that is Ezra Klein, and I really think Joe Biden is that lich king. He will never step aside (except at the end of his second term, because he's also not a total lunatic).
Every election this century has been billed as The Most Important Election EVER, the one you MUST hold your nose for and vote for whatever the democratic donors would like to see in office. Maybe one day the democrats will get around to running a candidate voters want again, but it won't be this year.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:27 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
I've always liked Klein, an optimistic progressive who is all about exploring ideas. He's a weird fit for NYT, a stodgy, conservative institution that's forever finding ways to normalize the worst social positions on anything. But they've given him a big platform, and that's great. He's worth listening to, which I feel I should point out, since it's clear a lot of the people who've objected to what he's said didn't actually listen to him. I know that listening isn't as much fun as saying stuff, but you might enjoy it.
I generally hold Klein in high enough esteem that, ironically, his stirring defense of Joe Biden as president has forced me to consider whether I have been to harsh. Klein thinks a lot more of Biden than I do.
His objection to Biden is that Biden can't seem to get people on board with him, basically because he seems like a doddering old fuck. Klein thinks this perception is so overwhelming and uncorrectable that the only solution is for Biden to step aside for an exciting new player to rush the stage and defeat Trump. This idea is a lot of things, but the one thing it is not is cynical. It's blindingly Pollyannaish, and that's something so foreign to US politics in the last fifteen years that I can understand why no one can see it.
Unfortunately, I myself am much too cynical to recognize anything in this idea as a thing that could transpire in reality. Joe Biden has been running, actively and passively, for president most of his life. He will be a withered lich king holding on to this shit with his soul's last breath, and only a visionary with the heart of a child could believe anything else. I really think that is Ezra Klein, and I really think Joe Biden is that lich king. He will never step aside (except at the end of his second term, because he's also not a total lunatic).
Every election this century has been billed as The Most Important Election EVER, the one you MUST hold your nose for and vote for whatever the democratic donors would like to see in office. Maybe one day the democrats will get around to running a candidate voters want again, but it won't be this year.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:27 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
So if I were some kind of big wheel running things, I'd say replacing Biden is a non-starter. You should have someone warmed up in case of an emergency, but for now, stick with him.
Throw tons of resources into Arizona and Nevada, and note that they have important Senate races, too. Make damn sure Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania are shored up. Give some love to Georgia and North Carolina. And speaking of Senate races, Ohio and Montana are not lost causes by any means, throw some resources there, make Republicans fight for them.
If things improve, take the battle into Texas and Florida. They're red the last couple of cycles, but they're not totally out of range, and a win in Texas is a knockout blow for Republican hopes.
And tell "I'm going to stay home" voters in places like California and New York that you will, rightly or wrongly, be blamed for losing the House again if the 2022 elections repeats, and if you tie your abstention to a policy position, that will drag down support for your policy. Get your butts out there and vote.
posted by gimonca at 6:27 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Throw tons of resources into Arizona and Nevada, and note that they have important Senate races, too. Make damn sure Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania are shored up. Give some love to Georgia and North Carolina. And speaking of Senate races, Ohio and Montana are not lost causes by any means, throw some resources there, make Republicans fight for them.
If things improve, take the battle into Texas and Florida. They're red the last couple of cycles, but they're not totally out of range, and a win in Texas is a knockout blow for Republican hopes.
And tell "I'm going to stay home" voters in places like California and New York that you will, rightly or wrongly, be blamed for losing the House again if the 2022 elections repeats, and if you tie your abstention to a policy position, that will drag down support for your policy. Get your butts out there and vote.
posted by gimonca at 6:27 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
outgrown_hobnail Better in the sense of winning in Michigan?
Cuz that doesn't seem to be the case.
Leave aside the tiny, insignificant, detail that there are people being murdered every single fucking day Israel continues its genocide, and the tiny, insignificant, detail that most of those people are being murdered with American manufactured munitions, since that clearly means absolutely nothing to most Americans, let me put it in terms you might give a shit about:
Biden is going to lose if he can't get the very Palestinian leaning Muslim population of Michigan to vote for him.
There? See the problem now that I've framed it in terms of US horserace politics rather than a futile appeal to decency?
Joe Biden is pursuing action in Israel that has dire consequences for him in terms of reelection. You can't scold people who have watched Israel murder their friends and family into voting for the guy who broke the law to give Israel the weapons to murder their friends and family. I know you really want to think you can just scold people enough and make fun of them for giving a shit about human misery enough that they'll come to their senses and vote for genocide Joe, but it's not going to work for the average Muslim in Michigan.
I'm not sure Biden can recover those votes if he stopped 100% of arms shipment to Israel tomorrow. The people who pushed him over the top in Michigan have had their votes repaid by watching him help murder their friends and families, and the damage is probably irreversible.
Biden's unwavering support for Israel's genocide is the main reason why I think Trump is going to win. The Democrats are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if they can do so while punching hippies and feeling smugly superior for being "realistic" while losing then it seems they view that as being even better than losing for other reasons.
mumimor Of course Trump will be vastly worse for Palestinians than Biden. So? People don't sit around and say "well, yes, Biden did enable and encourage the brutal murder of my cousin, but on an abstract level it was initiated by Trump and anyway I think Trump might be worse overall for Muslim Americans". People, and I absolutely include myself here, are emotion driven; they are rationalizing not rational.
When you've got shells that metaphorically have a tag saying "to Bibi, from Joe" doing the killing, it's not going to be easy at all to convince the friends and family of the dead to vote for Joe.
posted by sotonohito at 6:32 AM on March 3 [38 favorites]
Cuz that doesn't seem to be the case.
Leave aside the tiny, insignificant, detail that there are people being murdered every single fucking day Israel continues its genocide, and the tiny, insignificant, detail that most of those people are being murdered with American manufactured munitions, since that clearly means absolutely nothing to most Americans, let me put it in terms you might give a shit about:
Biden is going to lose if he can't get the very Palestinian leaning Muslim population of Michigan to vote for him.
There? See the problem now that I've framed it in terms of US horserace politics rather than a futile appeal to decency?
Joe Biden is pursuing action in Israel that has dire consequences for him in terms of reelection. You can't scold people who have watched Israel murder their friends and family into voting for the guy who broke the law to give Israel the weapons to murder their friends and family. I know you really want to think you can just scold people enough and make fun of them for giving a shit about human misery enough that they'll come to their senses and vote for genocide Joe, but it's not going to work for the average Muslim in Michigan.
I'm not sure Biden can recover those votes if he stopped 100% of arms shipment to Israel tomorrow. The people who pushed him over the top in Michigan have had their votes repaid by watching him help murder their friends and families, and the damage is probably irreversible.
Biden's unwavering support for Israel's genocide is the main reason why I think Trump is going to win. The Democrats are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if they can do so while punching hippies and feeling smugly superior for being "realistic" while losing then it seems they view that as being even better than losing for other reasons.
mumimor Of course Trump will be vastly worse for Palestinians than Biden. So? People don't sit around and say "well, yes, Biden did enable and encourage the brutal murder of my cousin, but on an abstract level it was initiated by Trump and anyway I think Trump might be worse overall for Muslim Americans". People, and I absolutely include myself here, are emotion driven; they are rationalizing not rational.
When you've got shells that metaphorically have a tag saying "to Bibi, from Joe" doing the killing, it's not going to be easy at all to convince the friends and family of the dead to vote for Joe.
posted by sotonohito at 6:32 AM on March 3 [38 favorites]
Voting is an affirmative endorsement of someone and I just fucking can't reach over that mountain of corpses. I know Trump will make more, the dems ask is, "Support this current level of indiscriminate killing" and I just fucking can't.
It's not going to matter, I'm in Maryland, but I'm a largely practical, ends over means guy, who managed to get past Obama's frequent use of PATRIOT Brand Kabul Orphanage Detectors and I just fucking can't anymore. How many people across swing states feel like this?
I'm not convinced abandoning Israeli military aid sinks him but if it would? It feels like Biden could have lost doing the moral thing or lost and poisoned the party brand generationally.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:47 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
It's not going to matter, I'm in Maryland, but I'm a largely practical, ends over means guy, who managed to get past Obama's frequent use of PATRIOT Brand Kabul Orphanage Detectors and I just fucking can't anymore. How many people across swing states feel like this?
I'm not convinced abandoning Israeli military aid sinks him but if it would? It feels like Biden could have lost doing the moral thing or lost and poisoned the party brand generationally.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:47 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden
Voting is an affirmative endorsement of someone
let's put these to rest... you don't need to be excited about a candidate. you are not complicit by voting for them.
you look at what one brings (fascism, anti immigrant actions, anti queer actions, anti woman actions) and what the other brings (not those things) and vote accordingly. and then you keep acting to have the country you want.
if you think the Republicans would be any better to the Palestinians, i don't know what to say.
posted by kokaku at 6:54 AM on March 3 [18 favorites]
Voting is an affirmative endorsement of someone
let's put these to rest... you don't need to be excited about a candidate. you are not complicit by voting for them.
you look at what one brings (fascism, anti immigrant actions, anti queer actions, anti woman actions) and what the other brings (not those things) and vote accordingly. and then you keep acting to have the country you want.
if you think the Republicans would be any better to the Palestinians, i don't know what to say.
posted by kokaku at 6:54 AM on March 3 [18 favorites]
Biden has already lost the election. This thread highlights how democrats cannot separate cause and effect and the insane amounts of cope here should serve as a textbook example of how people talk themselves into dying on hills.
Acknowledging reality means that I'm a secret Trump supporter. Democrats are losers. They love to lose. Winning means they would have to do something, they don't want to because they hold the same policies as the Republicans. This is why every democratic presidency is a long list of why we can't have nice things actually because you don't understand how things work, and every republican presidency is a wishlist of nightmares being checked off, never to be reversed.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 6:54 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
Acknowledging reality means that I'm a secret Trump supporter. Democrats are losers. They love to lose. Winning means they would have to do something, they don't want to because they hold the same policies as the Republicans. This is why every democratic presidency is a long list of why we can't have nice things actually because you don't understand how things work, and every republican presidency is a wishlist of nightmares being checked off, never to be reversed.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 6:54 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
they hold the same policies as the Republicans
tell me you're cishet without telling me you're cishet
posted by kokaku at 6:57 AM on March 3 [22 favorites]
tell me you're cishet without telling me you're cishet
posted by kokaku at 6:57 AM on March 3 [22 favorites]
We can't talk about policy, only culture war.
Tell me you live in a bubble and are a deeply unserious person.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 6:58 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Tell me you live in a bubble and are a deeply unserious person.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 6:58 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Multiple paraphrased: "Trump will not win the general election"
I will believe it when it happens
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:01 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I will believe it when it happens
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:01 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
please, enlighten us, outside of Israel/Palestine, what policies are the same?
posted by kokaku at 7:01 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 7:01 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
The idea of a candidate who is more opposed to Israel will do better against Trump is crazy.
I take this idea as a sure sign that someone is living in an extremely online progressive politics beltway bubble. It’s akin to “Bernie would have won the general.” I’d be in this bubble too if it weren’t for relatives.
Biden is going to lose if he can't get the very Palestinian leaning Muslim population of Michigan to vote for him.
<3% of Michigan’s population is Muslim and most of them live in a handful of Democratic-leaning counties; even if all of them were voting age Democrats (which is not the case) they are really not enough to swing things much one way or the other. You had it right with since that clearly means absolutely nothing to most Americans. Most Americans barely know this is *happening*.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:06 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I take this idea as a sure sign that someone is living in an extremely online progressive politics beltway bubble. It’s akin to “Bernie would have won the general.” I’d be in this bubble too if it weren’t for relatives.
Biden is going to lose if he can't get the very Palestinian leaning Muslim population of Michigan to vote for him.
<3% of Michigan’s population is Muslim and most of them live in a handful of Democratic-leaning counties; even if all of them were voting age Democrats (which is not the case) they are really not enough to swing things much one way or the other. You had it right with since that clearly means absolutely nothing to most Americans. Most Americans barely know this is *happening*.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:06 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
(Like I know Michigan’s Muslim voters get played up a lot in the media and their implied influence gets much puffery from the right, but the actual numbers remain pretty debatable).
posted by aspersioncast at 7:18 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 7:18 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Biden has already lost the election. This thread highlights how democrats cannot separate cause and effect and the insane amounts of cope here should serve as a textbook example of how people talk themselves into dying on hills.
This site is... clearly not a representative crosssection of the Democratic party.
posted by Selena777 at 7:19 AM on March 3 [34 favorites]
This site is... clearly not a representative crosssection of the Democratic party.
posted by Selena777 at 7:19 AM on March 3 [34 favorites]
Biden won by <200,000 votes spread out across Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, and Michigan (combined! not individually!). So nothing has to move most Americans to flip this. Nothing has to move more than roughly an eighth of a percent of voters nationally if they happen to be in four states. The current Democratic Party thinking appears to be that an issue this rancid will not turn off 1/8th of 1 percent of voters, or if it does that the other Candidate's woes are turning off an equivalent or higher number of their own voters.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:26 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 7:26 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Seems like some people here don’t understand that lecturing leftists on how they have to vote for your guy or the worse guy will win every 4 years, forever, isn’t a great strategy. Every election in my adult life has been “the most important election of our lifetime.” You can’t ask people to violate their consciences every 4 years til they die and expect that to work. It’s a political party’s job to field candidates that voters like; it’s not the left flank’s job to get guilted or badgered into doing what the party wants every 4 years, no matter whom the party selects. If voters vote their conscience and your party loses in a case like this, the party failed, not the voters’. There was plenty of warning: Leftist have been telling centrists for years that this was the case. If the Democratic establishment ignored the warnings since at least W, if they counted on us saving the DNC from its own incompetence again and again, that’s their problem. A party actually has to do things to get constituents to vote for their candidates. We know from the DNC’s approach to centrist voters that they understand this in principle, they just aren’t interested in doing it with the left, because they think we are fools that can be strung along indefinitely. FAFO. Blame the DNC. It’s literally their job.
Funniest part of this? Even knowing this, if I lived in a swing state, I might vote Biden instead of a write-in. But I don’t, and every election in my lifetime will be “the most important election ever, which requires leftists to set aside their values and take one for the team.”
posted by vim876 at 7:31 AM on March 3 [24 favorites]
Funniest part of this? Even knowing this, if I lived in a swing state, I might vote Biden instead of a write-in. But I don’t, and every election in my lifetime will be “the most important election ever, which requires leftists to set aside their values and take one for the team.”
posted by vim876 at 7:31 AM on March 3 [24 favorites]
<3% of Michigan’s population is Muslim and most of them live in a handful of Democratic-leaning counties
Correct. The 100k+ "uncommitted" votes collected at Michigan's primary worked out to much larger % than that and iirc they scored non-marginal proportions in every county. I leave the conclusions to those better positioned to understand electoral maths.
posted by cendawanita at 7:38 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Correct. The 100k+ "uncommitted" votes collected at Michigan's primary worked out to much larger % than that and iirc they scored non-marginal proportions in every county. I leave the conclusions to those better positioned to understand electoral maths.
posted by cendawanita at 7:38 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
it costs next to nothing to hold off the awfulness from the Republicans for a little while longer. the DNC is terrible (except for the brief window when Howard Dean was in charge)... you'll get no disagreement from me.
maybe i need to make it clearer... I'm asking people to hold their nose if needed because a Republican candidate intends to exterminate people like me and then they'll probably move onto the next vulnerable group because that's what fascists do.
that's not culture war... that's policy.
posted by kokaku at 7:39 AM on March 3 [25 favorites]
maybe i need to make it clearer... I'm asking people to hold their nose if needed because a Republican candidate intends to exterminate people like me and then they'll probably move onto the next vulnerable group because that's what fascists do.
that's not culture war... that's policy.
posted by kokaku at 7:39 AM on March 3 [25 favorites]
How many people across swing states feel like this?
Let's hope not too many! And I hope that they change their mind and don't sit out when it comes down to sticking with "I can't vote for Biden because I don't like all of his current policies, or what he did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago" vs. standing by to watch Donald Trump become president again. Which any U.S. citizen is doing if they don't cast their vote for Biden as U.S. president this November. We have seen a Trump presidency. There is absolutely no reason to believe that we could not see one again, or that it would not be as bad or worse than 2016-2020. Monumentally shitty things are happening right now internationally and nationally with Biden as president, some of which he could change and some of which he could affect, and some of which are truly out of his control, but all of that should pale before the prospect of four more years of Trump.
If voters vote their conscience and your party loses in a case like this, the party failed, not the voters’.
I agree with this, and yet functionally the question we have to ask ourselves November 5 in the U.S. is: do we really prefer Trump to Biden? Because that's what failure to elect Biden means. President Trump--again.
Every election in my adult life has been “the most important election of our lifetime.”
I agree that this rhetoric is very wearing, and in service of the status quo. I hate it. That said, I do remember a time when elections were not always thus. Peri/Post-Cold War and pre-9/11, it was a different world.
posted by cupcakeninja at 7:39 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Let's hope not too many! And I hope that they change their mind and don't sit out when it comes down to sticking with "I can't vote for Biden because I don't like all of his current policies, or what he did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago" vs. standing by to watch Donald Trump become president again. Which any U.S. citizen is doing if they don't cast their vote for Biden as U.S. president this November. We have seen a Trump presidency. There is absolutely no reason to believe that we could not see one again, or that it would not be as bad or worse than 2016-2020. Monumentally shitty things are happening right now internationally and nationally with Biden as president, some of which he could change and some of which he could affect, and some of which are truly out of his control, but all of that should pale before the prospect of four more years of Trump.
If voters vote their conscience and your party loses in a case like this, the party failed, not the voters’.
I agree with this, and yet functionally the question we have to ask ourselves November 5 in the U.S. is: do we really prefer Trump to Biden? Because that's what failure to elect Biden means. President Trump--again.
Every election in my adult life has been “the most important election of our lifetime.”
I agree that this rhetoric is very wearing, and in service of the status quo. I hate it. That said, I do remember a time when elections were not always thus. Peri/Post-Cold War and pre-9/11, it was a different world.
posted by cupcakeninja at 7:39 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
he's very gradually sliding from 110% on the Israeli side in such a way that by the middle of the summer...
I want to preface this by saying I don't think every single thread needs to be a referendum on Palestine, and so I'm sorry if I'm contributing to a derail for people who really just want to talk about the electoral college or Harris replacing Biden or something.
But just, for me, personally, this slaughter has really broken something in my head. The idea that Biden might possibly begin gradually shifting from full-throated support of dead babies and starving toddlers in a few months, because Democrats will freak out if he moves faster--and knowing the alternative is Trump-- ... I don't know how to finish that sentence.
If you find out a bunch of people are being murdered in the most heinous way possible, and that there is no way for your country to do anything about it because of poll numbers... I don't know how to finish that sentence either.
I'm under no illusion that America has ever been a moral bastion. I do get that. But if the American public is offended by the thought of preventing dead babies and starving toddlers, to the point that you kill your chances for re-election if you actually do anything to save them, what is the point of your politics? What is the point of your country?
We are a nation conflicted over whether to do anything about abortion, or climate change, we weren't even able to get an equal rights amendment for women across the finish line, but if you're telling me babies have to keep dying or else America will get mad, then I just don't know what to do with our national pathology anymore.
posted by mittens at 7:39 AM on March 3 [41 favorites]
I want to preface this by saying I don't think every single thread needs to be a referendum on Palestine, and so I'm sorry if I'm contributing to a derail for people who really just want to talk about the electoral college or Harris replacing Biden or something.
But just, for me, personally, this slaughter has really broken something in my head. The idea that Biden might possibly begin gradually shifting from full-throated support of dead babies and starving toddlers in a few months, because Democrats will freak out if he moves faster--and knowing the alternative is Trump-- ... I don't know how to finish that sentence.
If you find out a bunch of people are being murdered in the most heinous way possible, and that there is no way for your country to do anything about it because of poll numbers... I don't know how to finish that sentence either.
I'm under no illusion that America has ever been a moral bastion. I do get that. But if the American public is offended by the thought of preventing dead babies and starving toddlers, to the point that you kill your chances for re-election if you actually do anything to save them, what is the point of your politics? What is the point of your country?
We are a nation conflicted over whether to do anything about abortion, or climate change, we weren't even able to get an equal rights amendment for women across the finish line, but if you're telling me babies have to keep dying or else America will get mad, then I just don't know what to do with our national pathology anymore.
posted by mittens at 7:39 AM on March 3 [41 favorites]
I read the article and it does not come down to whether we “like” Biden or plan to support him in the general election. It comes down to whether he is leading Trump in any general election polls (he isn’t) and whether his approval testing shows any sign of improving (it doesn’t).
Democrats have a unique blindness when it comes to Trump: they act like it would be impossible for him to win an election (he has won the presidency before!) and they believe that once voters get another look at him, they will vote for anyone else. What they ignore is that Trump is in a much stronger position with the electorate today than he was in 2016. The GOP, barring a few outliers, is completely aligned with him. He is polling in a contested primary at about the same margin as Biden is in what’s considered an uncontested primary. Trump is tied or leading in GE polls and the way the electoral college works, Democrats need to beat Republicans by around 5% to win the presidency.
Democrats forget that the 2020 election came down to just a few counties in Georgia and Pennsylvania. They got lucky–lucky!–with Biden then and they are about to roll the dice again.
It is naive to think Trump can’t or won’t win the 2024 election. It’s not a certainty but I believe that it is the likelihood.
What’s more is that matchups against Haley show her absolutely trouncing Biden in the general. If Trump is somehow disqualified, Biden’s chances decrease even more. Democrats are seemingly happy to prop up a dangerous candidate that they’ve deluded themselves into believing is unelectable, just to keep their unpopular leadership in power. It’s long past time to pass the torch.
posted by tehgubner at 7:42 AM on March 3 [10 favorites]
Democrats have a unique blindness when it comes to Trump: they act like it would be impossible for him to win an election (he has won the presidency before!) and they believe that once voters get another look at him, they will vote for anyone else. What they ignore is that Trump is in a much stronger position with the electorate today than he was in 2016. The GOP, barring a few outliers, is completely aligned with him. He is polling in a contested primary at about the same margin as Biden is in what’s considered an uncontested primary. Trump is tied or leading in GE polls and the way the electoral college works, Democrats need to beat Republicans by around 5% to win the presidency.
Democrats forget that the 2020 election came down to just a few counties in Georgia and Pennsylvania. They got lucky–lucky!–with Biden then and they are about to roll the dice again.
It is naive to think Trump can’t or won’t win the 2024 election. It’s not a certainty but I believe that it is the likelihood.
What’s more is that matchups against Haley show her absolutely trouncing Biden in the general. If Trump is somehow disqualified, Biden’s chances decrease even more. Democrats are seemingly happy to prop up a dangerous candidate that they’ve deluded themselves into believing is unelectable, just to keep their unpopular leadership in power. It’s long past time to pass the torch.
posted by tehgubner at 7:42 AM on March 3 [10 favorites]
Every election in my adult life has been “the most important election of our lifetime.”
Unless you're 18, this is absolutely not true and if you don't see how Trump is different from every person who's ever run that had a chance at winning... I am dumbfounded.
As a non-American not living in America the contents of this thread are insanity-inducing. Collectively, Americans have to be the dumbest people on the planet. I've lived in six great countries as well as the US, no where else does it seem people are so advantaged, apathetic, selfish, and ignorant. If it wasn't so terrifying it would be laughable.
posted by dobbs at 7:45 AM on March 3 [33 favorites]
Unless you're 18, this is absolutely not true and if you don't see how Trump is different from every person who's ever run that had a chance at winning... I am dumbfounded.
As a non-American not living in America the contents of this thread are insanity-inducing. Collectively, Americans have to be the dumbest people on the planet. I've lived in six great countries as well as the US, no where else does it seem people are so advantaged, apathetic, selfish, and ignorant. If it wasn't so terrifying it would be laughable.
posted by dobbs at 7:45 AM on March 3 [33 favorites]
Unless you're 18, this is absolutely not true
The Most Important Political Platitude of Our Lifetime.
posted by mittens at 7:49 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
The Most Important Political Platitude of Our Lifetime.
posted by mittens at 7:49 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
as mentally sharp as he is today?
I suspect the American audience is not being told how embarrassingly senile Biden is. This is a man who cannot reliably distinguish between Gaza and Ukraine or remember which leaders of other countries are still alive.
posted by Phanx at 7:51 AM on March 3
I suspect the American audience is not being told how embarrassingly senile Biden is. This is a man who cannot reliably distinguish between Gaza and Ukraine or remember which leaders of other countries are still alive.
posted by Phanx at 7:51 AM on March 3
And no voter is going to switch teams because their candidate is too old or too young.
At this point in time there aren't many people flipping from Trump to Biden or Biden to Trump. Both of those guys have been around forever and opinions are pretty well settled. The real question is who can get better turn out (or more precisely, can get more of their opponent's supporters to stay home out of apathy). There's a drumbeat of articles currently that -- whether or not this is the intent -- are functionally encouraging Democratic apathy, which functionally is good news for Trump.
Now, if one of them dropped out, then potentially you'd have voters flipping parties. Like, if Haley was the R nominee, I'm betting she could scoop up some D voters (but also would lose some of the R "base," some of whom might feel apathetic about her instead of fervent for Trump).
Personally, I really hate that it's a contest between two geezers who've been around forever. Biden's been a great president overall (despite his flaws) and he'll do fine in a second term. But due to all kinds of factors, mostly around the power of incumbency, we're stuck with two old dudes who collectively are despised by a majority of the population. It's frankly embarrassing.
As a non-American not living in America the contents of this thread are insanity-inducing. Collectively, Americans have to be the dumbest people on the planet. I've lived in six great countries as well as the US, no where else does it seem people are so advantaged, apathetic, selfish, and ignorant. If it wasn't so terrifying it would be laughable.
I feel like this comment ignores the track record in Europe of electing nutjobs (Berlusconi, say) or voting for completely self-defeating things like Brexit, or gleefully participating in what is looking like a near-total penetration of the German government by the Russians. People everywhere are about the same amount of dumb and crappy, it just gets expressed differently in different places.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:55 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
At this point in time there aren't many people flipping from Trump to Biden or Biden to Trump. Both of those guys have been around forever and opinions are pretty well settled. The real question is who can get better turn out (or more precisely, can get more of their opponent's supporters to stay home out of apathy). There's a drumbeat of articles currently that -- whether or not this is the intent -- are functionally encouraging Democratic apathy, which functionally is good news for Trump.
Now, if one of them dropped out, then potentially you'd have voters flipping parties. Like, if Haley was the R nominee, I'm betting she could scoop up some D voters (but also would lose some of the R "base," some of whom might feel apathetic about her instead of fervent for Trump).
Personally, I really hate that it's a contest between two geezers who've been around forever. Biden's been a great president overall (despite his flaws) and he'll do fine in a second term. But due to all kinds of factors, mostly around the power of incumbency, we're stuck with two old dudes who collectively are despised by a majority of the population. It's frankly embarrassing.
As a non-American not living in America the contents of this thread are insanity-inducing. Collectively, Americans have to be the dumbest people on the planet. I've lived in six great countries as well as the US, no where else does it seem people are so advantaged, apathetic, selfish, and ignorant. If it wasn't so terrifying it would be laughable.
I feel like this comment ignores the track record in Europe of electing nutjobs (Berlusconi, say) or voting for completely self-defeating things like Brexit, or gleefully participating in what is looking like a near-total penetration of the German government by the Russians. People everywhere are about the same amount of dumb and crappy, it just gets expressed differently in different places.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:55 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
You can’t ask people to violate their consciences every 4 years til they die and expect that to work. It’s a political party’s job to field candidates that voters like; it’s not the left flank’s job to get guilted or badgered into doing what the party wants every 4 years, no matter whom the party selects. If voters vote their conscience and your party loses in a case like this, the party failed, not the voters’.
1. Listen carefully: It's. NOT. About. YOU.
2. Once again. It's not about you.
3. Voting is about making the choice that's better for society as a whole. Yes, Biden is a clearly imperfect choice, but staying home, voting Vegan Pony or writing in Performative Leftist only makes it more likely that Trump will slaughter far more people, not just Palestinians, but those among your gay friends who can still stand you after you so blithely consign them to concentration camps because you get to preen about your conscience.
4. The implicit argument that an Ardent Leftist is a "candidate that voters like" is staggeringly clueless. The Democratic Party is a vast and fractious coalition opposed to fascism, and our stupid political system gives undue weight to rural, mostly small-c conservative people. Like it or don't, Biden is pretty squarely in the middle of that coalition: he's the kind of candidate that voters in this coalition can more or less agree on. Were an Ardent Leftist to somehow be nominated, they would lose in a McGovern-style landslide and Trump would murder us all.
5. Murdering babies? Yeah, that's happening in Ukraine, too, and if Biden loses, more of them AND more Gazan babies get murdered. The world is full of choices where none of the options is what you really want, but some of the options are better than others.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:00 AM on March 3 [52 favorites]
1. Listen carefully: It's. NOT. About. YOU.
2. Once again. It's not about you.
3. Voting is about making the choice that's better for society as a whole. Yes, Biden is a clearly imperfect choice, but staying home, voting Vegan Pony or writing in Performative Leftist only makes it more likely that Trump will slaughter far more people, not just Palestinians, but those among your gay friends who can still stand you after you so blithely consign them to concentration camps because you get to preen about your conscience.
4. The implicit argument that an Ardent Leftist is a "candidate that voters like" is staggeringly clueless. The Democratic Party is a vast and fractious coalition opposed to fascism, and our stupid political system gives undue weight to rural, mostly small-c conservative people. Like it or don't, Biden is pretty squarely in the middle of that coalition: he's the kind of candidate that voters in this coalition can more or less agree on. Were an Ardent Leftist to somehow be nominated, they would lose in a McGovern-style landslide and Trump would murder us all.
5. Murdering babies? Yeah, that's happening in Ukraine, too, and if Biden loses, more of them AND more Gazan babies get murdered. The world is full of choices where none of the options is what you really want, but some of the options are better than others.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:00 AM on March 3 [52 favorites]
@Dobbs
I’m 39. My first protest was Bush’s inauguration. I voted Dem in every presidential and congressional, as well as most local, elections before now. I’ve worked on Democratic campaigns and in field offices for Democratic legislators. The DNC has been serving this crap since W. I don’t know how you could think I was making this up, but being dismissive isn’t providing a counter-argument. Here’s an article that provides the most basic support for my argument that this is ongoing. https://www.vox.com/21504729/most-important-election-bush-gore-kerry-trump
Do you think the Democrats will protect you? They didn’t protect me. I had to get parts of my body removed to enjoy full citizenship rights. They won’t protect you either. A mutual defense pact that fails its largest constituency cannot continue long.
posted by vim876 at 8:05 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
I’m 39. My first protest was Bush’s inauguration. I voted Dem in every presidential and congressional, as well as most local, elections before now. I’ve worked on Democratic campaigns and in field offices for Democratic legislators. The DNC has been serving this crap since W. I don’t know how you could think I was making this up, but being dismissive isn’t providing a counter-argument. Here’s an article that provides the most basic support for my argument that this is ongoing. https://www.vox.com/21504729/most-important-election-bush-gore-kerry-trump
Do you think the Democrats will protect you? They didn’t protect me. I had to get parts of my body removed to enjoy full citizenship rights. They won’t protect you either. A mutual defense pact that fails its largest constituency cannot continue long.
posted by vim876 at 8:05 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
Maybe it's because I'm not a terribly young person myself, but I don't think age is a very relevant factor, at least not for me, and I don't think it would be for anyone who bothered to familiarize themselves with the history of these unlovely candidates. Biden has always been a gaffe machine, and Trump has always been demented. Watch interviews with either man from thirty or forty years ago and I think you'll be shocked by how little has changed.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that these men have largely been unravaged by time. They are both rich men in the richest country in the world. Trump may be obese, but he's had doctors looking out for him since he was an infant. A person of his age carrying that much extra weight would probably have suffered very serious health consequences by now if not for heroic medicine. God help us, Trump and Biden will both live to be 110, and chatty.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:06 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
It shouldn't surprise anyone that these men have largely been unravaged by time. They are both rich men in the richest country in the world. Trump may be obese, but he's had doctors looking out for him since he was an infant. A person of his age carrying that much extra weight would probably have suffered very serious health consequences by now if not for heroic medicine. God help us, Trump and Biden will both live to be 110, and chatty.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:06 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Yes! It's not about me! It's about this party killing or continuing an illegal war to kill a million plus people in a random country every ten to twenty years from the time of Korea through to Iraq and sometimes doing it by proxy (Afghans vs Soviets, now IDF vs Gaza).
We are the only country doing this, we keep voting for the least bad option, and we keep doing it decade, after decade, after decade. Blood up to our fucking eyeballs and we still have to keep voting for the least bad option.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:07 AM on March 3 [17 favorites]
We are the only country doing this, we keep voting for the least bad option, and we keep doing it decade, after decade, after decade. Blood up to our fucking eyeballs and we still have to keep voting for the least bad option.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:07 AM on March 3 [17 favorites]
The argument is, I guess, that we must accept a certain amount of murder of children funded by our (well, your) government in order to prevent more murders? And that we can't even criticize that, because it might mean more deaths? Can people not see how that might not be very enthusiastic about a politics that seems, more and more, to be built on that bargain?
posted by sagc at 8:08 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
posted by sagc at 8:08 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
If voters vote their conscience and your party loses in a case like this, the party failed, not the voters’.
Like the other side never existed. Conservative strategies of dissuasion is to get everyone to emotionally believe that each vote is a morality play for whatever makes them sad, especially the aborted, or hoping to save a Christian nation from heathens. This works to distract people from the dozens of other issues which are on the line, some of them slipping fast. By all means vote your conscience, after you made a list of priorities.
posted by Brian B. at 8:09 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Like the other side never existed. Conservative strategies of dissuasion is to get everyone to emotionally believe that each vote is a morality play for whatever makes them sad, especially the aborted, or hoping to save a Christian nation from heathens. This works to distract people from the dozens of other issues which are on the line, some of them slipping fast. By all means vote your conscience, after you made a list of priorities.
posted by Brian B. at 8:09 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
@outgrown_hobnail
The Republicans will win sometime in the next 12 years in any case. Voting Dem may delay things a little, but it won’t protect you.
And if you think leftists are in it for themselves (“this is not about you”), you should consider listening to one someday, preferably before saying something like that, which ensures you won’t be listened to. Pro tip: Condescension isn’t a big winner of hearts and minds.
posted by vim876 at 8:11 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
The Republicans will win sometime in the next 12 years in any case. Voting Dem may delay things a little, but it won’t protect you.
And if you think leftists are in it for themselves (“this is not about you”), you should consider listening to one someday, preferably before saying something like that, which ensures you won’t be listened to. Pro tip: Condescension isn’t a big winner of hearts and minds.
posted by vim876 at 8:11 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
The implicit argument that an Ardent Leftist is a "candidate that voters like" is staggeringly clueless. The Democratic Party is a vast and fractious coalition opposed to fascism, and our stupid political system gives undue weight to rural, mostly small-c conservative people. Like it or don't, Biden is pretty squarely in the middle of that coalition: he's the kind of candidate that voters in this coalition can more or less agree on. Were an Ardent Leftist to somehow be nominated, they would lose in a McGovern-style landslide and Trump would murder us all.
Ah, it's always the Great Unwashed with you guys. The poor rural voters who are just too ignorant to know what's good for them, the ones who will only vote for a democrat if they're a centrist and will never hesitate to vote for a republican if he's a nazi. Too bad about those guys, it means poor people can't have nice things. Ah, well, it's off to brunch again!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:13 AM on March 3 [20 favorites]
Ah, it's always the Great Unwashed with you guys. The poor rural voters who are just too ignorant to know what's good for them, the ones who will only vote for a democrat if they're a centrist and will never hesitate to vote for a republican if he's a nazi. Too bad about those guys, it means poor people can't have nice things. Ah, well, it's off to brunch again!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:13 AM on March 3 [20 favorites]
To be clear, I never suggested voters would like an “ardent leftist”. I just said using a stick on your left flank without carrots is a good way to lose an election. And then trying to blame that constituency every time you lose, and expecting to shame them into voting your way forever? Politics is a game of interests. If the DNC doesn’t understand how to play, they should make way for people who do, even if they’re centrists.
posted by vim876 at 8:18 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
posted by vim876 at 8:18 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Leftists are generally leftists because they have less money and want more help from the government. Centrists have more resources. Which is the Democrat going to support, the guy who has a lot of money to give him or the broke one who's asking him for money?
There, I've solved the problem of why there isn't much leftist influence in the Democratic party. It has nothing to do with the personal demeanor of the leftist.
posted by kingdead at 8:19 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
There, I've solved the problem of why there isn't much leftist influence in the Democratic party. It has nothing to do with the personal demeanor of the leftist.
posted by kingdead at 8:19 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
The poor rural voters who are just too ignorant to know what's good for them...
No, they're not ignorant. They're practical. They know Ardent Leftists are full of shit. Just like pretty much everyone else thinks. Same thing for middle-class suburbanites. Ardent Leftists have this massive blind spot, where they seem to think that "the only reason people don't vote for us is because the eeevil DNC prevents us", when in fact the overwhelming majority of even pretty liberal voters think that Ardent Leftists would be fucking terrible at governing, because ALs pick fights with themselves in the mirror while brushing their hair. It's like how True Conservatives can't possibly manage to understand that nobody else thinks cruelty is funny.
To be clear, I never suggested voters would like an “ardent leftist”. I just said using a stick on your left flank without carrots is a good way to lose an election.
And yet Biden HAS done all kinds of progressive things, but Nothing Is Ever Good Enough for certain people.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:24 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
No, they're not ignorant. They're practical. They know Ardent Leftists are full of shit. Just like pretty much everyone else thinks. Same thing for middle-class suburbanites. Ardent Leftists have this massive blind spot, where they seem to think that "the only reason people don't vote for us is because the eeevil DNC prevents us", when in fact the overwhelming majority of even pretty liberal voters think that Ardent Leftists would be fucking terrible at governing, because ALs pick fights with themselves in the mirror while brushing their hair. It's like how True Conservatives can't possibly manage to understand that nobody else thinks cruelty is funny.
To be clear, I never suggested voters would like an “ardent leftist”. I just said using a stick on your left flank without carrots is a good way to lose an election.
And yet Biden HAS done all kinds of progressive things, but Nothing Is Ever Good Enough for certain people.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:24 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
Ha ha, okay, man.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:25 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:25 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
ah, those poor leftists, with their "arming israel isn't the same as stopping israel committing a genocide" fallacies...
posted by sagc at 8:26 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by sagc at 8:26 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Ardent Leftists are why you have Social Security and roads that work, you goofball.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:27 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:27 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
those among your gay friends who can still stand you after you so blithely consign them to concentration camps because you get to preen about your conscience.
This is seriously some dead-eyed cynicism.
posted by mittens at 8:27 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
This is seriously some dead-eyed cynicism.
posted by mittens at 8:27 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
There are certain posters here who seem to mostly get their jollies by commenting about how their particular, (aged, conservative, uninspired) political philosophy is the only correct, mature approach. Seriously - if you see someone complaining about how dumb the left is, click through and see how much of their presence on Mefi is the exact same thing! It can be edifying.
posted by sagc at 8:28 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
posted by sagc at 8:28 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
And yet Biden HAS done all kinds of progressive things, but Nothing Is Ever Good Enough for certain people.
What is wrong with you? Seriously, you specifically. There is an on-going genocide. There is a large international coalition against it. It's a crime against humanity. It's the easiest line to not cross, the clearest line to not walk over.
It's not about being "not good enough", it's over the fucking line, Walter.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:32 AM on March 3 [30 favorites]
What is wrong with you? Seriously, you specifically. There is an on-going genocide. There is a large international coalition against it. It's a crime against humanity. It's the easiest line to not cross, the clearest line to not walk over.
It's not about being "not good enough", it's over the fucking line, Walter.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:32 AM on March 3 [30 favorites]
As long as there's the threat of something worse, there is no line for some people, is I think the lesson here. At least, that seems to be the argument being made in some of these threads.
posted by sagc at 8:33 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
posted by sagc at 8:33 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Wow, this thread has been super helpful and educational and really changed how I look at these issues! The comments were definitely not indistinguishable from every other thread on any vaguely related topic in the past year! Thanks, everyone!
posted by Not A Thing at 8:34 AM on March 3 [29 favorites]
posted by Not A Thing at 8:34 AM on March 3 [29 favorites]
This is seriously some dead-eyed cynicism.
I laughed, imagine the main problem with a CONCENTRATION CAMP being that your friends are going to come back and continue your online Bernie Bros arguments and make you feel bad. I don't that's going to be the main focus here!
posted by kingdead at 8:35 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
I laughed, imagine the main problem with a CONCENTRATION CAMP being that your friends are going to come back and continue your online Bernie Bros arguments and make you feel bad. I don't that's going to be the main focus here!
posted by kingdead at 8:35 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
People get tired of voting against the other guy.
Liberals and leftists get tired; right-wing lunatics do not.
posted by jonp72 at 8:45 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
Liberals and leftists get tired; right-wing lunatics do not.
posted by jonp72 at 8:45 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
No one's going to a concentration camp, and I'll tell you why: a concentration camp would require a level of effort and sustained coordination that no one associated with Donald Trump is capable of or interested in. A fascist Trump regime dedicated to the extermination of its enemies would probably just shoot people. So let's stop worrying about Trump housing disadvantaged people, even in horrific conditions, an idea I think we can all agree is pretty ridiculous.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:48 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:48 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
The idea that the same moderate liberalism that gave us "compromises" like DADT and DOMA would save the gays from concentration camps is fucking laughable.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:02 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:02 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
What is wrong with you? Seriously, you specifically. There is an on-going genocide. There is a large international coalition against it. It's a crime against humanity. It's the easiest line to not cross, the clearest line to not walk over.
Even if someone decides to be a single-issue voter on Gaza, it's not like they have an option of a candidate who represents that viewpoint. The choice remains voting for Trump (i.e., voting for Bibi's preferred candidate), voting for Biden (better than Trump on Gaza but a long way from what a single-issue voter is going to want), or not voting/voting third-party (which means functionally supporting Trump). I sympathize because those are crappy choices, just like climate change activists face. But you still have to be realistic in terms of looking at the choices and being honest about what the impacts of your voting choice are.
Specific to Gaza, I think Biden's team has heard the message from the protest vote the other day loud and clear, and just like with the start of airdrops we're going to see movement on this. It won't be nearly as much as the activists want, but it will be a lot more than if Biden hadn't been pushed this way.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:03 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
Even if someone decides to be a single-issue voter on Gaza, it's not like they have an option of a candidate who represents that viewpoint. The choice remains voting for Trump (i.e., voting for Bibi's preferred candidate), voting for Biden (better than Trump on Gaza but a long way from what a single-issue voter is going to want), or not voting/voting third-party (which means functionally supporting Trump). I sympathize because those are crappy choices, just like climate change activists face. But you still have to be realistic in terms of looking at the choices and being honest about what the impacts of your voting choice are.
Specific to Gaza, I think Biden's team has heard the message from the protest vote the other day loud and clear, and just like with the start of airdrops we're going to see movement on this. It won't be nearly as much as the activists want, but it will be a lot more than if Biden hadn't been pushed this way.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:03 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
So can anybody in this thread offer an actual rebuttal to Klien’s arguments that Biden is unelectable? Not “progressives just need to fall in line and stop being so selfish” or “ Palestinian Americans should really consider voting for the guy that’s funding and providing material support to the maniacs that are slaughtering their family members because everybody knows Trump would be so much worse!”
But can anybody give substantial rebuttals to why this president who is so very clearly struggling in the polls and who has so many things going against him in terms of what matters for maximizing his chances at winning the election is the best choice for the Democratic Party and the American people? If Trump truly is such an existential threat (“it could be so much worse!”) then why the hell aren’t Democrats running as if this were true!?
Being a substantially good president isn’t enough to win an election. Being a decent human being isn’t enough to win an election (Carter, anyone?). You have to actually be good at getting elected and while Biden historically might have been just that, there are real questions about his ability to do that as an extremely old and obviously declining man.
posted by flamk at 9:03 AM on March 3 [11 favorites]
But can anybody give substantial rebuttals to why this president who is so very clearly struggling in the polls and who has so many things going against him in terms of what matters for maximizing his chances at winning the election is the best choice for the Democratic Party and the American people? If Trump truly is such an existential threat (“it could be so much worse!”) then why the hell aren’t Democrats running as if this were true!?
Being a substantially good president isn’t enough to win an election. Being a decent human being isn’t enough to win an election (Carter, anyone?). You have to actually be good at getting elected and while Biden historically might have been just that, there are real questions about his ability to do that as an extremely old and obviously declining man.
posted by flamk at 9:03 AM on March 3 [11 favorites]
It's also telling that liberals are having the same immigration and "superpredator" freakouts about crime as they did in the 90s, too.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:04 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:04 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
But you still have to be realistic in terms of looking at the choices and being honest about what the impacts of your voting choice are.
Absolutely. Not voting for a genocide sends a pretty clear message.
posted by iamck at 9:15 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Absolutely. Not voting for a genocide sends a pretty clear message.
posted by iamck at 9:15 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
It's too bad browbeating other MeFites doesn't actually win elections, otherwise we would totally have this in the bag.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:15 AM on March 3 [18 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:15 AM on March 3 [18 favorites]
My skepticism about 3rd party voting is largely due to my experiences in 2000 in the run-up to the general election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. I was a sociology grad student at UC Berkeley at the time & we had very very active message board discussion on our grad student mailing list, but the debate was pretty much Gore vs. Nader. Bush was not even considered. I was actually an ideal Nader voter at the time. I used to go to Green Party meetings. I advocated for ranked choice voting in the 1990s way before it was cool. ([Insert self-deprecating sarcasm here.]) After being convinced by editorials in the Nation at the time, I had voted for Nader in the 1996 election out of protest against Clinton's welfare reforms & the devastating effect of the sanctions on the civilian population in Iraq.
Since I was in California at the time, I could vote much later in the day than any other American citizen. The election was so close between Bush and Gore that I waited until 30 minutes before the polls closed & I chose to vote Gore because I wanted to deny Bush a "mandate," even though Bush ended up claiming one anyway.
In the end, I feel good about that vote, because I contributed to denying George W. Bush the legitimacy of a popular vote victory, even though that did not override the Electoral College putting him into office. One reason that younger Gen Z cohorts are more radical than older cohorts is that, if you were born in 1989, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once since you were born. That's how counter-majoritarian the American electoral system is. I'm glad I contributed to the radicalization of Gen Z. Can you imagine how worse off we would be if George W. Bush actually had won the popular vote in 2000 & the rottenness of the electoral system & the GOP's hatred of majoritarian democracy hadn't been exposed?
Those are reasons I felt good at the time about my vote. I feel even better about my 2000 election vote now, because almost every single one of the empirical claims in those message boards that were used to get people to feel comfortable voting for Nader were wrong. I mean that literally. Just about every single empirical claim turned out to be wrong. I saw arguments about how Bush was going to be less of a warmonger than Gore because of his campaign comments about opposing "nation-building" and how he's an heir to Republican isolationism. I saw arguments that Roe v. Wade was perfectly safe, because if you look at Bush's judicial picks in Texas, he picks bland moderate Republicans & he's going to pick the same type of people if he has a Supreme Court appointment. And on an on... I can't even remember a single pro-Nader argument that was based on an empirical claim about the future that turned out to be right.
So, when I hear the same "not a dime's bit of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" arguments that I heard over 20 years ago, I am exceedingly skeptical. It wasn't true in 2000. And it sure as Hell isn't true now. Never underestimate the capability of Republicans to make things even worse.
posted by jonp72 at 9:16 AM on March 3 [41 favorites]
Since I was in California at the time, I could vote much later in the day than any other American citizen. The election was so close between Bush and Gore that I waited until 30 minutes before the polls closed & I chose to vote Gore because I wanted to deny Bush a "mandate," even though Bush ended up claiming one anyway.
In the end, I feel good about that vote, because I contributed to denying George W. Bush the legitimacy of a popular vote victory, even though that did not override the Electoral College putting him into office. One reason that younger Gen Z cohorts are more radical than older cohorts is that, if you were born in 1989, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once since you were born. That's how counter-majoritarian the American electoral system is. I'm glad I contributed to the radicalization of Gen Z. Can you imagine how worse off we would be if George W. Bush actually had won the popular vote in 2000 & the rottenness of the electoral system & the GOP's hatred of majoritarian democracy hadn't been exposed?
Those are reasons I felt good at the time about my vote. I feel even better about my 2000 election vote now, because almost every single one of the empirical claims in those message boards that were used to get people to feel comfortable voting for Nader were wrong. I mean that literally. Just about every single empirical claim turned out to be wrong. I saw arguments about how Bush was going to be less of a warmonger than Gore because of his campaign comments about opposing "nation-building" and how he's an heir to Republican isolationism. I saw arguments that Roe v. Wade was perfectly safe, because if you look at Bush's judicial picks in Texas, he picks bland moderate Republicans & he's going to pick the same type of people if he has a Supreme Court appointment. And on an on... I can't even remember a single pro-Nader argument that was based on an empirical claim about the future that turned out to be right.
So, when I hear the same "not a dime's bit of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" arguments that I heard over 20 years ago, I am exceedingly skeptical. It wasn't true in 2000. And it sure as Hell isn't true now. Never underestimate the capability of Republicans to make things even worse.
posted by jonp72 at 9:16 AM on March 3 [41 favorites]
The world is full of choices where none of the options is what you really want, but some of the options are better than others.
Oh dear, that’s how you slide into fascism.
posted by iamck at 9:20 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Oh dear, that’s how you slide into fascism.
posted by iamck at 9:20 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
somehow the Democrats will create the perfect anti-Trump candidate--a sort of Barack Obama II--by sheer gut-wrenching force of will.
Force of will? Democrats?
Force of will? Democrats?
“I am not a member of any organized political party — I am a Democrat.”posted by kirkaracha at 9:24 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
― Will Rogers
Not voting for a genocide sends a pretty clear message.
Let's look at the actual options:
1. Vote for Biden, who is slowly coming around to the atrocities happening in Gaza and attempting to broker a ceasefire - for the second time - despite what is undoubtedly an absolute gigaton of pressure from the Netanyahu-aligned Israel lobby and, frankly, decades of US policy which are, how do you say, non-trivial to alter in any meaningful way.
2. Vote for Trump, who will probably nuke Gaza himself.
3. Vote for nobody (or a 3rd party candidate), which just tilts the electorate in favor of Trump.
That's it! Those are the options.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:25 AM on March 3 [45 favorites]
Let's look at the actual options:
1. Vote for Biden, who is slowly coming around to the atrocities happening in Gaza and attempting to broker a ceasefire - for the second time - despite what is undoubtedly an absolute gigaton of pressure from the Netanyahu-aligned Israel lobby and, frankly, decades of US policy which are, how do you say, non-trivial to alter in any meaningful way.
2. Vote for Trump, who will probably nuke Gaza himself.
3. Vote for nobody (or a 3rd party candidate), which just tilts the electorate in favor of Trump.
That's it! Those are the options.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:25 AM on March 3 [45 favorites]
There is a thing I've been thinking of lately that explains a lot of this, call it the Lament of the Left.
There is nothing material stopping us from fixing almost every problem that exists.
We do not have hunger because of a lack of food, we have hunger because we have collectively chosen to starve some people.
We do not have homeless people because of a lack of shelter, we have homeless people because we have collectively chosen to force some people to sleep in gutters.
We do not have a racist, white supremacist, criminal justice system because it is inevitable, or because of a material issue, we have such a system because we have collectively chosen to have a racist, white supremacist, criminal justice system.
We do not have our government supporting genocide in Gaza because of any material obstacles, we have our government supporting genocide in Gaza because we have collectively chosen to have our government support genocide in Gaza.
NONE OF THAT requires any material resources to change. We are not talking about things which require enormous physical effort and expenditure of material resources. None of those problems require moon landing level infrastructure and resources to fix.
Every single one of those problems could be solved tomorrow. Literally all it would take is people changing their minds. Those ongoing problems cause immeasurable human misery and suffering, for no gain, for no purpose, for no benefit, and fixing them costs nothing.
Thus the Lament of the Left and why the left seems so perpetually angry, exasperated, and perhaps arrogant, condescending, or even foolishly idealistic. Because we see all this death, all this suffering, and it could stop. Today! At no cost! And yet.... it doesn't.
Because "all it takes is people changing their minds" turns out to be a massive ask. And it's really damn hard not to see evil, or malice, or something, in people who demand continued death and suffering because they refuse to change their minds.
Chris Rock said it about "race relations" and it remains true.
posted by sotonohito at 9:25 AM on March 3 [29 favorites]
There is nothing material stopping us from fixing almost every problem that exists.
We do not have hunger because of a lack of food, we have hunger because we have collectively chosen to starve some people.
We do not have homeless people because of a lack of shelter, we have homeless people because we have collectively chosen to force some people to sleep in gutters.
We do not have a racist, white supremacist, criminal justice system because it is inevitable, or because of a material issue, we have such a system because we have collectively chosen to have a racist, white supremacist, criminal justice system.
We do not have our government supporting genocide in Gaza because of any material obstacles, we have our government supporting genocide in Gaza because we have collectively chosen to have our government support genocide in Gaza.
NONE OF THAT requires any material resources to change. We are not talking about things which require enormous physical effort and expenditure of material resources. None of those problems require moon landing level infrastructure and resources to fix.
Every single one of those problems could be solved tomorrow. Literally all it would take is people changing their minds. Those ongoing problems cause immeasurable human misery and suffering, for no gain, for no purpose, for no benefit, and fixing them costs nothing.
Thus the Lament of the Left and why the left seems so perpetually angry, exasperated, and perhaps arrogant, condescending, or even foolishly idealistic. Because we see all this death, all this suffering, and it could stop. Today! At no cost! And yet.... it doesn't.
Because "all it takes is people changing their minds" turns out to be a massive ask. And it's really damn hard not to see evil, or malice, or something, in people who demand continued death and suffering because they refuse to change their minds.
Chris Rock said it about "race relations" and it remains true.
When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it's all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they're not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before…So we keep circling around this, frankly incomprehensible, weirdness. We know the solution. The solution costs nothing. And yet, apparently, we must sacrifice some unspecified number of people before we can end it.
So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he's the first black person that is qualified to be president. That's not black progress. That's white progress. There's been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship's improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, "Oh, he stopped punching her in the face." It's not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn't. The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let's hope America keeps producing nicer white people.
posted by sotonohito at 9:25 AM on March 3 [29 favorites]
My skepticism about 3rd party voting is largely due to my experiences in 2000 in the run-up to the general election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Respectfully, what does any of this have to do with this post? What third party candidates are we talking about? Who’s saying there’s not a difference between the Republicans and Democrats in this thread?
To be honest, this thread has been really illuminating on how many people are truly on Election 2000 autopilot when it comes to thinking about the politics of right now, the year of our lord 2024.
posted by flamk at 9:28 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
Respectfully, what does any of this have to do with this post? What third party candidates are we talking about? Who’s saying there’s not a difference between the Republicans and Democrats in this thread?
To be honest, this thread has been really illuminating on how many people are truly on Election 2000 autopilot when it comes to thinking about the politics of right now, the year of our lord 2024.
posted by flamk at 9:28 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
I don't think not voting/voting for a third party "just" tilts the vote toward Trump. It shows that a certain percentage of voters rejected a centrist option. That does not imply that anyone will listen or that it will matter. But ultimately, it could be a micro step toward more progressive candidates. Maybe not. But progressives voting for Biden is a sign that progressives will vote for a centrist candidate. Why would that ever lead to the democrats running anything but centrist candidates? It won't.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:30 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:30 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Biden is a fucking monster and a war criminal and he belongs in the Hague next to his good pal Bibi. I would not vote for him if he were running against literal Hitler. I am appalled and disgusted by the number of centrists and liberals for whom supporting a murderous genocidal regime is not a red line.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:35 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:35 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
So can anybody in this thread offer an actual rebuttal to Klien’s arguments that Biden is unelectable?
Listen to the podcast episode where he takes questions about this idea. He doesn’t have a viable response to any question asked (who would be the new nominee, how does this improve campaign effectiveness, what makes Biden agree to this, etc.).
But also, you are asking the wrong question. Klein doesn’t say that he is unelectable, just that he is not a strong candidate and things are not looking good. I am sure many of us agree about that! The issue is that Klein’s solution is just weird wishful thinking and doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
posted by snofoam at 9:36 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
Listen to the podcast episode where he takes questions about this idea. He doesn’t have a viable response to any question asked (who would be the new nominee, how does this improve campaign effectiveness, what makes Biden agree to this, etc.).
But also, you are asking the wrong question. Klein doesn’t say that he is unelectable, just that he is not a strong candidate and things are not looking good. I am sure many of us agree about that! The issue is that Klein’s solution is just weird wishful thinking and doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
posted by snofoam at 9:36 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I would not vote for him if he were running against literal Hitler
Congratulations! The winner of the 2024 election is Godwin. Nominative determinism at its dumbest.
posted by lalochezia at 9:37 AM on March 3 [30 favorites]
Congratulations! The winner of the 2024 election is Godwin. Nominative determinism at its dumbest.
posted by lalochezia at 9:37 AM on March 3 [30 favorites]
That said, to return to the topic: Klein is not arguing that Biden is too centrist. Klein is in fact arguing that Biden is, in his estimation, a good president, but that polling shows he will not be reelected, primarily because voters think that his faculties have been diminished by age. Klein is not even arguing that this is true, but that if enough voters think it's true, he'll lose.
It's not clear to me that Biden's age is, in reality, why voters are rejecting him. It's not even really clear to me that voters will reject him when the rubber meets the road; there may be more enthusiasm for Biden against Trump than there is for Biden as an ideal.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:43 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
It's not clear to me that Biden's age is, in reality, why voters are rejecting him. It's not even really clear to me that voters will reject him when the rubber meets the road; there may be more enthusiasm for Biden against Trump than there is for Biden as an ideal.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:43 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Congratulations! The winner of the 2024 election is Godwin. Nominative determinism at its dumbest.
You want to know what "dumb" is? The Democratic Party, talking about "the most important election of our lifetimes", sticking with a nominee who a significant percentage of their base can't stand, while running to the right on the border to suck up to racists who won't vote for them anyway (and alienating some more of that base, while they're at it).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:45 AM on March 3 [10 favorites]
You want to know what "dumb" is? The Democratic Party, talking about "the most important election of our lifetimes", sticking with a nominee who a significant percentage of their base can't stand, while running to the right on the border to suck up to racists who won't vote for them anyway (and alienating some more of that base, while they're at it).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:45 AM on March 3 [10 favorites]
but Adolf winning will sure show 'em, eh?
posted by lalochezia at 9:49 AM on March 3 [24 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 9:49 AM on March 3 [24 favorites]
Every single one of those problems could be solved tomorrow.
What color is the sky in this fantasy world? This is the kind of crap my 8yo nephew would come up with then tell me why it's a bad idea, because he's one hell of a mature 8yo. Also, he doesn't watch CNN or MSNBC garbage, he just sticks to whichever anime he's into at the moment, so he's wildly more informed than the average 30yo.
Where are people getting these ideas that the massive* Muslim contingent in Michigan will somehow turn the vote? Is it this current round of dogshit polls by notably horrible pollsters that people tend to believe because they have a fancy university name included? Is it the palpable shift to the right wing from "news" orgs that used to be too lazy to have a political agenda? Are people still getting information from Facebook of all places?
Watching non-medically trained people try and diagnose some public figure hurts my soul the same way that non legal-trained people giving their "researched" ideas on legal matters does.
If you think that this election is the time to do a "protest" vote, because you disagree with how the current administration is handling the I/P conflict, then I don't know what to say. It is the most important election in the history of the USA, because even the worst of the worst presidents had the capacity to take the L. Neither Trump or whatever passes for the Republican Party is able to do that. At all. From what I remember, nobody thought Reagan would have barricaded himself in the Oval Office. Back when the party consisted of mostly business/money types, they knew that sometimes you have to take a loss. The current iteration is fueled by wild-eyed zealots intent with smashing everything down so they can set up a religious order type of thing to rule over the ashes. Those types don't/can't take a L, because God doesn't compromise and my faith is unwavering.
*Turns out it isn't so massive after all. Unlike this post. :(
posted by Sphinx at 9:49 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
What color is the sky in this fantasy world? This is the kind of crap my 8yo nephew would come up with then tell me why it's a bad idea, because he's one hell of a mature 8yo. Also, he doesn't watch CNN or MSNBC garbage, he just sticks to whichever anime he's into at the moment, so he's wildly more informed than the average 30yo.
Where are people getting these ideas that the massive* Muslim contingent in Michigan will somehow turn the vote? Is it this current round of dogshit polls by notably horrible pollsters that people tend to believe because they have a fancy university name included? Is it the palpable shift to the right wing from "news" orgs that used to be too lazy to have a political agenda? Are people still getting information from Facebook of all places?
Watching non-medically trained people try and diagnose some public figure hurts my soul the same way that non legal-trained people giving their "researched" ideas on legal matters does.
If you think that this election is the time to do a "protest" vote, because you disagree with how the current administration is handling the I/P conflict, then I don't know what to say. It is the most important election in the history of the USA, because even the worst of the worst presidents had the capacity to take the L. Neither Trump or whatever passes for the Republican Party is able to do that. At all. From what I remember, nobody thought Reagan would have barricaded himself in the Oval Office. Back when the party consisted of mostly business/money types, they knew that sometimes you have to take a loss. The current iteration is fueled by wild-eyed zealots intent with smashing everything down so they can set up a religious order type of thing to rule over the ashes. Those types don't/can't take a L, because God doesn't compromise and my faith is unwavering.
*Turns out it isn't so massive after all. Unlike this post. :(
posted by Sphinx at 9:49 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
Protest votes are clearly effective in primaries, where discontent can be messaged in a way that will be heard. The Michigan primaries literally scared the Biden campaign. That's good!
Where protest votes will not be effective is in the general, because it is too late to impact policy or platform at that point. If Biden loses, it doesn't matter what anyone who was protesting was trying to say because at that point because Biden et al are no longer in a position of power. And Trump will 100% not listen to anybody about anything.
Add to this that the political landscape will be so different in the 2028 general that what people are protesting now will no longer be meaningful.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:55 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
Where protest votes will not be effective is in the general, because it is too late to impact policy or platform at that point. If Biden loses, it doesn't matter what anyone who was protesting was trying to say because at that point because Biden et al are no longer in a position of power. And Trump will 100% not listen to anybody about anything.
Add to this that the political landscape will be so different in the 2028 general that what people are protesting now will no longer be meaningful.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:55 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
How much different do you think Trump would be on the war criminal thing? You honestly think he'd improve the situation?
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:56 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:56 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
You want to know what "dumb" is? The Democratic Party, talking about "the most important election of our lifetimes", sticking with a nominee who a significant percentage of their base can't stand, while running to the right on the border to suck up to racists who won't vote for them anyway (and alienating some more of that base, while they're at it).
I dislike those things also, especially pandering to the nativist racists on the border. But I'm still going to vote for Biden because he is like 10 million times better than the alternative. (I mean, in addition to his domestic awfulness, Trump is both Bibi and Putin's preferred candidate, which says a lot.) That's the reality. It sucks, and despite a majority of US voters, left and right both, wanting better candidates, the flawed system has re-gifted us these two, so here we are.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:56 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I dislike those things also, especially pandering to the nativist racists on the border. But I'm still going to vote for Biden because he is like 10 million times better than the alternative. (I mean, in addition to his domestic awfulness, Trump is both Bibi and Putin's preferred candidate, which says a lot.) That's the reality. It sucks, and despite a majority of US voters, left and right both, wanting better candidates, the flawed system has re-gifted us these two, so here we are.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:56 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
So can anybody in this thread offer an actual rebuttal to Klien’s arguments that Biden is unelectable?
1. It's March. The election is in November. A lot can happen in 8 months. Trump could drop dead from eating too much fast food. Trump could start showing signs of dementia on the stump in a way that finally penetrates the skull of the median voter. Trump could end up in jail. Biden or the State Department could pull off some ceasefire in Gaza that makes it a non-issue electorally. If Biden were facing off against a normie, replacement-level Republican, I think Biden would be more unelectable in that situation & Ezra Klein's arguments would hold more water, but right now, he is most likely going to face off against Trump, who has a lot of liabilities & a lot of voters who despise him, despite 35-40% of the electorate who would crawl naked on ground glass to vote for him.
2. When you look at the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll released at the end of February about what issues most voters care about, the top issue among both Democrats and independent voters right now is political extremism and threats to democracy. Immigration is second in importance as an issue & that's almost entirely driven by partisan Republicans. The high salience of political extremism and preventing threats to democracy for both Democrats & independents suggests to me that rerunning the same "MAGA Republicans" playbook that Biden ran successfully in the 2022 midterm elections could be made to work again for the 2024 general election. Now, I know that Democrats do have a special capacity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but if if they literally just did what they did in the previous midterm election (where they did outperform polls), the election might be winnable for Biden.
3. The only plausible replacement for Biden is Kamala Harris. Whether it's centrists like Ezra Klein or overly online leftists, you never hear anybody make the argument "replace Biden with Kamala," even though that's most likely outcome if Joe Biden steps down. That tells me that this argument is fundamentally unserious whether it's coming from the center or the left. The reason it has to be Kamala Harris is that, as Biden's running mate, FEC regulations say she can use Biden's campaign war chest right now, whereas any other candidate would have to wait to use those funds until being nominated at the Democratic National Convention. In addition, if Biden does step down from the campaign, it would be smart for him to step down from the presidency altogether & make Kamala Harris the new president, so that Kamala can benefit from the advantage of incumbency.
Even though this is the most plausible "not Biden" scenario, it also suffers from the problem that Kamala Harris performs worse in polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden does, when you swap out Biden with VP Harris. Other plausible high-profile Democratic candidates, such as Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer, also do worse in the polls against Trump than Joe Biden. In addition, when I look at this thread, I don't see anybody spontaneously suggesting any specific Democratic candidate. You can't beat somebody with nobody, especially if that somebody is Trump. If Democrats who are actually paying attention cannot agree on who the ideal non-Biden candidate, what makes you think you can find somebody that will electrify apathetic mushy independent voters when we can't find such a candidate ourselves?
posted by jonp72 at 9:59 AM on March 3 [28 favorites]
1. It's March. The election is in November. A lot can happen in 8 months. Trump could drop dead from eating too much fast food. Trump could start showing signs of dementia on the stump in a way that finally penetrates the skull of the median voter. Trump could end up in jail. Biden or the State Department could pull off some ceasefire in Gaza that makes it a non-issue electorally. If Biden were facing off against a normie, replacement-level Republican, I think Biden would be more unelectable in that situation & Ezra Klein's arguments would hold more water, but right now, he is most likely going to face off against Trump, who has a lot of liabilities & a lot of voters who despise him, despite 35-40% of the electorate who would crawl naked on ground glass to vote for him.
2. When you look at the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll released at the end of February about what issues most voters care about, the top issue among both Democrats and independent voters right now is political extremism and threats to democracy. Immigration is second in importance as an issue & that's almost entirely driven by partisan Republicans. The high salience of political extremism and preventing threats to democracy for both Democrats & independents suggests to me that rerunning the same "MAGA Republicans" playbook that Biden ran successfully in the 2022 midterm elections could be made to work again for the 2024 general election. Now, I know that Democrats do have a special capacity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but if if they literally just did what they did in the previous midterm election (where they did outperform polls), the election might be winnable for Biden.
3. The only plausible replacement for Biden is Kamala Harris. Whether it's centrists like Ezra Klein or overly online leftists, you never hear anybody make the argument "replace Biden with Kamala," even though that's most likely outcome if Joe Biden steps down. That tells me that this argument is fundamentally unserious whether it's coming from the center or the left. The reason it has to be Kamala Harris is that, as Biden's running mate, FEC regulations say she can use Biden's campaign war chest right now, whereas any other candidate would have to wait to use those funds until being nominated at the Democratic National Convention. In addition, if Biden does step down from the campaign, it would be smart for him to step down from the presidency altogether & make Kamala Harris the new president, so that Kamala can benefit from the advantage of incumbency.
Even though this is the most plausible "not Biden" scenario, it also suffers from the problem that Kamala Harris performs worse in polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden does, when you swap out Biden with VP Harris. Other plausible high-profile Democratic candidates, such as Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer, also do worse in the polls against Trump than Joe Biden. In addition, when I look at this thread, I don't see anybody spontaneously suggesting any specific Democratic candidate. You can't beat somebody with nobody, especially if that somebody is Trump. If Democrats who are actually paying attention cannot agree on who the ideal non-Biden candidate, what makes you think you can find somebody that will electrify apathetic mushy independent voters when we can't find such a candidate ourselves?
posted by jonp72 at 9:59 AM on March 3 [28 favorites]
How much different do you think Trump would be on the war criminal thing? You honestly think he'd improve the situation?
I'm not voting for Trump. I'm also not voting for Biden. If Democrats want my vote they need a better nominee with less blood on their hands. Whether Trump would be better or worse is neither here nor there; I see Biden as equally evil, if not moreso (genocide is happening on Biden's watch, and because that senile ice-cream-eating motherfucker told Bibi "no red lines", so don't fucking "but Trump" me).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:59 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
> No one's going to a concentration camp, and I'll tell you why: a concentration camp would require a level of effort and sustained coordination that no one associated with Donald Trump is capable of or interested in.
Part of the Trump/Heritage plan to put immigrants in concentration camps is already public. The whole focus of any Republican presence in the White House for the foreseeable future is gutting the civil service, installing viciously loyal people with no scruples whatsoever, and delivering exactly that level of effort and sustained coordination as a means of never leaving power. 2016 was an unexpected result that gave rise to a sloppy test run.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 10:01 AM on March 3 [24 favorites]
Part of the Trump/Heritage plan to put immigrants in concentration camps is already public. The whole focus of any Republican presence in the White House for the foreseeable future is gutting the civil service, installing viciously loyal people with no scruples whatsoever, and delivering exactly that level of effort and sustained coordination as a means of never leaving power. 2016 was an unexpected result that gave rise to a sloppy test run.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 10:01 AM on March 3 [24 favorites]
Protest votes may be effective, but not immediately. If a large enough percentage of the voting population clearly says, "Look, this type of candidate is so alien to my interests and ideals that I will not vote for him, no matter how bad the opposition candidate is; you must do better," that is a statement the democrats ignore at their peril, because it negates the idea that they only have to be better than the republicans, they don't really have to be any fucking good.
Is that worth a vote against Trump -- a message in a bottle to the future? I don't really know. It's a momentous decision, because I frankly do not think the country needs more centrist democrats. I have hope that my vote could affect the democratic party in a positive way; I have no hope that I can do anything to affect the republican party in any way at all. I think that anyone to whom this is all very simple probably hasn't thought about it very hard.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:05 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Is that worth a vote against Trump -- a message in a bottle to the future? I don't really know. It's a momentous decision, because I frankly do not think the country needs more centrist democrats. I have hope that my vote could affect the democratic party in a positive way; I have no hope that I can do anything to affect the republican party in any way at all. I think that anyone to whom this is all very simple probably hasn't thought about it very hard.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:05 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
If you think that this election is the time to do a "protest" vote
Except this is the argument trotted out at every election, always, to ensure this slide into fascism. And it’s the argument that got us here in the first place.
posted by iamck at 10:07 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Except this is the argument trotted out at every election, always, to ensure this slide into fascism. And it’s the argument that got us here in the first place.
posted by iamck at 10:07 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
> which requires leftists to set aside their values and take one for the team.
that's just it; in a representative democracy you've got to pick a "team". The US Constitution structures the presidency such that you've got two choices, currently (D) vs (R).
Vote which way you want the country to go, yaknow . . . since come January it's either going (D) or (R).
Above I see posters with the apparent appreciation that the DNC operates a robot politician line, controlling their policy positions via DIP switches or something.
This is not exactly how it works! There are actual humans involved, and cliques, and factions with very opposing policy preferences. It's messy and not actually guaranteed to produce optimal outcomes . . . see PPACA and a zillion other neoliberal bankshot socialism solutions for how all that works.
The US political system got focus when everything mysteriously went to shit in the early 1930s . . . hopefully we as a nation won't need a similar-scale national crisis to get solidarity and power at the polls, but as it stands now (looking at public polls) I guess we do.
posted by torokunai at 10:15 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
that's just it; in a representative democracy you've got to pick a "team". The US Constitution structures the presidency such that you've got two choices, currently (D) vs (R).
Vote which way you want the country to go, yaknow . . . since come January it's either going (D) or (R).
Above I see posters with the apparent appreciation that the DNC operates a robot politician line, controlling their policy positions via DIP switches or something.
This is not exactly how it works! There are actual humans involved, and cliques, and factions with very opposing policy preferences. It's messy and not actually guaranteed to produce optimal outcomes . . . see PPACA and a zillion other neoliberal bankshot socialism solutions for how all that works.
The US political system got focus when everything mysteriously went to shit in the early 1930s . . . hopefully we as a nation won't need a similar-scale national crisis to get solidarity and power at the polls, but as it stands now (looking at public polls) I guess we do.
posted by torokunai at 10:15 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
The US Constitution structures the presidency such that you've got two choices
It, uh...huh.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:16 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
It, uh...huh.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:16 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
The Atlantic: Biden Is Still the Democrats’ Best Bet for November: No amount of wishful thinking is going to magically produce a winning Candidate B.
Who then? Pretend you are a Democrat and have been handed a magical monkey’s paw. You believe that Biden is too old to defeat Trump and so you make a wish: I want a younger, more vigorous Democrat. There’s a puff of smoke and Kamala Harris is the nominee.posted by jenfullmoon at 10:19 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
Do you feel better about the odds of defeating Trump in nine months?
You shouldn’t. Harris’s approval rating is slightly lower than Biden’s.
So you go back to the monkey’s paw with another wish: a younger, more vigorous Democrat who’s not Kamala Harris, please.
I’m not sure how it would work logistically—would the Democratic Party turn its back on the sitting vice president?—but this is magic, so just roll with it. There’s a puff of smoke and Gavin Newsom walks onstage.
Today, the Democratic Party needs Rust Belt blue-collar voters—and Newsom is a liberal from San Francisco. Not a great starting position.
Every non-Harris Democrat begins from a place of lower name recognition, meaning that there would be a rush to define them in the minds of voters. Republicans have convinced 45 percent of the country that Scrantonian Joe Biden is a Communist. What do you think they’d do with Newsom? In the Fox poll, he runs even with Vice President Harris at -4 to Trump. In the more recent Emerson poll, Newsom trails Trump by 10 points.
WYou have only one wish left on the monkey’s paw, and Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro—popular governors who won big in swing states in 2022—are sitting right there. Maybe you should put one of them on the ticket in place of Biden?
haven’t found anyone who’s polled Shapiro-Trump nationally, but Emerson and Fox both have Whitmer polling worse than Biden. (Emerson has Whitmer 12 points behind Trump.)
Sure, Whitmer and Shapiro seem like strong candidates at the midsize-state level. But you never know whether a candidate will pop until they hit the national stage. Scott Walker, Ron DeSantis, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Kamala Harris—all of these politicians looked formidable too. Then the presidential-election MRI for the soul exposed their liabilities. Always remember that Barack Obama’s ascent from promising senator to generational political talent was the exception, not the rule.
So can anybody in this thread offer an actual rebuttal to Klien’s arguments that Biden is unelectable?
I'm not sure there's any particular rebuttal that's relevant. He might as well be talking about Trump deciding to turn leftist, or billionaires deciding to stop being evil hoarders.
It's not going to happen.
Biden is the Democratic Party nominee, any pretense to the contrary is simply fantasizing.
Trump is the Republican Party nominee, any pretense to the contrary is simply fantasizing.
There are only three relevant questions with #1 being most important because it's the most likely scenario:
1) can he win in November against Trump
and much less likely:
2) If he drops dead before November can VP Harris win against Trump?
3) If Trump drops dead before November can [insert Republican here] win against Biden after the inevitable infighting and back stabbing to get a nominee?
I am a bit baffled at the intense focus on yelling at people who say they aren't voting (or voting third party). I disagree with those people, I'm doing my utmost to be pragmatic and vote strategically for harm mitigation and for all that he's awful Biden is at least better than Trump in many areas. But I can understand why they feel as they do, especially those who have friends and family due to genocide that's happening with Biden's approval.
Perhaps it isn't so apparent to many on the more liberal, less left, side of things but Biden is not universally superior to Trump.
Trying to see it as a simple binary is why you fail to understand the people, mostly Muslim or Arab, who cannot bring themselves to vote for Biden. And why you get mad at leftists who say (correctly) that on many issues Biden and Trump are interchangeable.
When it comes to warmongering, randomly bombing people in the Middle East for funsies, throwing endless money at the military industrial complex, promoting American imperialism, and supporting more or less any right wing genocide that takes place, the only real difference is that Trump might do it a bit harder and with a crazier edge.
On a number of OTHER ISSUES there is indeed air between the two. Biden is at least marginally better on LGBT rights, women's rights, Civil Rights. Biden is at least marginally better on tax policy. Biden is at least marginally better on environmental protection. He's not good enough on any of that, but I'd guess that you're not going to find many leftists who would say he's not better to at least some degree in those areas.
The problem here, is weighting.
If you view "he's supporting a genocide in Gaza" as having more weight, then you're not going to vote for him. Sure, Trump will be worse, but once we're talking genocide worse and better get pretty damn academic. It is not entirely unreasonable for a person to conclude that whoever wins will continue to support the genocide, therefore punishing the Democrats for supporting a genocide is of greater urgency than opposing Trump. If the bad thing will happen either way, if there is no option for no genocide, then using this election as a way of smacking the Democrats upside the head and saying "bad dog! No genocide!" in hopes of getting a better Democrat next election might seem reasonable.
Personally, for me, I'm not there. I'll vote for genocide Joe. But I don't think those who won't are being wholly irrational. Persuading them is going to take a lot more than just saying that Trump sucks. They know he does, in a way that's the point: punish the Democratic Party and remind them that they can't just keep putting up genocidal warmongers and expecting everyone to fall in line under threat of the latest awful Republican.
posted by sotonohito at 10:19 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
I'm not sure there's any particular rebuttal that's relevant. He might as well be talking about Trump deciding to turn leftist, or billionaires deciding to stop being evil hoarders.
It's not going to happen.
Biden is the Democratic Party nominee, any pretense to the contrary is simply fantasizing.
Trump is the Republican Party nominee, any pretense to the contrary is simply fantasizing.
There are only three relevant questions with #1 being most important because it's the most likely scenario:
1) can he win in November against Trump
and much less likely:
2) If he drops dead before November can VP Harris win against Trump?
3) If Trump drops dead before November can [insert Republican here] win against Biden after the inevitable infighting and back stabbing to get a nominee?
I am a bit baffled at the intense focus on yelling at people who say they aren't voting (or voting third party). I disagree with those people, I'm doing my utmost to be pragmatic and vote strategically for harm mitigation and for all that he's awful Biden is at least better than Trump in many areas. But I can understand why they feel as they do, especially those who have friends and family due to genocide that's happening with Biden's approval.
Perhaps it isn't so apparent to many on the more liberal, less left, side of things but Biden is not universally superior to Trump.
Trying to see it as a simple binary is why you fail to understand the people, mostly Muslim or Arab, who cannot bring themselves to vote for Biden. And why you get mad at leftists who say (correctly) that on many issues Biden and Trump are interchangeable.
When it comes to warmongering, randomly bombing people in the Middle East for funsies, throwing endless money at the military industrial complex, promoting American imperialism, and supporting more or less any right wing genocide that takes place, the only real difference is that Trump might do it a bit harder and with a crazier edge.
On a number of OTHER ISSUES there is indeed air between the two. Biden is at least marginally better on LGBT rights, women's rights, Civil Rights. Biden is at least marginally better on tax policy. Biden is at least marginally better on environmental protection. He's not good enough on any of that, but I'd guess that you're not going to find many leftists who would say he's not better to at least some degree in those areas.
The problem here, is weighting.
If you view "he's supporting a genocide in Gaza" as having more weight, then you're not going to vote for him. Sure, Trump will be worse, but once we're talking genocide worse and better get pretty damn academic. It is not entirely unreasonable for a person to conclude that whoever wins will continue to support the genocide, therefore punishing the Democrats for supporting a genocide is of greater urgency than opposing Trump. If the bad thing will happen either way, if there is no option for no genocide, then using this election as a way of smacking the Democrats upside the head and saying "bad dog! No genocide!" in hopes of getting a better Democrat next election might seem reasonable.
Personally, for me, I'm not there. I'll vote for genocide Joe. But I don't think those who won't are being wholly irrational. Persuading them is going to take a lot more than just saying that Trump sucks. They know he does, in a way that's the point: punish the Democratic Party and remind them that they can't just keep putting up genocidal warmongers and expecting everyone to fall in line under threat of the latest awful Republican.
posted by sotonohito at 10:19 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
Where are people getting these ideas that the massive* Muslim contingent in Michigan will somehow turn the vote?
Firstly, it's not a question of turning the vote. A consensus of national polls over the last couple of months show Biden behind Trump by 3-4%. What needs to happen is Biden needs to turn this disadvantage to win, and Michigan is a crucial swing state.
Secondly, in 2020 Biden won Michigan by a sliver, largely concentrated in Detroit and its suburbs. This time, Black and Brown suburban moms in the suburbs of Detroit - the very people who gave Biden the state in 2020 - are absolutely pissed at US support for the genocide in Palestine. They have said so very clearly. Take them seriously. Underestimating their impact - or even the impact by omission of them being too demoralized/disillusioned to vote in November - would be very, very foolish.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:27 AM on March 3 [11 favorites]
Firstly, it's not a question of turning the vote. A consensus of national polls over the last couple of months show Biden behind Trump by 3-4%. What needs to happen is Biden needs to turn this disadvantage to win, and Michigan is a crucial swing state.
Secondly, in 2020 Biden won Michigan by a sliver, largely concentrated in Detroit and its suburbs. This time, Black and Brown suburban moms in the suburbs of Detroit - the very people who gave Biden the state in 2020 - are absolutely pissed at US support for the genocide in Palestine. They have said so very clearly. Take them seriously. Underestimating their impact - or even the impact by omission of them being too demoralized/disillusioned to vote in November - would be very, very foolish.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:27 AM on March 3 [11 favorites]
The US Constitution structures the presidency such that you've got two choices
It, uh...huh.
Yeah, no, people got the bright idea to start forming political parties after Washington's term and now we can't get out of it. Two opposing sides backing each other up is just too powerful.
I still remember how even elections at my college went from having all independent candidates--I voted for the guy who promised troll statues under bridges and free cheese Tuesdays--to forming "slates" (i.e. political parties) because somehow this was more powerful to get votes, I guess. The slates really don't seem to have any staying power here and every few years they dissolve as people move on*, and I can't say I've noticed any drastic political differences between campus slates when I've bothered to look at the alma mater newspaper about it. But uniting in groups is too powerful and we're stuck, because socially we don't really have a way to throw a third option in without making things even worse.
* That said, I'll always remember the "Friends Urging Campus Kindness" slate.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:28 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
It, uh...huh.
Yeah, no, people got the bright idea to start forming political parties after Washington's term and now we can't get out of it. Two opposing sides backing each other up is just too powerful.
I still remember how even elections at my college went from having all independent candidates--I voted for the guy who promised troll statues under bridges and free cheese Tuesdays--to forming "slates" (i.e. political parties) because somehow this was more powerful to get votes, I guess. The slates really don't seem to have any staying power here and every few years they dissolve as people move on*, and I can't say I've noticed any drastic political differences between campus slates when I've bothered to look at the alma mater newspaper about it. But uniting in groups is too powerful and we're stuck, because socially we don't really have a way to throw a third option in without making things even worse.
* That said, I'll always remember the "Friends Urging Campus Kindness" slate.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:28 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
You guys are weird. That’s ok. I’m angry too.
Biden is electable. He has already been elected. He has spent his entire adult life being elected. Of course he’s electable. Will he win? Different question.
Biden is likeable. That’s why the Onion’s Diamond Joe exists, it’s a play off of that aspect of his personality. Please note I’m not saying ‘Biden is awesome and I agree with everything he does’. I’m just saying that he is patently likeable. . So is fucking Trump. People love the guy despite the fact that he is a moldering pile of dogshit. Saying otherwise would be a denial of reality. Both of them are likeable in a way that for example Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz are not.
Biden is also competent and has spent most of his adult life being a functional politician. I’m pretty sure I can trust him to continue to do so, if you have a suggestion for someone who is more likely to keep the US out of world war 3 or to avoid, say, killing half a million Americans either through incompetence, I’d love to hear it.
There will never be a presidential candidate aligned with more than 50% of my political beliefs in my lifetime.
I’m not going to argue with anyone who is too angry to vote for Biden. I’m angry. But I’m more scared than I am angry. ‘Raising my voice in arguments with people I love about what country outside the US to move to’ angry and scared.
posted by bq at 10:29 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
Biden is electable. He has already been elected. He has spent his entire adult life being elected. Of course he’s electable. Will he win? Different question.
Biden is likeable. That’s why the Onion’s Diamond Joe exists, it’s a play off of that aspect of his personality. Please note I’m not saying ‘Biden is awesome and I agree with everything he does’. I’m just saying that he is patently likeable. . So is fucking Trump. People love the guy despite the fact that he is a moldering pile of dogshit. Saying otherwise would be a denial of reality. Both of them are likeable in a way that for example Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz are not.
Biden is also competent and has spent most of his adult life being a functional politician. I’m pretty sure I can trust him to continue to do so, if you have a suggestion for someone who is more likely to keep the US out of world war 3 or to avoid, say, killing half a million Americans either through incompetence, I’d love to hear it.
There will never be a presidential candidate aligned with more than 50% of my political beliefs in my lifetime.
I’m not going to argue with anyone who is too angry to vote for Biden. I’m angry. But I’m more scared than I am angry. ‘Raising my voice in arguments with people I love about what country outside the US to move to’ angry and scared.
posted by bq at 10:29 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
It literally is. The only republican went to law school and became like the rest of you. It's a bunch of retirees, substantially older than the rest of Americans. People who love to talk about how they used to be cool, but don't realize they are completely out of touch and deeply set in their ways. I suspect from the amount of inside baseball and trial balloons that used to be played on the megathreads, there are honest to God actual DNC policy people floating around here.
This spoke to me! I was reading this thread and feeling like I'm in bizarro world because this is so radically different from how the people I know speak and think and I don't think I'm some complete fringe weirdo, any more than any of you are! Have any of you spoken to anyone under forty recently?
I'm queer and 30 (so not even that young!) and a POC and so are most of my friends and everyone I know despises Biden. Like his name elicits the most visceral reaction. It's become a slur. I'm tired of being told that I don't exist by people who are no more demographically representative of the party than I am. You folks love talking about how you're protecting queer and trans folks and POC but I see a complete contempt for our concerns or the idea that we might have any voice in the future of the Democratic party in this thread!
they hold the same policies as the Republicans
tell me you're cishet without telling me you're cishet
Cute! I'm literally not though, I'm a big homo and so are most of my friends (some of them are Palestinian though!) and they fucking hate Biden to an extent that I really cannot put into words. Queer and trans folks (including white ones!) are the people I know who are most passionate about Palestine and hate Biden most. My best friend is a Muslim trans woman of color and idea of voting for Genocide Joe makes her physically ill. As it does me!
posted by lizard2590 at 10:33 AM on March 3 [34 favorites]
This spoke to me! I was reading this thread and feeling like I'm in bizarro world because this is so radically different from how the people I know speak and think and I don't think I'm some complete fringe weirdo, any more than any of you are! Have any of you spoken to anyone under forty recently?
I'm queer and 30 (so not even that young!) and a POC and so are most of my friends and everyone I know despises Biden. Like his name elicits the most visceral reaction. It's become a slur. I'm tired of being told that I don't exist by people who are no more demographically representative of the party than I am. You folks love talking about how you're protecting queer and trans folks and POC but I see a complete contempt for our concerns or the idea that we might have any voice in the future of the Democratic party in this thread!
they hold the same policies as the Republicans
tell me you're cishet without telling me you're cishet
Cute! I'm literally not though, I'm a big homo and so are most of my friends (some of them are Palestinian though!) and they fucking hate Biden to an extent that I really cannot put into words. Queer and trans folks (including white ones!) are the people I know who are most passionate about Palestine and hate Biden most. My best friend is a Muslim trans woman of color and idea of voting for Genocide Joe makes her physically ill. As it does me!
posted by lizard2590 at 10:33 AM on March 3 [34 favorites]
jenfullmoon Political parties are one of those things that are the worst except for all the other things we've tried.
Almost every democracy, at its founding, has people decrying parties and bewailing their seeming inevitability. And they're always rich aristocrats.
Because political parties are the only means by which people who are not born into wealth and power can rise in politics and avoid politics being purely the domain of the already rich and powerful. They don't work perfectly at this, hell they don't even work that well at this, but they work better than anything else we've tried so far.
The problem with America is that due to our FPTP system and single member districts the system will tend to collapse into just two parties. It's not actually formally written into the Constitution, but it turns out that like the highway for Langton's Ant it's implicit in the rules laid out by the Constitution even if no one noticed at the time.
So yeah, I agree political parties suck. They just happen to suck marginally less than not having political parties.
posted by sotonohito at 10:36 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Almost every democracy, at its founding, has people decrying parties and bewailing their seeming inevitability. And they're always rich aristocrats.
Because political parties are the only means by which people who are not born into wealth and power can rise in politics and avoid politics being purely the domain of the already rich and powerful. They don't work perfectly at this, hell they don't even work that well at this, but they work better than anything else we've tried so far.
The problem with America is that due to our FPTP system and single member districts the system will tend to collapse into just two parties. It's not actually formally written into the Constitution, but it turns out that like the highway for Langton's Ant it's implicit in the rules laid out by the Constitution even if no one noticed at the time.
So yeah, I agree political parties suck. They just happen to suck marginally less than not having political parties.
posted by sotonohito at 10:36 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Biden is gonna win. No matter how hard the conervative fucks who own the media try and and position him as too old (4 years older than TFG) or somehow incompetent (do I really need to remind you of TFG's track record on competence?!) he's still, by leaps and bounds, much better than the alternative. Most people know this, including Republicans who voted for him in 2016.
I don't care if he dies the moment the election is over, he still wins, and we get Harris. I'm not expecting to get anything I want from the current Democratic party, except for keeping democracy. The bozos who think he's "Too old, and Gaza, and Hunter, and ummm, stuff! Need to stop watching TV, and (as the repubs say) lamestream media, cuz it's all owned by rich, conservative, white people who tell it what it thinks.
posted by evilDoug at 10:36 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I don't care if he dies the moment the election is over, he still wins, and we get Harris. I'm not expecting to get anything I want from the current Democratic party, except for keeping democracy. The bozos who think he's "Too old, and Gaza, and Hunter, and ummm, stuff! Need to stop watching TV, and (as the repubs say) lamestream media, cuz it's all owned by rich, conservative, white people who tell it what it thinks.
posted by evilDoug at 10:36 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I know people are cynical and tired of hearing that "this is the most important election of our lifetime!" every four years. If we're talking about the period before 2016, you'd have a good argument that people were "crying wolf." But after 2016 and Trump showed GOP elites that populist authoritarianism was a surer route back to power than right-libertarianism on economics, every single election we have is going to be the most important election of our lifetime. That's not alarmism. That's the truth. Just because somebody cried wolf in the past, that doesn't mean there aren't wolves now.
When you have a two-party presidential system and one of the two major parties is captured by fascists and authoritarians, you need to have an unbroken string of victories by the non-authoritarian party to preserve democracy. You need something akin to the 16-year string of Democratic victories in the New Deal period, which led to the more moderate Dwight Eisenhower. That's only off-ramp I can see for American democracy in this situation.
The problem was identified by the Spanish political scientist, Juan Linz. Juan Linz is a comparativist who specializes in Latin American politics. Linz realized that presidential systems are inherently more unstable than parliamentary systems, because the president and the legislature are elected independently of one another. This often leads to a situation where both the president and the legislature claim that they have a mandate from "the people," but they can't both possibly be right. And since there's no clear way of adjudicating whether the president or the legislature is a more legitimate representative of "the people," lots of coups overthrowing democracy result, which happens a lot in Latin American history.
There is no reason why the United States will not follow this same dynamic as Latin America. To be frank, we already have. That's what the Civil War was. The presidential system instituted by the American Constitution was not well-designed enough to avoid collapsing 73 years later into civil war. Because of the current pro-GOP bias of the Electoral College, which now means that the Electoral College has a pro-authoritarian bias, the United States presidential system is going to be in danger of collapsing into authoritarianism every 4 years for the foreseeable future. This is especially the case when the GOP base includes a very large cohort of people who think that only white Christians should qualify as "the people."
posted by jonp72 at 10:38 AM on March 3 [28 favorites]
When you have a two-party presidential system and one of the two major parties is captured by fascists and authoritarians, you need to have an unbroken string of victories by the non-authoritarian party to preserve democracy. You need something akin to the 16-year string of Democratic victories in the New Deal period, which led to the more moderate Dwight Eisenhower. That's only off-ramp I can see for American democracy in this situation.
The problem was identified by the Spanish political scientist, Juan Linz. Juan Linz is a comparativist who specializes in Latin American politics. Linz realized that presidential systems are inherently more unstable than parliamentary systems, because the president and the legislature are elected independently of one another. This often leads to a situation where both the president and the legislature claim that they have a mandate from "the people," but they can't both possibly be right. And since there's no clear way of adjudicating whether the president or the legislature is a more legitimate representative of "the people," lots of coups overthrowing democracy result, which happens a lot in Latin American history.
There is no reason why the United States will not follow this same dynamic as Latin America. To be frank, we already have. That's what the Civil War was. The presidential system instituted by the American Constitution was not well-designed enough to avoid collapsing 73 years later into civil war. Because of the current pro-GOP bias of the Electoral College, which now means that the Electoral College has a pro-authoritarian bias, the United States presidential system is going to be in danger of collapsing into authoritarianism every 4 years for the foreseeable future. This is especially the case when the GOP base includes a very large cohort of people who think that only white Christians should qualify as "the people."
posted by jonp72 at 10:38 AM on March 3 [28 favorites]
evilDoug, did you just compare support for genocide with the Hunter Biden controversies, as if it was made up by conservative media?
Never change, righteous centrists of Mefi.
posted by sagc at 10:44 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Never change, righteous centrists of Mefi.
posted by sagc at 10:44 AM on March 3 [13 favorites]
I know people are cynical and tired of hearing that "this is the most important election of our lifetime!" every four years.
The thing that nobody seems to get is that every election is The Most Important Election. There is no scenario in which hitting the snooze button on participatory democracy is a good idea. I wish people would just vote, always, in every election large and small. That is how you get your (tiny) voice heard, how you impact policy and candidates in the long run. But it seems like people just want that One Weird Trick.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:47 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
The thing that nobody seems to get is that every election is The Most Important Election. There is no scenario in which hitting the snooze button on participatory democracy is a good idea. I wish people would just vote, always, in every election large and small. That is how you get your (tiny) voice heard, how you impact policy and candidates in the long run. But it seems like people just want that One Weird Trick.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:47 AM on March 3 [16 favorites]
(Maybe neither Trump nor Biden are senile. Maybe people just love to wishcast about malapropisms and misspeaking on the part of the opposition when the reality is that every person over 35 has forgotten something or someone’s name. Maybe it’s all just ageism, even as we also happen to have a number of gerontocrats across the political board right now.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:48 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:48 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Do you want 45/47? Because this is how you get 45/47.
The would-be 45/47 is hoping for an encore of 22/24. At the equivalent point in Benjamin Harrison’s term, Cleveland had already won the popular vote twice (and would go in to win it a third time). I think that TFG will likewise also pull a hat trick in this regard, regardless of the electoral college outcome.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:50 AM on March 3
The would-be 45/47 is hoping for an encore of 22/24. At the equivalent point in Benjamin Harrison’s term, Cleveland had already won the popular vote twice (and would go in to win it a third time). I think that TFG will likewise also pull a hat trick in this regard, regardless of the electoral college outcome.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:50 AM on March 3
You need something akin to the 16-year string of Democratic victories in the New Deal period, which led to the more moderate Dwight Eisenhower. That's only off-ramp I can see for American democracy in this situation.
Maybe the guy whose foreign policy and border policy are more popular with Republicans than they are with members of his own party isn't the man for this particular moment in history, then.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:52 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Maybe the guy whose foreign policy and border policy are more popular with Republicans than they are with members of his own party isn't the man for this particular moment in history, then.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:52 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
every single election we have is going to be the most important election of our lifetime
Wow, that's messed up.
posted by ryanrs at 10:58 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Wow, that's messed up.
posted by ryanrs at 10:58 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
this is the most frustrating thread to read - sorry to dip and edit*
posted by djseafood at 11:00 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by djseafood at 11:00 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
I'm not really sure how we get from Biden to FDR, not least because FDR is dead. The democratic party doesn't want FDR; they'd consider him a dirty hippie. As long as we keep saying guys like Biden are good enough, guys like Biden will be what we get. They don't care if we like him as long as we shut the fuck up and vote for his ass.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:00 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:00 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
I truly don't know how I'm going to vote in November. Which is funny, when you think about it, because I always knew before that I'd hold my nose and vote for the Democrat. But this time I'm going to need to see how things are going. The two bigs for me are Gaza/border stuff and how fast the southern GOP is getting ready to put queer people in camps. And with that PFLAG lawsuit in Texas - that's what they're trying out, gathering names and plans, and if you think they're going to use those names to send everyone lovely Christmas cards you're out of your mind.
I cannot even tell you how much I have come to hate and despise the Democrats for forcing this on me. I'm being told, "vote affirmatively for the genocide of the innocent Palestinian people and for collaboration with Trump to abuse immigrants and refugees OR ELSE YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS GO TO THE CAMPS". Only a bunch of monsters would let this come to pass. Am I going to get blackmailed this time? Not sure yet, depends on facts on the ground in the fall.
I'm queer and 30 (so not even that young!) and a POC and so are most of my friends and everyone I know despises Biden. Like his name elicits the most visceral reaction. It's become a slur. I'm tired of being told that I don't exist by people who are no more demographically representative of the party than I am. You folks love talking about how you're protecting queer and trans folks and POC but I see a complete contempt for our concerns or the idea that we might have any voice in the future of the Democratic party in this thread!
I'm queer and no longer thirty. I think our generation let ourselves get frog-boiled and we may be in for quite the surprise when the younger frogs take note that the water is boiling. All my life it's been the same - the Democrats do increasingly shitty things and make the world worse and worse, while telling me that I have to keep voting for them because if I don't it will be MY FAULT when the real fascists get in. And the real fascists keep getting worse and more dangerous, but the Democrats just slow roll everything that might possibly stop the fascists, because having that threat to keep us in line is more important than doing anything good for this country.
posted by Frowner at 11:00 AM on March 3 [37 favorites]
I cannot even tell you how much I have come to hate and despise the Democrats for forcing this on me. I'm being told, "vote affirmatively for the genocide of the innocent Palestinian people and for collaboration with Trump to abuse immigrants and refugees OR ELSE YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS GO TO THE CAMPS". Only a bunch of monsters would let this come to pass. Am I going to get blackmailed this time? Not sure yet, depends on facts on the ground in the fall.
I'm queer and 30 (so not even that young!) and a POC and so are most of my friends and everyone I know despises Biden. Like his name elicits the most visceral reaction. It's become a slur. I'm tired of being told that I don't exist by people who are no more demographically representative of the party than I am. You folks love talking about how you're protecting queer and trans folks and POC but I see a complete contempt for our concerns or the idea that we might have any voice in the future of the Democratic party in this thread!
I'm queer and no longer thirty. I think our generation let ourselves get frog-boiled and we may be in for quite the surprise when the younger frogs take note that the water is boiling. All my life it's been the same - the Democrats do increasingly shitty things and make the world worse and worse, while telling me that I have to keep voting for them because if I don't it will be MY FAULT when the real fascists get in. And the real fascists keep getting worse and more dangerous, but the Democrats just slow roll everything that might possibly stop the fascists, because having that threat to keep us in line is more important than doing anything good for this country.
posted by Frowner at 11:00 AM on March 3 [37 favorites]
Maybe the guy whose foreign policy and border policy are more popular with Republicans than they are with members of his own party isn't the man for this particular moment in history, then.
Maybe you need to read up on some history about how bad FDR's immigration policy was. FDR did not reverse the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which imposed the strict numerical quota system that was used to keep non-Nordic Southern and Eastern Europeans out of the country. Those policies directly led to Jews being turned back from the United States & sent back to Hitler's Germany, where many ended up perishing. If you followed the same standards you're following today, our country would probably have elected Charles Lindbergh in 1940.
posted by jonp72 at 11:10 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Maybe you need to read up on some history about how bad FDR's immigration policy was. FDR did not reverse the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which imposed the strict numerical quota system that was used to keep non-Nordic Southern and Eastern Europeans out of the country. Those policies directly led to Jews being turned back from the United States & sent back to Hitler's Germany, where many ended up perishing. If you followed the same standards you're following today, our country would probably have elected Charles Lindbergh in 1940.
posted by jonp72 at 11:10 AM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Donald Trump tried to impose a Muslim ban on immigrants and visitors to the US. He put immigrants in cages. He separated children from their parents. He supported the KSA in their barbarian murder of a Muslim-American journalist. He supports the invasion of Ukraine. He supports the totalitarian governments of Russia, North Korea, and the KSA. Yet somehow "genocide Joe" is the evil guy?
In this world where we live right now, there is more than one genocide going on: the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, the Masalit are all being persecuted and killed as we sit here at our computers. I don't know what to call the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it is not good. The civil war in Yemen is a catastrophe. And there is more, but for now I'm going with massacres that involve Muslims.
The US is not good at protecting people in other countries, regardless of who is president. It has a self-image of being the good guy, the anti-fascist guy, the protector of democracy and freedom, but that has only been true once: during WW2, and it only stepped into that role after Pearl Harbour. WW1 is a much messier thing.
As someone who is not American and not impressed with American foreign policy, I don't think any of the candidates are great at preventing genocide. But I also think we should let the UN do that job, and give them the power they need to do it. Trump wants to take the US out of the UN.
What I do think the US president should do is protect American democracy, and one candidate opposes American democracy while the other supports it. Not a difficult choice, IMO.
I also think an American president should work to protect and include all Americans. In this case one candidate does include everyone and the other doesn't. I can't see how this could be difficult. Donald Trump appointed judges who overturned Roe vs. Wade. Biden made a huge grave mistake with Anita Hill, and it has come back to bite him hard. Still, I find it pretty easy to choose between those old white men.
IMO, Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer are both great potential candidates. But they are not on the ballot. So it is rubbish to discuss them. Kamala Harris is a good leader and does good stuff all the time, but she is not electable. It isn't her gender or race but her wonkiness that makes it hard for her to gather a broader following.
posted by mumimor at 11:13 AM on March 3 [34 favorites]
In this world where we live right now, there is more than one genocide going on: the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, the Masalit are all being persecuted and killed as we sit here at our computers. I don't know what to call the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it is not good. The civil war in Yemen is a catastrophe. And there is more, but for now I'm going with massacres that involve Muslims.
The US is not good at protecting people in other countries, regardless of who is president. It has a self-image of being the good guy, the anti-fascist guy, the protector of democracy and freedom, but that has only been true once: during WW2, and it only stepped into that role after Pearl Harbour. WW1 is a much messier thing.
As someone who is not American and not impressed with American foreign policy, I don't think any of the candidates are great at preventing genocide. But I also think we should let the UN do that job, and give them the power they need to do it. Trump wants to take the US out of the UN.
What I do think the US president should do is protect American democracy, and one candidate opposes American democracy while the other supports it. Not a difficult choice, IMO.
I also think an American president should work to protect and include all Americans. In this case one candidate does include everyone and the other doesn't. I can't see how this could be difficult. Donald Trump appointed judges who overturned Roe vs. Wade. Biden made a huge grave mistake with Anita Hill, and it has come back to bite him hard. Still, I find it pretty easy to choose between those old white men.
IMO, Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer are both great potential candidates. But they are not on the ballot. So it is rubbish to discuss them. Kamala Harris is a good leader and does good stuff all the time, but she is not electable. It isn't her gender or race but her wonkiness that makes it hard for her to gather a broader following.
posted by mumimor at 11:13 AM on March 3 [34 favorites]
Maybe you need to read up on some history about how bad FDR's immigration policy was.
I have! You could try being not condescending. I'm talking about Biden, not FDR.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:14 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I have! You could try being not condescending. I'm talking about Biden, not FDR.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:14 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
And in this instance? This is like "if FDR supported Nazi Germany in 1940" (Biden supports Israel even as it commits genocide, so, maybe not the best comparison there, eh).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:18 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:18 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I haven't seen much discussion about Trump's very serious money problems.
Because, deep down, it really isn’t a problem.
Nah, I'm not going to take your gloom. It absolutely is a problem for him, and a delicious one.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:22 AM on March 3
Because, deep down, it really isn’t a problem.
Nah, I'm not going to take your gloom. It absolutely is a problem for him, and a delicious one.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:22 AM on March 3
There's enough PAC and other dark money to run Trump's campaign. When/if TFG is elected, many of his personal troubles will go away, at least for a while.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:28 AM on March 3
posted by Artful Codger at 11:28 AM on March 3
I just love that I said I was disgusted with both parties (NOT that they’re the same), that I don’t live in a swing state and if I did I might think about it, and still got a bunch of crap about being selfish and helping fascism. That pretty much proves the response is more about getting to take our your anger on other voters for your party’s problems, instead of the people in power. Some people here need to touch grass.
posted by vim876 at 11:31 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
posted by vim876 at 11:31 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
If you want more progressive presidential candidates, you have to change the way US elections work at a fundamental level. National popular vote, ranked choice voting, whatever - but protest votes won't do it, because the whole cynical calculus of "if we support this policy, we'll lose X voters but gain Y voters, which changes our election probability by 0.1%" is how we got here. Ranked choice voting, in contrast, makes it HUGELY easier for people to vote with their hearts while not handing the election to the other side. RCV (and parliamentary systems) drag the awful coalition-building into the light.
That will all be a lot easier if we don't let a guy who tried to overthrow an election run the country. So vote, then join the election reform movement.
posted by McBearclaw at 11:35 AM on March 3 [19 favorites]
That will all be a lot easier if we don't let a guy who tried to overthrow an election run the country. So vote, then join the election reform movement.
posted by McBearclaw at 11:35 AM on March 3 [19 favorites]
In this world where we live right now, there is more than one genocide going on: the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, the Masalit are all being persecuted and killed as we sit here at our computers. I don't know what to call the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it is not good. The civil war in Yemen is a catastrophe. And there is more, but for now I'm going with massacres that involve Muslims.
Maybe for me, it's different because I'm not white or European descent and all those genocides and wars are not hypotheticals to me--I have friends whose families are or were impacted by many of them. So this is not a "foreign policy" issue for me. I'm also Bangladeshi-American, so I know what American complicity in genocide means on a very visceral and personal level (look up "Kissinger and Bangladesh" if this doesn't ring any bells for you). I'm not keyboard warrioring genocide--I'm talking about my own heritage and ancestry and how America has fucked up things for people in my lineage and is fucking things up for other people I care about right now.
I also think an American president should work to protect and include all Americans. In this case one candidate does include everyone and the other doesn't. I can't see how this could be difficult. Donald Trump appointed judges who overturned Roe vs. Wade. Biden made a huge grave mistake with Anita Hill, and it has come back to bite him hard. Still, I find it pretty easy to choose between those old white men.
I don't think Arab-Americans feel very protected and included right now, with their families being murdered abroad and their concerns and protests domestically being dismissed as the work of Putin. I'm not Arab and am also disturbed by the implication (not in your comment but in some on this page) that only Arabs have strong feelings about the genocide in Palestine. It feels deeply personal to me--and to many people descended from countries that America bombed to shit or heartily supported genocide in and to trans people, who know what it's like to be dehumanized and dismissed because you are a minority.
We're not all dummies voting against our interests because white cis and straight people just understand them better than we do. We just know that if we continually vote for candidates that see no philosophical issue with murdering and dehumanizing *some* groups of people, we, historically have often been the next group to be murdered and dehumanized. As the protest slogan goes, we are all Palestinian.
posted by lizard2590 at 11:39 AM on March 3 [23 favorites]
Maybe for me, it's different because I'm not white or European descent and all those genocides and wars are not hypotheticals to me--I have friends whose families are or were impacted by many of them. So this is not a "foreign policy" issue for me. I'm also Bangladeshi-American, so I know what American complicity in genocide means on a very visceral and personal level (look up "Kissinger and Bangladesh" if this doesn't ring any bells for you). I'm not keyboard warrioring genocide--I'm talking about my own heritage and ancestry and how America has fucked up things for people in my lineage and is fucking things up for other people I care about right now.
I also think an American president should work to protect and include all Americans. In this case one candidate does include everyone and the other doesn't. I can't see how this could be difficult. Donald Trump appointed judges who overturned Roe vs. Wade. Biden made a huge grave mistake with Anita Hill, and it has come back to bite him hard. Still, I find it pretty easy to choose between those old white men.
I don't think Arab-Americans feel very protected and included right now, with their families being murdered abroad and their concerns and protests domestically being dismissed as the work of Putin. I'm not Arab and am also disturbed by the implication (not in your comment but in some on this page) that only Arabs have strong feelings about the genocide in Palestine. It feels deeply personal to me--and to many people descended from countries that America bombed to shit or heartily supported genocide in and to trans people, who know what it's like to be dehumanized and dismissed because you are a minority.
We're not all dummies voting against our interests because white cis and straight people just understand them better than we do. We just know that if we continually vote for candidates that see no philosophical issue with murdering and dehumanizing *some* groups of people, we, historically have often been the next group to be murdered and dehumanized. As the protest slogan goes, we are all Palestinian.
posted by lizard2590 at 11:39 AM on March 3 [23 favorites]
This is like "if FDR supported Nazi Germany in 1940" (Biden supports Israel even as it commits genocide, so, maybe not the best comparison there, eh).
My dude, it is not condescension to point out that your analogy is flawed. And now you are compounding it by literally analogizing Israel with "Nazi Germany in 1940"? Oh, it's maybe not the best comparison there? Oh, ya think?
I'm over 50, not by much, but I am over 50. Because of my age, I am eligible to be a member of the Minnesota DFL Senior Caucus. (DFL means Democratic Farmer-Labor, but it's basically just Minnesota's normie Democratic label.) I was literally on a Zoom meeting call yesterday with the Minneapolis DFL Senior caucus. My representative in Congress is a member of the Squad, Ilhan Omar. She is currently being targeted by $4 million of AIPAC money right now. I tried voting down the Senior Caucus recommendation to endorse centrist, pro-Israel Democrat Don Samuels to defeat Ilhan Omar in the primary, but we were still outvoted by about 55-60% of the caucus attendees. If you had compared Israel with "Nazi Germany in 1940" on that Zoom call, which was all staunch Democrats, I guarantee you that it would have gone over very horribly badly. These are not Democratic "elites"; these are just unpaid, elderly rank-and-file Democratic voters who show up more often to the right Democratic events than the people on this thread do. You do not realize how much that it is not just the DNC or Democratic "elites" that are making it difficult to get to a ceasefire in Gaza. It's a lot of normie Democrats too.
posted by jonp72 at 11:39 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
My dude, it is not condescension to point out that your analogy is flawed. And now you are compounding it by literally analogizing Israel with "Nazi Germany in 1940"? Oh, it's maybe not the best comparison there? Oh, ya think?
I'm over 50, not by much, but I am over 50. Because of my age, I am eligible to be a member of the Minnesota DFL Senior Caucus. (DFL means Democratic Farmer-Labor, but it's basically just Minnesota's normie Democratic label.) I was literally on a Zoom meeting call yesterday with the Minneapolis DFL Senior caucus. My representative in Congress is a member of the Squad, Ilhan Omar. She is currently being targeted by $4 million of AIPAC money right now. I tried voting down the Senior Caucus recommendation to endorse centrist, pro-Israel Democrat Don Samuels to defeat Ilhan Omar in the primary, but we were still outvoted by about 55-60% of the caucus attendees. If you had compared Israel with "Nazi Germany in 1940" on that Zoom call, which was all staunch Democrats, I guarantee you that it would have gone over very horribly badly. These are not Democratic "elites"; these are just unpaid, elderly rank-and-file Democratic voters who show up more often to the right Democratic events than the people on this thread do. You do not realize how much that it is not just the DNC or Democratic "elites" that are making it difficult to get to a ceasefire in Gaza. It's a lot of normie Democrats too.
posted by jonp72 at 11:39 AM on March 3 [15 favorites]
literally analogizing Israel with "Nazi Germany in 1940"? Oh, it's maybe not the best comparison there?
Fascist ethnostate engaging in genocide? Seems like a perfectly apt comparison (except the USA wasn't funding and arming Nazi Germany in 1940).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:43 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Fascist ethnostate engaging in genocide? Seems like a perfectly apt comparison (except the USA wasn't funding and arming Nazi Germany in 1940).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:43 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
I figure I can hardly comprehend what a high-wire political balancing act it must be to try and shift US/Israel relations, so don't feel terribly entitled to pile blame on Biden for risking rapid and drastic changes there. Who the hell in his position would?
It's nothing new to feel disgusted by the consequences of my country's foreign policy. I just don't myself understand the sensibility of the impulse to let those feelings distract from my duty to do the least harm at the ballot box.
I really really don't understand people who take pride in a protest vote because they are "not in a swing state" so it doesn't matter. What do they think they're even doing? It comes across like bragging about being able to remain pure as a consequence of some privileged irrelevance. I'm not in one of those places; should I expect people to thank me for sacrificing my purity doing my part to keep Trump from the presidency?
posted by otsebyatina at 11:44 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
It's nothing new to feel disgusted by the consequences of my country's foreign policy. I just don't myself understand the sensibility of the impulse to let those feelings distract from my duty to do the least harm at the ballot box.
I really really don't understand people who take pride in a protest vote because they are "not in a swing state" so it doesn't matter. What do they think they're even doing? It comes across like bragging about being able to remain pure as a consequence of some privileged irrelevance. I'm not in one of those places; should I expect people to thank me for sacrificing my purity doing my part to keep Trump from the presidency?
posted by otsebyatina at 11:44 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
“If one path of a fork promised you oblivion, it didn't really matter what the other path held in store.”
― F.C. Yee, The Shadow of Kyoshi
I think I'm going to have to keep posting this in every US Election thread.
posted by techSupp0rt at 11:45 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
― F.C. Yee, The Shadow of Kyoshi
I think I'm going to have to keep posting this in every US Election thread.
posted by techSupp0rt at 11:45 AM on March 3 [14 favorites]
I don’t think the “Israel is like Nazi Germany” vs. “Israel could fundamentally not be like Nazi Germany” debate has ever convinced anyone of anything beyond that the other guy is a jerk.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:46 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:46 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I really really don't understand people who take pride in a protest vote because they are "not in a swing state" so it doesn't matter. What do they think they're even doing? It comes across like bragging about being able to remain pure as a consequence of some privileged irrelevance. I'm not in one of those places; should I expect people to thank me for sacrificing my purity doing my part to keep Trump from the presidency?
protest votes/refusing to vote is not get-out-of-jail free card for the moral consequences of the results
posted by lescour at 11:50 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
protest votes/refusing to vote is not get-out-of-jail free card for the moral consequences of the results
posted by lescour at 11:50 AM on March 3 [7 favorites]
This thread illustrates how rigid so many people's thinking is about what voting means. Look, voting doesn't mean one universal thing to everyone. In the US, to some people it's a rational choice between two options and these sorts of people basically do a cost/benefit analysis of each candidate and pick whichever one is best. For others, voting means an affirmation of a candidate - these are the sort of voters who will only vote for a candidate if that candidate speaks to them in some way. (People often switch between the two groups over their lifetime, so this isn't to imply these are static categories)
Telling people in the former category that they are supporting genocide is pointless because those voters aren't supporting genocide (at least not most of them - the majority of Dems support a ceasefire), rather these voters are going to vote for Biden because when compared to Trump, he comes out ahead in their calculations.
Telling people in the later category that they don't understand how voting works is also pointless (and insulting), because those people don't think about voting in the same way. And again, nobody gets to decide what voting means for other people - it's an individual understanding (for better or worse).
I think the other challenge here is that elections force us to think about the future and people are bad at doing that - I believe Klein gets at this at some point (I listened to these episodes back when they first came out).
Anyway, I am a progressive who is devastated about what is happening in Gaza, but I'm voting for Biden because of the future - I anticipate that the next four years will bring the following:
Telling people in the former category that they are supporting genocide is pointless because those voters aren't supporting genocide (at least not most of them - the majority of Dems support a ceasefire), rather these voters are going to vote for Biden because when compared to Trump, he comes out ahead in their calculations.
Telling people in the later category that they don't understand how voting works is also pointless (and insulting), because those people don't think about voting in the same way. And again, nobody gets to decide what voting means for other people - it's an individual understanding (for better or worse).
I think the other challenge here is that elections force us to think about the future and people are bad at doing that - I believe Klein gets at this at some point (I listened to these episodes back when they first came out).
Anyway, I am a progressive who is devastated about what is happening in Gaza, but I'm voting for Biden because of the future - I anticipate that the next four years will bring the following:
1. Climate-related disasters globally and nationally - I want a vaguely competent person in charge.posted by coffeecat at 11:52 AM on March 3 [30 favorites]
2. There is a good chance of another global pandemic (again, thanks to the climate crisis). And it seems worth noting that the states that had the least COVID deaths were not Blue vs. Red, the common denominator was more states with a sense of community/cohesion - and Trump will not produce that in our country, to say the least.
3. How fast we transition to renewable energy and address the climate crisis is crucial. The difference of a few fractions of a degree can be the difference of millions, if not billions of lives lost. Anyone whose vote contributes to a Trump victory has far more blood on their hands than anyone voting for Biden - just of people who haven't died yet. I know it's grim.
4. 2-4 Supreme Court retirements/deaths. There is a future where a majority of the justices are Trump-appointed.
5. Trump has made clear he wants to enact policies that will be even more racist, bigoted, fascist, etc. than the first go around. It's hard to predict exactly what will happen, but it's safe to say it will be very bad, and people will die unnecessarily.
I can't believe that there are folks on here who don't think concentration camps are coming. We literally had concentration camps under Trump. There were four year olds in cages holding two year olds on their laps, not even two year olds that they were related to. Literal. cages. The other day an Oklahoman congress.... person..... referred to a dead non-binary teen as "filth." Missouri passed a law that would allow teachers who use a student's preferred pronouns to be labelled sex offenders. The camps are coming.
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 11:54 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 11:54 AM on March 3 [27 favorites]
I was thinking about this just this morning, how it's feeling a lot like 2016 when the Democratic candidate wasn't thought to be all that great but at least wasn't the Angry Orange Man. We know now that not being the other guy isn't enough but here we are again.
posted by tommasz at 11:55 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 11:55 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Fascist ethnostate engaging in genocide?
I don't think Israel is a fascist ethnostate yet, although Netanyahu would very much like it to be. I do think US-Israeli relations are complicated and not easy to change. Just like US-KSA relations and US-Pakistani relations, and don't even get started with Latin America. The US is not as smart as it thinks it is when it comes to foreign policy.
What Israel is doing now in reaction to the Hamas attack is not in any way different from what the US did after 9-11. Which was atrocious. But I can't see how any US-government could disapprove of the Israeli approach, since it is identical to their own, approved by both parties. There are tons of similarities between the US and Israel, and I think it will be very difficult to break the bond between the two countries. Both countries are "democracies" built on colonialism and genocide. Both countries have struggled from their first days with the roles of religions and "race". Both countries are founded by migrants but struggle with migration.
posted by mumimor at 11:58 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
I don't think Israel is a fascist ethnostate yet, although Netanyahu would very much like it to be. I do think US-Israeli relations are complicated and not easy to change. Just like US-KSA relations and US-Pakistani relations, and don't even get started with Latin America. The US is not as smart as it thinks it is when it comes to foreign policy.
What Israel is doing now in reaction to the Hamas attack is not in any way different from what the US did after 9-11. Which was atrocious. But I can't see how any US-government could disapprove of the Israeli approach, since it is identical to their own, approved by both parties. There are tons of similarities between the US and Israel, and I think it will be very difficult to break the bond between the two countries. Both countries are "democracies" built on colonialism and genocide. Both countries have struggled from their first days with the roles of religions and "race". Both countries are founded by migrants but struggle with migration.
posted by mumimor at 11:58 AM on March 3 [12 favorites]
In 2016 nobody - including Trump himself - actually believed that Trump would win. So this is very much not like 2016, because a Trump administration is not a hypothetical, it has happened, and we know how it went.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:58 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:58 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I can't believe that there are folks on here who don't think concentration camps are coming.
I'm pretty sure that concentration camps will be a thing, if Trump wins again; I am also sure that I am someone who would end up in one of those camps. I am still not voting for Biden. I have a bone-deep, visceral revulsion to the idea of voting for Biden (and I voted for him in 2020). The man literally disgusts me. No amount of lecturing, hectoring, or vague threats about bad a second Trump presidency will be (which, believe me, I know) is going to change that.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:58 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that concentration camps will be a thing, if Trump wins again; I am also sure that I am someone who would end up in one of those camps. I am still not voting for Biden. I have a bone-deep, visceral revulsion to the idea of voting for Biden (and I voted for him in 2020). The man literally disgusts me. No amount of lecturing, hectoring, or vague threats about bad a second Trump presidency will be (which, believe me, I know) is going to change that.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:58 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
that's pretty much the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face
posted by kokaku at 12:00 PM on March 3 [25 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 12:00 PM on March 3 [25 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that concentration camps will be a thing, if Trump wins again; I am also sure that I am someone who would end up in one of those camps. I am still not voting for Biden. I have a bone-deep, visceral revulsion to the idea of voting for Biden (and I voted for him in 2020). The man literally disgusts me. No amount of lecturing, hectoring, or vague threats about bad a second Trump presidency will be (which, believe me, I know) is going to change that.
fair enough. other people exist though and i can't fathom how you justify this
posted by lescour at 12:03 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
fair enough. other people exist though and i can't fathom how you justify this
posted by lescour at 12:03 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
Someone better at math than me, is there a calculation to show how many dead Palestinians it will cost to keep me out of the camps?
posted by mittens at 12:05 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
posted by mittens at 12:05 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
air enough. other people exist though and i can't fathom how you justify this
I can't fathom how anyone can justify voting for the guy who enabled an actual genocide which is currently taking place, much less how anyone can justify voting for anyone who supports Israel which is currently committing genocide. I am aware of the existence of other people, including people who are not American, and that's a large part of the reason I am not voting for Biden, thanks.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:06 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
I can't fathom how anyone can justify voting for the guy who enabled an actual genocide which is currently taking place, much less how anyone can justify voting for anyone who supports Israel which is currently committing genocide. I am aware of the existence of other people, including people who are not American, and that's a large part of the reason I am not voting for Biden, thanks.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:06 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
No amount of lecturing, hectoring, or vague threats about bad a second Trump presidency will be (which, believe me, I know) is going to change that.
Ok.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:07 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Ok.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:07 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I'm not making a judgement call on how y'all are voting or not voting. I was just super surprised that someone up thread literally said that there weren't going to be camps. That's all.
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 12:07 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 12:07 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
The costs are ongoing. Keeping the US stable long-term will no doubt sacrifice many more beyond Gaza. Someone smarter than me can probably assign the blame to capitalism itself, even.
posted by otsebyatina at 12:09 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
posted by otsebyatina at 12:09 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
I can't fathom how anyone can justify voting for the guy who enabled an actual genocide which is currently taking place, much less how anyone can justify voting for anyone who supports Israel which is currently committing genocide. I am aware of the existence of other people, including people who are not American, and that's a large part of the reason I am not voting for Biden, thanks.
what going to maine said. ok
posted by lescour at 12:11 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
what going to maine said. ok
posted by lescour at 12:11 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I think Biden has intentionally contributed to the image of himself as an old man! Presumably to harken back to the perceived golden age of the 20th century. In 2020, he used the slogan "no malarkey!"—a deliberately old-fashioned minced oath. He makes public appearances eating a vanilla ice cream cone like he's walking down Main Street circa 1962 and tells rambling stories that took place decades ago.
This may have helped in 2020 when a lot of voters wanted a return to normalcy and brighter days after Trump and covid. Since he's been in office, it's backfired, because his administration has come off as conservative, out of touch, and inexplicably slow to react to foreseeable issues like major Supreme Court decisions or the Gaza war, the stereotypical negative traits of an old man.
His political approach to inflation has particularly been a mess, relying on voters to be happy that inflation has slowed when people are still dealing with high prices every time they go to the store or pay rent. And when he's publicly said something about high prices, it's usually something about high Ticketmaster fees or the fact that there are fewer potato chips in the bag nowadays, which come off as the complaints of a rich old man with no real financial challenges.
If I were running Biden's campaign, I'd emphasize youthful staffers as Obama did successfully in 2008 and try to portray Biden as a lifelong pro-union man of the people with no fucks left to give.
posted by smelendez at 12:11 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
This may have helped in 2020 when a lot of voters wanted a return to normalcy and brighter days after Trump and covid. Since he's been in office, it's backfired, because his administration has come off as conservative, out of touch, and inexplicably slow to react to foreseeable issues like major Supreme Court decisions or the Gaza war, the stereotypical negative traits of an old man.
His political approach to inflation has particularly been a mess, relying on voters to be happy that inflation has slowed when people are still dealing with high prices every time they go to the store or pay rent. And when he's publicly said something about high prices, it's usually something about high Ticketmaster fees or the fact that there are fewer potato chips in the bag nowadays, which come off as the complaints of a rich old man with no real financial challenges.
If I were running Biden's campaign, I'd emphasize youthful staffers as Obama did successfully in 2008 and try to portray Biden as a lifelong pro-union man of the people with no fucks left to give.
posted by smelendez at 12:11 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
elites"; these are just unpaid, elderly rank-and-file Democratic voters who show up more often to the right Democratic events than the people on this thread do. You do not realize how much that it is not just the DNC or Democratic "elites" that are making it difficult to get to a ceasefire in Gaza. It's a lot of normie Democrats too.
Why do only old white people get to be normies? I’m so sick of it and also so sick of being trotted out by Dems (as a non-binary brown person) as one of the people who has so much to lose if Trump wins but then they never do anything to try to win my vote or represent my interests. Literally, all they do is tell me I need to support their genocide or they’ll put me in a concentration camp. Do you understand how that feels even a little? On top of the horror, it’s also just condescending and disrespectful as hell. You don’t care about me, you want to use me as a prop.
And I think it’s quite notable that the people like me who are most likely to end up in these camps (which some white straight folks seem to take a rather unseemly glee in describing—or rather threatening) are the ones most steadfastly in support of Palestine. It’s almost like intersectionality is a thing.
posted by lizard2590 at 12:11 PM on March 3 [24 favorites]
Why do only old white people get to be normies? I’m so sick of it and also so sick of being trotted out by Dems (as a non-binary brown person) as one of the people who has so much to lose if Trump wins but then they never do anything to try to win my vote or represent my interests. Literally, all they do is tell me I need to support their genocide or they’ll put me in a concentration camp. Do you understand how that feels even a little? On top of the horror, it’s also just condescending and disrespectful as hell. You don’t care about me, you want to use me as a prop.
And I think it’s quite notable that the people like me who are most likely to end up in these camps (which some white straight folks seem to take a rather unseemly glee in describing—or rather threatening) are the ones most steadfastly in support of Palestine. It’s almost like intersectionality is a thing.
posted by lizard2590 at 12:11 PM on March 3 [24 favorites]
I found this story about Biden in today's Washington Post "The private chats and chance encounters that shape Joe Biden’s thinking" (gift link) reassuring. He knows he's in a bubble, and tries to listen to people outside of it.
As president of the United States, Biden has access to practically unlimited information. He receives a daily classified briefing from the world’s most powerful intelligence apparatus. He can mobilize the vast machinery of the U.S. government to deliver data on various topics. He can convene meetings with world leaders, Cabinet officials or experts in any field — and often does.posted by amk at 12:11 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
But to a remarkable degree, Biden relies on direct personal interaction for information: catch-up chats with his children and grandchildren; talks with fellow parishioners after Mass; exchanges with workers on his property in Wilmington, Del; spontaneous calls to former colleagues. From consumer prices to masking guidelines to loneliness, the president brings their worries to the Oval Office.
...
On another Monday, Biden walked into the Oval Office with detailed questions about the renewable-fuel standard, a little-known rule designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In Wilmington over the weekend, he had heard from a resident worried that the rule could lead to job losses at a nearby refinery.
After attending Mass one weekend in Delaware, the president told his aides that congregants were confused about the government’s covid-19 masking policy. He told his team to clarify the guidelines on when people were still required to wear face coverings.
All presidents look for ways to gather information from outside the golden cocoon of the White House. Barack Obama read 10 letters a night from ordinary Americans, studying them in the solitude of the White House residence. Donald Trump made late-night calls to his well-connected, often wealthy friends, soliciting advice and sharing grievances.
Another issue: If a Palestinian genocide is the cost of doing politics for Democrats, what ELSE could be the cost of doing politics to the Democrats? Who else will they let slide into oblivion because some third rate third way numpty tells them it's going to poll well?
posted by Slackermagee at 12:13 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 12:13 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Is voting for Biden assisting in enabling a genocide more or less than paying taxes to the US government? Will those too disgusted to do the former also cease doing the latter? Where is the line drawn indicating sufficient remove when calculating the personal moral cost of supporting this genocide-enabling system?
posted by otsebyatina at 12:14 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
posted by otsebyatina at 12:14 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
People used to vote because they thought their candidate would provide more freedoms, more safety, more prosperity, a better direction for the country, or at least the candidate looked good or something. Here's what I'm hearing this year:
- Trump is going to throw everyone in a concentration camp
- Biden is already running concentration camps
- Biden is committing genocide in Gaza
- Biden committed genocide through COVID (this was part of an argument meant to convince people to vote Biden)
- The entire earth is doomed anyway, so what's the point (not even in the usual "people are shit and I don't trust us not to destroy ourselves" way, but in the "even the animals and trees will fall to dust and all that will be left is barren rock and a few germs" sort of way)
Plus every single argument from 2016 on, reheated and served up like vomit on a plate.
We have eight more months of this shit! When's the coup because I can't imagine that anyone is interested in bothering with a ballot for any of this.
posted by kingdead at 12:14 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
- Trump is going to throw everyone in a concentration camp
- Biden is already running concentration camps
- Biden is committing genocide in Gaza
- Biden committed genocide through COVID (this was part of an argument meant to convince people to vote Biden)
- The entire earth is doomed anyway, so what's the point (not even in the usual "people are shit and I don't trust us not to destroy ourselves" way, but in the "even the animals and trees will fall to dust and all that will be left is barren rock and a few germs" sort of way)
Plus every single argument from 2016 on, reheated and served up like vomit on a plate.
We have eight more months of this shit! When's the coup because I can't imagine that anyone is interested in bothering with a ballot for any of this.
posted by kingdead at 12:14 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Josh Marshall and Eric Levitz have written thoughtful rebuttals to Ezra Klein's op-ed, so I won't rehash that here, but I want to ask the question, what is the value of a horse-race poll to me, an individual voter?
Polls have obvious value to candidates and campaign officials--it lets them adjust strategy.
Polls have value to newsrooms--they are a weighted random number generator that provide an opportunity for Very Serious People to write Takes that generate Discourse. Especially in an environment where we know exactly who these two candidates are, there are none of the usual pegs that newsrooms use to write stories and drive engagement.
But I am an individual voter with a specific policy vision--I want a responsive, pluralistic multi-racial democracy with religious liberty, queer liberty, trans liberty, and nobody in a state of economic precarity. I want more freedom, more economic power, more political power for everyone. How does horse race polling help me? James Fallows argued in his 1997 book Breaking the News (sorry I don't have a good link to a synopsis, here is a link to an interview he did), most people do not care about the polls and do not want the media to spend time on polls. They want information on how different candidates will materially impact their lives, not how candidate A's recent speech will affect the polls. And in fact, the fixation on polling is why there is little trust and regard for the mainstream media--they are devoting time to things that do not actually help inform their audience. Hence Jay Rosen's dictate to journalists "The stakes, not the odds"
In fact, spending time obsessing over polls is a form of political hobbyism, it feels like a form of political engagment, but it does nothing to actually bring about the world I want or make me better informed about policy. The only way I can nudge this world closer to what I want by taking action:organizing, voting, protesting, striking, boycotting, and persuading people. This is not meant as a subtweet at people in this thread, this is honestly aimed at myself. I spend too much damn time as a passive news consumer (especially of news about the presidential election) and not enough building power to make my community better. But I am trying to do better by getting involved with deep canvassing and workplace organizing.
On the note of persuading people, there is a lot of frustration in this thread about the disappointing nature of the choice we are presented with (Biden or Trump). I feel that frustration too. The only way out is to change the structure of our electoral system. If we elected presidents by popular vote rather than the electoral college, Trump would never have been president, and he would have no shot now. If we voted using something like Approval Voting instead of our first-past-the-post system, we would not be stuck in a two-party system. We can have a better democracy if we had a better electoral system. So I am going to talk about this with everyone, starting with you.
posted by nuvanrath at 12:14 PM on March 3 [18 favorites]
Polls have obvious value to candidates and campaign officials--it lets them adjust strategy.
Polls have value to newsrooms--they are a weighted random number generator that provide an opportunity for Very Serious People to write Takes that generate Discourse. Especially in an environment where we know exactly who these two candidates are, there are none of the usual pegs that newsrooms use to write stories and drive engagement.
But I am an individual voter with a specific policy vision--I want a responsive, pluralistic multi-racial democracy with religious liberty, queer liberty, trans liberty, and nobody in a state of economic precarity. I want more freedom, more economic power, more political power for everyone. How does horse race polling help me? James Fallows argued in his 1997 book Breaking the News (sorry I don't have a good link to a synopsis, here is a link to an interview he did), most people do not care about the polls and do not want the media to spend time on polls. They want information on how different candidates will materially impact their lives, not how candidate A's recent speech will affect the polls. And in fact, the fixation on polling is why there is little trust and regard for the mainstream media--they are devoting time to things that do not actually help inform their audience. Hence Jay Rosen's dictate to journalists "The stakes, not the odds"
In fact, spending time obsessing over polls is a form of political hobbyism, it feels like a form of political engagment, but it does nothing to actually bring about the world I want or make me better informed about policy. The only way I can nudge this world closer to what I want by taking action:organizing, voting, protesting, striking, boycotting, and persuading people. This is not meant as a subtweet at people in this thread, this is honestly aimed at myself. I spend too much damn time as a passive news consumer (especially of news about the presidential election) and not enough building power to make my community better. But I am trying to do better by getting involved with deep canvassing and workplace organizing.
On the note of persuading people, there is a lot of frustration in this thread about the disappointing nature of the choice we are presented with (Biden or Trump). I feel that frustration too. The only way out is to change the structure of our electoral system. If we elected presidents by popular vote rather than the electoral college, Trump would never have been president, and he would have no shot now. If we voted using something like Approval Voting instead of our first-past-the-post system, we would not be stuck in a two-party system. We can have a better democracy if we had a better electoral system. So I am going to talk about this with everyone, starting with you.
posted by nuvanrath at 12:14 PM on March 3 [18 favorites]
Jesus, I'm out. I am the opposite of gleeful about children in cages. I was just rebutting the "it can't happen here" flavor up thread. It is happening already. May you all have the day you deserve. What a fucking thread.
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 12:17 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 12:17 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Complaining about the candidates is a bit like complaining that you have to choose between Big Macs and Quarter Pounders at McDonalds. The problem is that you're at a McDonalds.
We live in a country with a system that was specifically designed not to be equitable. It was create for white male property owners. We've managed the whittle away at many of those problematic choices, but the fact remains that we're essentially tied a two-party system, and one that gives moneyed interests numerous advantages.
It's quite possible to design more equitable systems, and other countries have done so to greater or lesser degrees. But until we design and adopt a new one, we're stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils over and over until the next civil war/revolution.
The two parties are not the same, but the one similarity is that most candidates of both parties do not advocate changing the system, and have to get elected in this system. They will make the compromises necessary to do so.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:24 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
We live in a country with a system that was specifically designed not to be equitable. It was create for white male property owners. We've managed the whittle away at many of those problematic choices, but the fact remains that we're essentially tied a two-party system, and one that gives moneyed interests numerous advantages.
It's quite possible to design more equitable systems, and other countries have done so to greater or lesser degrees. But until we design and adopt a new one, we're stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils over and over until the next civil war/revolution.
The two parties are not the same, but the one similarity is that most candidates of both parties do not advocate changing the system, and have to get elected in this system. They will make the compromises necessary to do so.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:24 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
evilDoug, did you just compare support for genocide with the Hunter Biden controversies, as if it was made up by conservative media?
Never change, righteous centrists of Mefi.
In fact I did not. You however, just did.
Never change pacifists of mefi.
posted by evilDoug at 12:27 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Never change, righteous centrists of Mefi.
In fact I did not. You however, just did.
Never change pacifists of mefi.
posted by evilDoug at 12:27 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
>the cost of doing politics to the Democrats?
congratulations waking from your 200 years in a coma
Not sure where on this planet today one (i.e. myself) could make an actual non-compromised positive vote for a party in power; even Westminster systems suffer from the the spoiler effect to a large extent. Sweden currently has a conservative PM, same thing in Finland. NZ, Australia. Same. Canada, uh yeah. UK, ugh. Scotland looks promising I guess. Norway, not so much.
I guess the point is, democracy sucks, or is only going to be as good as the people going to the polls, if you're lucky.
posted by torokunai at 12:28 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
congratulations waking from your 200 years in a coma
Not sure where on this planet today one (i.e. myself) could make an actual non-compromised positive vote for a party in power; even Westminster systems suffer from the the spoiler effect to a large extent. Sweden currently has a conservative PM, same thing in Finland. NZ, Australia. Same. Canada, uh yeah. UK, ugh. Scotland looks promising I guess. Norway, not so much.
I guess the point is, democracy sucks, or is only going to be as good as the people going to the polls, if you're lucky.
posted by torokunai at 12:28 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
If there are any DNC staffers reading this who want to know where my personal line is, it's here: I would vote for Biden - without enthusiasm, with great distaste - if we genuinely throw our weight behind a ceasefire and stop with the extra, expedited arms shipments AND we also stop collaborating with the GOP about immigration. My family are chronic and reliable voters; my friends are chronic and reliable voters. We hold a variety of left political positions and mostly take a harm-reduction approach to voting. At this point, probably half of us are provisionally outie on Biden because of Gaza and the border.
In re lines and the general evilness of the United States and don't we all know that the US supports many genocides, that our tax dollars fund oppression, etc: it's a little like using "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" to excuse stiffing the delivery guy on the tip and doing Shein hauls. There isn't any ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn't mean that you can just charge ahead and make the worst choice whenever a choice is presented to you. The planet is burning, but I'm not going elephant-shooting anytime soon.
posted by Frowner at 12:30 PM on March 3 [22 favorites]
In re lines and the general evilness of the United States and don't we all know that the US supports many genocides, that our tax dollars fund oppression, etc: it's a little like using "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" to excuse stiffing the delivery guy on the tip and doing Shein hauls. There isn't any ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn't mean that you can just charge ahead and make the worst choice whenever a choice is presented to you. The planet is burning, but I'm not going elephant-shooting anytime soon.
posted by Frowner at 12:30 PM on March 3 [22 favorites]
I suppose as a non-Democrat I don't have a dog in this fight, but if an arch-lib like Klein can identify this glaring and wilful dereliction in the party's duty to actually try to win, I think would-be partisans would do well to heed that message. "Boo hoo, it's not fair to call our guy dumb and old because the other guy is also dumb and old." Yeah, and that's an advantage for him because he's in the party of dumb old people. If you want to be the party of smart people who make good things happen, you have to run someone who is that. Every time you respond with "it's just a stutter!" or "actually he forgave a dozen federal pot convictions and increased the DHS budget" or "what is a genocide, really?" you are choosing failure for fear of self-reflection. Wouldn't be the first time either.
posted by jy4m at 12:39 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 12:39 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
Someone better at math than me, is there a calculation to show how many dead Palestinians it will cost to keep me out of the camps?
i can do something about the latter. not so much about the former.
is there more the US could be doing? absolutely
would Israel stop if we withdrew all military support tomorrow? probably not
of course we should do it because it's the right thing to do. I'm also not entirely sure it's solely in Biden's hands. even if he was whole heartedly behind it, the Republican controlled House may not go along.
Biden isn't God Emperor. he's President with a divided Congress and a right-wing SCOTUS.
posted by kokaku at 12:44 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
i can do something about the latter. not so much about the former.
is there more the US could be doing? absolutely
would Israel stop if we withdrew all military support tomorrow? probably not
of course we should do it because it's the right thing to do. I'm also not entirely sure it's solely in Biden's hands. even if he was whole heartedly behind it, the Republican controlled House may not go along.
Biden isn't God Emperor. he's President with a divided Congress and a right-wing SCOTUS.
posted by kokaku at 12:44 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
Ezra Klein hasn't been trustworthy in years. I do not read nor link him anymore.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:48 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 12:48 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
The two parties are not the same, but the one similarity is that most candidates of both parties do not advocate changing the system, and have to get elected in this system. They will make the compromises necessary to do so.
I mean, the National popular vote laws are all right there and passed in Democratic states so that one enough states pass the laws we’ll have popular vote for the president. (Hi, R states.) Ranked choice voting isn’t everywhere but it’s a few places, and I’d like to think we can get it in more.
It is so dang unromantic and a huge psychic toll to say that every election feels like a vote between
slow progress on a few things with huge, genocide-sized switchbacks on others
vs.
lots of damage to things you care about and probably a lot of other equally genocide-sized switchbacks
plus the knowledge that, for most of us, our presidential vote is absorbed into a state that is going to go one way no matter what.
But that’s kind of the deal, and that slow progress vs slow decay switch every four years really does affect millions of people, and how federal agencies handle things. If voting for someone is gonna break you in half, unless you live in a swing state your life is a breeze, though I wish it weren’t and we all got to make a meaningful decision. Meanwhile, support ranked choice voting. Figure out yr. local election votes, or talk to someone you trust who has done the work, since that stuff matters and can be wildly corrupt. Bend your life a little bit around changing local policy, or at least building yr. local community, whatever that means to you. Give some time or money or blood. All politics is national now, but it’s lived locally.
Notes for myself, I suppose.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:49 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
I mean, the National popular vote laws are all right there and passed in Democratic states so that one enough states pass the laws we’ll have popular vote for the president. (Hi, R states.) Ranked choice voting isn’t everywhere but it’s a few places, and I’d like to think we can get it in more.
It is so dang unromantic and a huge psychic toll to say that every election feels like a vote between
slow progress on a few things with huge, genocide-sized switchbacks on others
vs.
lots of damage to things you care about and probably a lot of other equally genocide-sized switchbacks
plus the knowledge that, for most of us, our presidential vote is absorbed into a state that is going to go one way no matter what.
But that’s kind of the deal, and that slow progress vs slow decay switch every four years really does affect millions of people, and how federal agencies handle things. If voting for someone is gonna break you in half, unless you live in a swing state your life is a breeze, though I wish it weren’t and we all got to make a meaningful decision. Meanwhile, support ranked choice voting. Figure out yr. local election votes, or talk to someone you trust who has done the work, since that stuff matters and can be wildly corrupt. Bend your life a little bit around changing local policy, or at least building yr. local community, whatever that means to you. Give some time or money or blood. All politics is national now, but it’s lived locally.
Notes for myself, I suppose.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:49 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Sorry I can’t walk away from Omelas. I have commitments. I have kids and activists I have a moral obligation to. I sympathize with those of you who want to walk away from Omelas but I think ultimately people who think they can walk away are self-deluded. Most Americans who choose to make a protest vote or choose not to vote will wake up the next day and drive to their jobs wearing their fast fashion clothes in their cars and participate in this corrupt capitalistic world in a million other ways. Wanting to walk away is the only rational response to an existence that most of us irrevocably chose years ago. But you can’t. It’s like eating meat and not wanting to read about slaughterhouses or quarter a chicken. Meat is delicious and I don’t judge people who eat meat but I can’t help but be disappointed by people who will eat meat but refuse to acknowledge the moral dimension to doing so. Make the choose you need to make and make it thoughtfully but do so remembering that most likely in every other way you are still standing in pig shit.
posted by bq at 12:58 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by bq at 12:58 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
What Israel is doing now in reaction to the Hamas attack is not in any way different from what the US did after 9-11
Oh, really? Were Americans lined up at the Afghan border to prevent food from getting to starving people? Were gangs of armed American civilians, with the full support of the state, going into Muslim neighbourhoods to kill people and engage in wanton destruction? No? Then it's pretty fucking different, isn't it?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:01 PM on March 3 [16 favorites]
Oh, really? Were Americans lined up at the Afghan border to prevent food from getting to starving people? Were gangs of armed American civilians, with the full support of the state, going into Muslim neighbourhoods to kill people and engage in wanton destruction? No? Then it's pretty fucking different, isn't it?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:01 PM on March 3 [16 favorites]
Anyway, I actually think that it's good Klein produced these podcasts, and that people are registering "uncommitted" votes in the primary as a protest. Biden will lose in November if the Democrats are complacent like they were in 2016. I think a number of us are panicking (and I think Klein is panicking) because we know that Biden really can't afford to lose any of "the base." There is some contingent of voters who are inclined to vote against whoever is currently in charge, and then there is the Trump -> Non-voter, who is going to vote Trump this time. I have no doubt that more people are going to vote for Trump in 2024 that voter for him in 2020 - so making sure Biden's turnout hold steady is vital, and so far the DNC aren't acting like it, at least not in public.
I doubt Biden will step down, but look at the 2020 election - as a result of Bernie doing as well as he did in the primary, Biden and establishment Dems took notice - they brought Progressives into their coalition, and actually listened to what they had to say and incorporated some of it into the party platform - the result is in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Sure, there will be a time when these sorts of discussions are harmful, but not yet. And it's the DNC's fault for not taking this election more seriously.
posted by coffeecat at 1:05 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
I doubt Biden will step down, but look at the 2020 election - as a result of Bernie doing as well as he did in the primary, Biden and establishment Dems took notice - they brought Progressives into their coalition, and actually listened to what they had to say and incorporated some of it into the party platform - the result is in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Sure, there will be a time when these sorts of discussions are harmful, but not yet. And it's the DNC's fault for not taking this election more seriously.
posted by coffeecat at 1:05 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Sorry I can’t walk away
You...understand that there is no real way to opt out of society, right? I guess you could go live in the woods, like the Into the Wild guy. And unless we do, we have to vote for Biden, to acknowledge our complicity in the system we were born into, and that resists every opportunity to change it? Or we're just deluding ourselves? I think I, um, have to deny this calculus, it's goofy to me. It's very "and yet you live in society, curious, I am very intelligent," right?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:05 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
You...understand that there is no real way to opt out of society, right? I guess you could go live in the woods, like the Into the Wild guy. And unless we do, we have to vote for Biden, to acknowledge our complicity in the system we were born into, and that resists every opportunity to change it? Or we're just deluding ourselves? I think I, um, have to deny this calculus, it's goofy to me. It's very "and yet you live in society, curious, I am very intelligent," right?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:05 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Were Americans lined up at the Afghan border to prevent food from getting to starving people?
I mean, they certainly would have if the US had shared a border with Afghanistan. Shit, my taxi driver the other day, unprompted, advocated for putting alligators on the southern border to "take care of the immigrant problem." I'd rather not add fuel to this sort of thinking.
posted by coffeecat at 1:09 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
I mean, they certainly would have if the US had shared a border with Afghanistan. Shit, my taxi driver the other day, unprompted, advocated for putting alligators on the southern border to "take care of the immigrant problem." I'd rather not add fuel to this sort of thinking.
posted by coffeecat at 1:09 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
I dunno. I live in Louisiana. my vote has never mattered and will never matter in the United States. We are just your oil colony and are dying at your will, no matter who is in power, we die to make your fertilizer for cheap food. Still, it's awful to see so many americans miscalculate that a vote for Biden is a vote for the Genocide. That is not how foreign policy works.
Voting is not picking out shoes. It's a challenge to power, at best. It seems so naive to think that voting is a moral and religious practice, rather than a civic and calculated one.
Just look at Louisiana. no one votes. the Governor was elected by 18% of the voting populace. He will fill the prisons. Just, don't be like us, ok? We need the United States to persist.
posted by eustatic at 1:14 PM on March 3 [20 favorites]
Voting is not picking out shoes. It's a challenge to power, at best. It seems so naive to think that voting is a moral and religious practice, rather than a civic and calculated one.
Just look at Louisiana. no one votes. the Governor was elected by 18% of the voting populace. He will fill the prisons. Just, don't be like us, ok? We need the United States to persist.
posted by eustatic at 1:14 PM on March 3 [20 favorites]
Oh, really? Were Americans lined up at the Afghan border to prevent food from getting to starving people? Were gangs of armed American civilians, with the full support of the state, going into Muslim neighbourhoods to kill people and engage in wanton destruction? No? Then it's pretty fucking different, isn't it?
You should look into what happened, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It's been 20+ years and I'm still angry.
posted by mumimor at 1:16 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
You should look into what happened, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It's been 20+ years and I'm still angry.
posted by mumimor at 1:16 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
It's been 20+ years and I'm still angry.
Me too; I didn't think it would be possible for me to hate an American political leader as much as I hated GWB, but first Trump and then Biden have unfortunately managed to surprise me.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:19 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Me too; I didn't think it would be possible for me to hate an American political leader as much as I hated GWB, but first Trump and then Biden have unfortunately managed to surprise me.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:19 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Kokaku, I specifically want to push back on the notion that Israel would continue whether the US supports them or not. This is absolutely not the case. Israel admits regularly in its own propaganda that it would not exist without the support of the world-bestriding US empire. Without weaponry, troops, and financial and political support from the US and Europe, Israel's campaign to ethnically cleanse Palestine would simply not be sustainable. This isn't merely a theoretical question. The example of apartheid South Africa, which long stood as a bulwark against communism in Africa, shows how quickly American puppet states collapse against national liberation movements without our aid. Demanding that Biden cut ties with Israel isn't just virtue signalling, it would be the end of an atrocity that has lasted for 75 years.
posted by jy4m at 1:20 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 1:20 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
>"and yet you live in society, curious, I am very intelligent," right?
No, thanks to the electoral college (& background threat of it throwing the presidency to state congressional delegations should that not produce a winner) some votes for President have more instrumentality than others.
Al Gore lost NH by a nut hair, so 7211 of the 22,000 Nader voters there had immense effect on history.
De-partisaning this to some extent by looking at 2016, the thin trace of "Blue Wall" states that determined the election was set by the relatively few (vs the national turnout) choosing to, for whatever reason, not vote for Clinton.
In these battleground states, voters determine who takes the Presidency and thus sets the course of the country for the next 4 to 40+ years.
posted by torokunai at 1:25 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
No, thanks to the electoral college (& background threat of it throwing the presidency to state congressional delegations should that not produce a winner) some votes for President have more instrumentality than others.
Al Gore lost NH by a nut hair, so 7211 of the 22,000 Nader voters there had immense effect on history.
De-partisaning this to some extent by looking at 2016, the thin trace of "Blue Wall" states that determined the election was set by the relatively few (vs the national turnout) choosing to, for whatever reason, not vote for Clinton.
In these battleground states, voters determine who takes the Presidency and thus sets the course of the country for the next 4 to 40+ years.
posted by torokunai at 1:25 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Me too; I didn't think it would be possible for me to hate an American political leader as much as I hated GWB, but first Trump and then Biden have unfortunately managed to surprise me.
We all got our opinions and are entitled to them, but this is a WILD demographic to me.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:28 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
We all got our opinions and are entitled to them, but this is a WILD demographic to me.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:28 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
*checks in to see if it's devolved into the usual acrimonious Leftists vs the World imbroglio, sees that it has, nods, leaves*
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:29 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:29 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
If it's leftists vs the world, then the world better watch out, because we will cry and wail and gnash our teeth so hard!
posted by jy4m at 1:33 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
posted by jy4m at 1:33 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
The gay people who live there are suffering even more now. It's not a morally inconsistent stance to not want their neighborhoods turned into a parking lot.
posted by Selena777 at 1:38 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 1:38 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
The only time liberals care about queer people in Palestine is when it can be used as a way to distract from the ongoing apartheid perpetrated by Israel, which includes sexual and gender-based violence.
posted by sagc at 1:41 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
posted by sagc at 1:41 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Without weaponry, troops, and financial and political support from the US and Europe, Israel's campaign to ethnically cleanse Palestine would simply not be sustainable...Demanding that Biden cut ties with Israel isn't just virtue signalling, it would be the end of an atrocity that has lasted for 75 years.
I agree that it wouldn't just be virtue signaling, but I think you overestimate the power of the US here. Last I checked, the US is responsible for 13% of Israeli's military budget, which is significant, but if the US completely cut this funding (which to be clear, I would support), it wouldn't magically stop the horror of Gaza. And the main unsustainable feature there is not money but soldiers and the economic impact of having so much of the country called up on reserve - and thankfully the US hasn't offered ground troops.
posted by coffeecat at 1:45 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I agree that it wouldn't just be virtue signaling, but I think you overestimate the power of the US here. Last I checked, the US is responsible for 13% of Israeli's military budget, which is significant, but if the US completely cut this funding (which to be clear, I would support), it wouldn't magically stop the horror of Gaza. And the main unsustainable feature there is not money but soldiers and the economic impact of having so much of the country called up on reserve - and thankfully the US hasn't offered ground troops.
posted by coffeecat at 1:45 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
coffeecat
I think the point being made about Biden isn't so much that he can singlehandedly end the genocide, but that he CAN singlehandedly denounce it, say he supports a ceasefire, and even if he can't end all military shipments to Israel he can at least slow walk them.
It's the part where Biden is actively, willingly, supporting genocide that's the problem. If he could just say "Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza now, there must be an immediate ceasefire, and I will try to stop all American arms shipments to Israel until it stops bombing civilians" that right there would be all most people would need.
Not having a genocide would be great! But not having our President cheerleading for one would be pretty OK.
posted by sotonohito at 1:54 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
I think the point being made about Biden isn't so much that he can singlehandedly end the genocide, but that he CAN singlehandedly denounce it, say he supports a ceasefire, and even if he can't end all military shipments to Israel he can at least slow walk them.
It's the part where Biden is actively, willingly, supporting genocide that's the problem. If he could just say "Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza now, there must be an immediate ceasefire, and I will try to stop all American arms shipments to Israel until it stops bombing civilians" that right there would be all most people would need.
Not having a genocide would be great! But not having our President cheerleading for one would be pretty OK.
posted by sotonohito at 1:54 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
We all got our opinions and are entitled to them, but this is a WILD demographic to me.
Not sure why; Biden is a war criminal (material support of genocide), just as much as Bush was. The only conceivable reason for you to be confused is blind partisanship.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:57 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Not sure why; Biden is a war criminal (material support of genocide), just as much as Bush was. The only conceivable reason for you to be confused is blind partisanship.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:57 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
If there are any DNC staffers reading this who want to know where my personal line is, it's here: I would vote for Biden - without enthusiasm, with great distaste - if we genuinely throw our weight behind a ceasefire and stop with the extra, expedited arms shipments AND we also stop collaborating with the GOP about immigration.
I'm declaring my vote for Biden in the general election, but in the March 5th Democratic primary in my state, I'm voting "uncommitted." Votes are very inefficient method of signaling overall, but the only chance that any signal at all is going to change Democratic Party policy is by voting uncommitted in the primary. I think this applies just as much if you are not planning to vote for Biden in the general election.
Because it's not tied to any particular rival candidate, voting uncommitted actually has way more of a chance of making a positive effect on Democratic Party policy than some abstentions in the general election from the "but I'm not a Democrat anyway" crowd. If you refuse to label yourself as a Democrat and you don't even make an attempt to participate in Democratic Party institutions (as the DSA does, for instance), then why should Democratic elected officials listen to you? Sure, the Democrat ought to be listening to folks like us more, but there is a huge distance between "ought" and "is."
posted by jonp72 at 2:02 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I'm declaring my vote for Biden in the general election, but in the March 5th Democratic primary in my state, I'm voting "uncommitted." Votes are very inefficient method of signaling overall, but the only chance that any signal at all is going to change Democratic Party policy is by voting uncommitted in the primary. I think this applies just as much if you are not planning to vote for Biden in the general election.
Because it's not tied to any particular rival candidate, voting uncommitted actually has way more of a chance of making a positive effect on Democratic Party policy than some abstentions in the general election from the "but I'm not a Democrat anyway" crowd. If you refuse to label yourself as a Democrat and you don't even make an attempt to participate in Democratic Party institutions (as the DSA does, for instance), then why should Democratic elected officials listen to you? Sure, the Democrat ought to be listening to folks like us more, but there is a huge distance between "ought" and "is."
posted by jonp72 at 2:02 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
>Is anybody legitimately excited to vote for Biden or are we all just trying to make sure Trump doesn’t win again?
If you think dumping the legitimately elected primary winning candidate and then picking a whole brand-new one using a never-before-implemented process consisting of party bigwigs unilaterally making the choice in a process that is bound to be mostly behind closed doors, less than three months before the general election is as great way to win an election - well, you got another think coming.
Doing that would be the one sure-fire way the Democrats have of guaranteeing a loss in November.
posted by flug at 2:07 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
If you think dumping the legitimately elected primary winning candidate and then picking a whole brand-new one using a never-before-implemented process consisting of party bigwigs unilaterally making the choice in a process that is bound to be mostly behind closed doors, less than three months before the general election is as great way to win an election - well, you got another think coming.
Doing that would be the one sure-fire way the Democrats have of guaranteeing a loss in November.
posted by flug at 2:07 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
US VP Harris calls for immediate ceasefire to ease "humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza (30 minutes ago, while speaking at a memorial to Bloody Sunday standing on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma)
posted by hydropsyche at 2:07 PM on March 3 [25 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 2:07 PM on March 3 [25 favorites]
perspective as someone barely older than this website... voting uncommitted in the dem primary has received some of the most, cross-ideological support in my communities than most suggestions recently (specifically in the primary, knowing most of us would vote Biden/blue or not vote in the general). dems, MLs, left-libertarians, communists, socialists. constant arguing about whether to prioritize voting blue or mutual aid or protesting or or or
the democratic party cares about the polls, why don't we kick them where it hurts? and people [in my communities] have ALREADY warmed up to him more after he mentioned sending aid to Palestine. i feel like this is a clear demographic he could turn into more votes. we know he's going to win the primary anyways, surely a protest vote here makes sense
on preview (i type slowly): vp harris immediate ceasefire :o that helps
posted by pfeffernusse at 2:16 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
the democratic party cares about the polls, why don't we kick them where it hurts? and people [in my communities] have ALREADY warmed up to him more after he mentioned sending aid to Palestine. i feel like this is a clear demographic he could turn into more votes. we know he's going to win the primary anyways, surely a protest vote here makes sense
on preview (i type slowly): vp harris immediate ceasefire :o that helps
posted by pfeffernusse at 2:16 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
sotonohito, I get that's what you and some others are arguing (and again, I agree we should all be doing what we can to shift US policy, even if I draw the line at helping a fascist get elected) but some people on this thread are making different, more extreme arguments (like the user I was responding to).
Anyway, as to the recent news:
The vice president...urged Hamas to accept a deal to release hostages that would kickstart a 6-week ceasefire and allow more aid to flow.
Yeah, that's not the declaration of support for a ceasefire that Michigan (and others) is asking for - but I guess it's a sign they are starting to listen?
posted by coffeecat at 2:18 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Anyway, as to the recent news:
The vice president...urged Hamas to accept a deal to release hostages that would kickstart a 6-week ceasefire and allow more aid to flow.
Yeah, that's not the declaration of support for a ceasefire that Michigan (and others) is asking for - but I guess it's a sign they are starting to listen?
posted by coffeecat at 2:18 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Not sure why; Biden is a war criminal (material support of genocide), just as much as Bush was.
The Iraq war alone killed somewhere between 150K and a million civilians. Plus all the other "War on Terror" gems like the network of torture facilities that the US either ran directly or more commonly had allied countries run on our behalf. (The detail I read in an article back then, that the facility we sent people to in Jordan was nicknamed the "fingernail factory," has stuck with me ever since.)
posted by Dip Flash at 2:20 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
The Iraq war alone killed somewhere between 150K and a million civilians. Plus all the other "War on Terror" gems like the network of torture facilities that the US either ran directly or more commonly had allied countries run on our behalf. (The detail I read in an article back then, that the facility we sent people to in Jordan was nicknamed the "fingernail factory," has stuck with me ever since.)
posted by Dip Flash at 2:20 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
'Michigan governor says not voting for Biden over Gaza war ‘supports second Trump term’.
posted by clavdivs at 2:25 PM on March 3
posted by clavdivs at 2:25 PM on March 3
FDR literally immolated 100,000 Japanese people in a day, and Truman upped him on that 2X the following August.
you want better politicians in power, you need better people going to the polls. Good luck with that.
posted by torokunai at 2:25 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
you want better politicians in power, you need better people going to the polls. Good luck with that.
posted by torokunai at 2:25 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Not sure why; Biden is a war criminal (material support of genocide), just as much as Bush was. The only conceivable reason for you to be confused is blind partisanship.
Again, wild.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:25 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
Again, wild.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:25 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
Compared to their peers, Biden and Trump are superagers. Physically, as well as mentally. Both can outwork, out-think, and outlive the majority of their cohort. Neither resides in a retirement home, or is expected to be present in one in the near future. They are idealistic models of growing old, despite occasional lapses into forgetfulness or periodic senior moments.
Each candidate could serve with distinction in a variety of political roles, including, possibly, a stint in a cabinet job or think tank. They are elder statespeople in the making.
But the Presidency? The Presidency? Nah. Nope. No way.
That's because the presidency requires two things. One: youthfulness in mind and body. Two: a youthful outlook.
Youthfulness in mind and body because the President, in some instances, will need to pull all-nighters for lengthy periods to handle crises. Think back to the Cuban Missile Crisis: thirteen mostly sleepless days for JFK--amped up on meth--and his staff. A crisis of this magnitude would capsize an eighty year old president, no matter how much of a superager they may be.
Two. Youthfulness of outlook. In a few years, Gen Z will be a voting constituency, with Gen Alpha close on their heels. They will be voters who won't be able to remember an age prior to the Internet and A.I., with a worldview vastly different to Trump and Biden in their youth.
But the outlook issue pales in comparison to health.
Superagers though they may be, Biden or Trump will be influenced by the effects of age. They will nap. Several times a day. They will sleep in meetings. On some days, they'll be checked out--due to a health issue or lack of sleep. Hospital visits, inpatient or outpatient, will occur. The VP may take over for short stints. And, due to the stress and accelerated aging of the job, they may face total mental or physical incapacitation, or worse. A Biden or Trump term has a nonzero probability of being completed by the Vice President, sworn into office possibly in the midst of a war or domestic crisis.
As we approach the inevitable advent of an eighty-year-old President, it's imperative that we give rational, objective consideration to these issues.
posted by Gordion Knott at 2:30 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Each candidate could serve with distinction in a variety of political roles, including, possibly, a stint in a cabinet job or think tank. They are elder statespeople in the making.
But the Presidency? The Presidency? Nah. Nope. No way.
That's because the presidency requires two things. One: youthfulness in mind and body. Two: a youthful outlook.
Youthfulness in mind and body because the President, in some instances, will need to pull all-nighters for lengthy periods to handle crises. Think back to the Cuban Missile Crisis: thirteen mostly sleepless days for JFK--amped up on meth--and his staff. A crisis of this magnitude would capsize an eighty year old president, no matter how much of a superager they may be.
Two. Youthfulness of outlook. In a few years, Gen Z will be a voting constituency, with Gen Alpha close on their heels. They will be voters who won't be able to remember an age prior to the Internet and A.I., with a worldview vastly different to Trump and Biden in their youth.
But the outlook issue pales in comparison to health.
Superagers though they may be, Biden or Trump will be influenced by the effects of age. They will nap. Several times a day. They will sleep in meetings. On some days, they'll be checked out--due to a health issue or lack of sleep. Hospital visits, inpatient or outpatient, will occur. The VP may take over for short stints. And, due to the stress and accelerated aging of the job, they may face total mental or physical incapacitation, or worse. A Biden or Trump term has a nonzero probability of being completed by the Vice President, sworn into office possibly in the midst of a war or domestic crisis.
As we approach the inevitable advent of an eighty-year-old President, it's imperative that we give rational, objective consideration to these issues.
posted by Gordion Knott at 2:30 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
They will nap. Several times a day. They will sleep in meetings. On some days, they'll be checked out--due to a health issue or lack of sleep. Hospital visits, inpatient or outpatient, will occur.
Gordon Knott, I don't know how old you are, but -- other than the "several naps a day" part (note: I think that's something that's only true of an average person who is nearing death, or a person of any age who is profoundly depressed), this describes every person I know who's over 35.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:45 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Gordon Knott, I don't know how old you are, but -- other than the "several naps a day" part (note: I think that's something that's only true of an average person who is nearing death, or a person of any age who is profoundly depressed), this describes every person I know who's over 35.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:45 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Reagan was senile in his last term and a lot of people who didn't seem too bright even in middle age held the job, the difference being that there were newspapers back then instead of an instantly transmitting video camera in every hand. You can see a lot more of the foolishness now, it ain't exactly West Wing.
posted by kingdead at 2:48 PM on March 3
posted by kingdead at 2:48 PM on March 3
"Dear, very dear Sir
Your N. 48. April 8. arrived last night, and put our little family Circle into the best possible humour. The Gaiety of Spirit, the perfect good humour the delicate Satyre and the perfect Knowledge of Persons and Politicks, delighted and astonished Us all. If you had more of Juvenal and less of Horace; more of Swift and less of Adison, more Caustics and less Emolients, you would be the Terror of our Nation and Age. If you had the vulgar Malignity, the ferocious Brutality of Paine Callender and Hamilton you would compel all the Blackguards to hide their diminished heads."
-John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, 1816. (JA was 80 and his son was to be elected president)
posted by clavdivs at 2:53 PM on March 3
Your N. 48. April 8. arrived last night, and put our little family Circle into the best possible humour. The Gaiety of Spirit, the perfect good humour the delicate Satyre and the perfect Knowledge of Persons and Politicks, delighted and astonished Us all. If you had more of Juvenal and less of Horace; more of Swift and less of Adison, more Caustics and less Emolients, you would be the Terror of our Nation and Age. If you had the vulgar Malignity, the ferocious Brutality of Paine Callender and Hamilton you would compel all the Blackguards to hide their diminished heads."
-John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, 1816. (JA was 80 and his son was to be elected president)
posted by clavdivs at 2:53 PM on March 3
Yeah, I get it; you don't think Palestinians are human and support of genocide isn't really an issue for you.
If you can't tell the difference in scale between Bush and Biden, that's wilful ignorance. It sure isn't fact based. That's what you are getting pushback on, just like you appropriately got pushback for that earlier comment about Biden being as bad as Hitler. No one here is saying Palestinians aren't human.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:56 PM on March 3 [20 favorites]
If you can't tell the difference in scale between Bush and Biden, that's wilful ignorance. It sure isn't fact based. That's what you are getting pushback on, just like you appropriately got pushback for that earlier comment about Biden being as bad as Hitler. No one here is saying Palestinians aren't human.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:56 PM on March 3 [20 favorites]
If you can't tell the difference in scale between Bush and Biden
Do you actually think that "oh, it's only a few hundred thousand" or however many makes it *better* than millions? More defensible? Less odious?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:01 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Do you actually think that "oh, it's only a few hundred thousand" or however many makes it *better* than millions? More defensible? Less odious?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:01 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Do you actually think that "oh, it's only a few hundred thousand" or however many makes it *better* than millions? More defensible? Less odious?
Are you saying that there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths in Gaza? Do you have a believable citation for that claim?
But ignoring that moment of fiction, yes, absolutely the scale matters. It matters that Bush's debacle killed probably millions (once you add up all the countries that were impacted), plus running a network of torture centers, and on and on. That is not just quantitatively worse, there's also a direct culpability when we do it ourselves, which we did.
You're making weird, false, and unsupported claims. We get it, you don't like Biden and wouldn't vote for him even if the alternative would be people in camps, sure, no problem. You do you, but it would be awesome if you would give what you are saying some critical thought, rather than just saying wild things that sound neat in your head.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:13 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Are you saying that there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths in Gaza? Do you have a believable citation for that claim?
But ignoring that moment of fiction, yes, absolutely the scale matters. It matters that Bush's debacle killed probably millions (once you add up all the countries that were impacted), plus running a network of torture centers, and on and on. That is not just quantitatively worse, there's also a direct culpability when we do it ourselves, which we did.
You're making weird, false, and unsupported claims. We get it, you don't like Biden and wouldn't vote for him even if the alternative would be people in camps, sure, no problem. You do you, but it would be awesome if you would give what you are saying some critical thought, rather than just saying wild things that sound neat in your head.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:13 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
And, with that I'll step away, to avoid turning this into an individual back and forth.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:13 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 3:13 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Dip Flash, why do we need to wait to be mad when all the lights are flashing red, showing us that scale will be reached and soon via disease and starvation?
The trajectory is Fucking Bad and so many of us are Fucking Mad.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:18 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
The trajectory is Fucking Bad and so many of us are Fucking Mad.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:18 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Are you saying that there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths in Gaza? Do you have a believable citation for that claim?
"Or however many"; excellent reading comprehension you have there. It's very clear that Israel's intention is hundreds of thousands of deaths, and given the intensity of Israel's campaign and the ongoing slaughter, I would not be at all surprised if the present number of c. 30,000 is significantly under-reported. The indiscriminate and wholesale slaughter is the issue, not the precise number of victims of that slaughter (or whether there are more of those victims than in other slaughters).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:18 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
"Or however many"; excellent reading comprehension you have there. It's very clear that Israel's intention is hundreds of thousands of deaths, and given the intensity of Israel's campaign and the ongoing slaughter, I would not be at all surprised if the present number of c. 30,000 is significantly under-reported. The indiscriminate and wholesale slaughter is the issue, not the precise number of victims of that slaughter (or whether there are more of those victims than in other slaughters).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:18 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
why do we need to wait to be mad
I think the fear is that people who are mad are going to break things that other people desperately need to survive while failing in any way to help the people whose suffering makes them so mad.
I don't think there's anyone in this thread who isn't mad. They're just trying to figure out what the most constructive way of handling that is, and coming up with diametrically opposed answers to that question. Unsurprisingly, because none of us really know the future and there's good historical evidence for both radicalism and compromise leading to defeat.
I have to admit I grinned a little when Bush re-entered the conversation, grim as that legacy is, just because that era was the first time I encountered this particular dynamic, both on Metafilter and in real life.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:25 PM on March 3 [23 favorites]
I think the fear is that people who are mad are going to break things that other people desperately need to survive while failing in any way to help the people whose suffering makes them so mad.
I don't think there's anyone in this thread who isn't mad. They're just trying to figure out what the most constructive way of handling that is, and coming up with diametrically opposed answers to that question. Unsurprisingly, because none of us really know the future and there's good historical evidence for both radicalism and compromise leading to defeat.
I have to admit I grinned a little when Bush re-entered the conversation, grim as that legacy is, just because that era was the first time I encountered this particular dynamic, both on Metafilter and in real life.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:25 PM on March 3 [23 favorites]
Moral Purity is impossibly hard and will make you resent everyone and view any disagreement as an attack, just ask the US Evangelical Christian.
posted by djseafood at 3:26 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
posted by djseafood at 3:26 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
I think the fear is that people who are mad are going to break things that other people desperately need to survive while failing in any way to help the people whose suffering makes them so mad
emphasis added
posted by lescour at 3:52 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
emphasis added
posted by lescour at 3:52 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
> Not sure why; Biden is a war criminal (material support of genocide), just as much as Bush was.
>> The Iraq war alone killed somewhere between 150K and a million civilians.
Yeah, and Senator Joe Biden voted to authorize it.
posted by dusty potato at 3:54 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
>> The Iraq war alone killed somewhere between 150K and a million civilians.
Yeah, and Senator Joe Biden voted to authorize it.
posted by dusty potato at 3:54 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
The man's legacy is a trail of murdered kids.
posted by dusty potato at 3:56 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 3:56 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
For the tiny amount that it might be worth, genocide has nothing to do with the absolute number of people killed: it's about systematically wiping out a group of people. From that vantage point, I would say that the Iraq war wasn't genocide (despite being completely reprehensible, with literally uncounted war crimes along the way), but what's going on in Gaza sure looks like genocide to me... Pushing everyone into a refuge city and then bombing it is genocidal behavior, full stop.
posted by kaibutsu at 4:01 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 4:01 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
Gen Z will be a voting constituency
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'voting constituency' here, gen z started in 1996-98. We've been voting for years. Definitely not as long as everyone else!! And many are still too young! But, people born in '06 can vote this year. This is my third presidential election. We're already here. We're already mad.
Indeed, we grew up on the internet. Me and my friends started watching politics and discussing voting in '08. Politicians should start thinking about what young gen z and gen alpha wants Now. They have even more unrestricted access to the internet than I did. I'm not even sure if they still teach how to research at school...
What we (young millennials, gen z, and gen alpha) are seeing currently through social media are 1) videos of brutalized Palestinian bodies from reporters on the ground and 2) inaction from the us government to help them*. It doesn't give warm fuzzy feelings about voting. I (biased) see young people talking about Gaza more than I see them truly complain about the nominees' ages. As well as people who've given up on voting for president but are actively pushing people to stay involved and vote in their local elections.
I don't know what the actual best thing to do is, but something needs to change if Biden wants a solid win.
*and 3) israeli soldier thirst traps and other pro-israel things
posted by pfeffernusse at 4:12 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'voting constituency' here, gen z started in 1996-98. We've been voting for years. Definitely not as long as everyone else!! And many are still too young! But, people born in '06 can vote this year. This is my third presidential election. We're already here. We're already mad.
Indeed, we grew up on the internet. Me and my friends started watching politics and discussing voting in '08. Politicians should start thinking about what young gen z and gen alpha wants Now. They have even more unrestricted access to the internet than I did. I'm not even sure if they still teach how to research at school...
What we (young millennials, gen z, and gen alpha) are seeing currently through social media are 1) videos of brutalized Palestinian bodies from reporters on the ground and 2) inaction from the us government to help them*. It doesn't give warm fuzzy feelings about voting. I (biased) see young people talking about Gaza more than I see them truly complain about the nominees' ages. As well as people who've given up on voting for president but are actively pushing people to stay involved and vote in their local elections.
I don't know what the actual best thing to do is, but something needs to change if Biden wants a solid win.
*and 3) israeli soldier thirst traps and other pro-israel things
posted by pfeffernusse at 4:12 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
"in an interview hours after Powell’s speech, Biden appeared on CNN and was asked, “Did Secretary of State Powell today close the deal in your mind to those who at least have an open mind about the situation in Iraq?”
“Absolutely,” Biden said. “He made a compelling case. The predominance of the evidence, the pure weight of the evidence, I think anyone. … Let me put it this way, if I were back practicing law I can’t imagine I could not convince an open-minded jury of the facts that he presented as having been true.”
posted by clavdivs at 4:12 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
“Absolutely,” Biden said. “He made a compelling case. The predominance of the evidence, the pure weight of the evidence, I think anyone. … Let me put it this way, if I were back practicing law I can’t imagine I could not convince an open-minded jury of the facts that he presented as having been true.”
posted by clavdivs at 4:12 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Not to be an apologist for Biden - I’m still waiting for him to create 4 new Supreme Court seats getting us to 13 - but he was shown intel about Iraq/Afghanistan that was completely bogus. If I showed you that intel, you’d have voted in a similar fashion. Remember when Powell lied to the UN? Good times they were - some of us even questioned Powell’s truthfulness at the time but the tsunami of rage in the US was unstoppable. I know a bunch of folks who make a bunch of money off those wars, but I digress. And Obama was a little busy saving the global economy at the time, but who remembers those minor details?
Biden should drop all support for Bibi at this point, and Bibi should be on trial at The Hague ASAP. But he should have been there in 1995 when he supported the group that assassinated Rabin. And why did the right wing Israeli’s kill their own Prime Minister? Let me see, let me see, oh yes - he had a peace plan in place with the Palestinians. On The Media has an episode about how the US right wing glorifies Putin and white Christian nationalism. I would appreciate it if, in November, you hold your nose and vote for Biden then we spend the next 3-4 years trying to make things better.
I would also appreciate it if in your comments you could put “active Russian agent” or “Useful Idiot” as it would clarify things a bit.
posted by Farce_First at 4:19 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Biden should drop all support for Bibi at this point, and Bibi should be on trial at The Hague ASAP. But he should have been there in 1995 when he supported the group that assassinated Rabin. And why did the right wing Israeli’s kill their own Prime Minister? Let me see, let me see, oh yes - he had a peace plan in place with the Palestinians. On The Media has an episode about how the US right wing glorifies Putin and white Christian nationalism. I would appreciate it if, in November, you hold your nose and vote for Biden then we spend the next 3-4 years trying to make things better.
I would also appreciate it if in your comments you could put “active Russian agent” or “Useful Idiot” as it would clarify things a bit.
posted by Farce_First at 4:19 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
I am so tired of coddling people who say insane things like “I wouldn’t vote for Biden if he were running against Adolf Hitler” and then have the nerve to moralize about how others’ disagreement with that insane sentiment is proof that we are okay with genocide. No. My family has endured genocide twice in living memory. They came to America as refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing. In the last couple of years one of the ethnic groups of my heritage was ethnically cleansed from their historical lands and nobody really did anything, not the UN, not Joe Biden, nobody. I know very damn well what genocide means and I will not let anyone who bloviates about how Biden is a genocidal war criminal who deserves to lose fool themselves into thinking their position is smart or noble. It’s neither.
posted by Method Man at 4:31 PM on March 3 [39 favorites]
posted by Method Man at 4:31 PM on March 3 [39 favorites]
Went to a Gaza protest today, organized by the local JVP group. It was good, sang some songs, did some chants.
More interesting though were the demographics on display, compared with who we were protesting. It was right outside a fundraiser for state dems, on the veranda of the conference center. We could look right in, maybe ten feet away from us outside, to see them inside through the floor-to-ceiling windows. It was a sea of old people. I'm 47, so I'm getting there. But outside? Mostly young people, some gen xers, a few older. Inside? 90% retired people.
This is in a liberal college town in a red state. But not a great harbinger for a party that needs young people with good knees to get out and knock on doors.
posted by turntraitor at 4:31 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
More interesting though were the demographics on display, compared with who we were protesting. It was right outside a fundraiser for state dems, on the veranda of the conference center. We could look right in, maybe ten feet away from us outside, to see them inside through the floor-to-ceiling windows. It was a sea of old people. I'm 47, so I'm getting there. But outside? Mostly young people, some gen xers, a few older. Inside? 90% retired people.
This is in a liberal college town in a red state. But not a great harbinger for a party that needs young people with good knees to get out and knock on doors.
posted by turntraitor at 4:31 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
insane things like “I wouldn’t vote for Biden if he were running against Adolf Hitler”
Not sure what makes that "insane" as Biden has been enthusiastically supporting genocide whilst rejecting calls for a ceasefire and loudly declaiming his love for and admiration of the country committing the genocide. I see no moral difference between the two. Especially not when Biden fucking owns what's happening in Gaza. "No red lines" and billions of dollars worth of bombs and shells to be used against women and children. Funding for "the most moral army" that crushes zip-tied prisoners to death under tanks.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 4:42 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Not sure what makes that "insane" as Biden has been enthusiastically supporting genocide whilst rejecting calls for a ceasefire and loudly declaiming his love for and admiration of the country committing the genocide. I see no moral difference between the two. Especially not when Biden fucking owns what's happening in Gaza. "No red lines" and billions of dollars worth of bombs and shells to be used against women and children. Funding for "the most moral army" that crushes zip-tied prisoners to death under tanks.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 4:42 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Not sure what makes that "insane"
Multiple people have tried to explain it to you to no avail and I’m not going to join them. I hope you take comfort in your moral superiority when Donald Trump deports Palestinian-Americans, makes pro-Palestinian speech illegal, and gives Israel the green light to annex both Gaza and the West Bank. Oh, and when he stands by and watches as Russia reimposes imperialism on its former colonies, presumably slaughtering women and children in those places too, because Republicans have already made it very clear they don’t care what Russia does and Russia is very clearly not going to stop at Ukraine. Please be available to proudly tell Ukrainians, Armenians, Kazakhs, Moldovans, Georgians, Tajiks, and every other people formerly colonized by Russia about the nobility of your position after Trump has permitted Putin to establish Russian Empire 2.0– I think they’ll really appreciate your moral backbone.
posted by Method Man at 5:08 PM on March 3 [22 favorites]
Multiple people have tried to explain it to you to no avail and I’m not going to join them. I hope you take comfort in your moral superiority when Donald Trump deports Palestinian-Americans, makes pro-Palestinian speech illegal, and gives Israel the green light to annex both Gaza and the West Bank. Oh, and when he stands by and watches as Russia reimposes imperialism on its former colonies, presumably slaughtering women and children in those places too, because Republicans have already made it very clear they don’t care what Russia does and Russia is very clearly not going to stop at Ukraine. Please be available to proudly tell Ukrainians, Armenians, Kazakhs, Moldovans, Georgians, Tajiks, and every other people formerly colonized by Russia about the nobility of your position after Trump has permitted Putin to establish Russian Empire 2.0– I think they’ll really appreciate your moral backbone.
posted by Method Man at 5:08 PM on March 3 [22 favorites]
I am so tired of coddling people who say insane things like “I wouldn’t vote for Biden if he were running against Adolf Hitler”
And I'm tired of being expected to treat with respect people who are saying insane things that amount to "I would happily and proudly have voted for Hitler, as long as there was a more radically fascist option he was competing with"
Because if there are no moral lines, only the lesser evil, that's what people are saying.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:09 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
Multiple people have tried to explain it to you to no avail and I’m not going to join them. I hope you take comfort in your moral superiority when Donald Trump deports Palestinian-Americans, makes pro-Palestinian speech illegal, and gives Israel the green light to annex both Gaza and the West Bank. Oh, and when he stands by and watches as Russia reimposes imperialism on its former colonies, presumably slaughtering women and children in those places too, because Republicans have already made it very clear they don’t care what Russia does and Russia is very clearly not going to stop at Ukraine. Please be available to proudly tell Ukrainians, Armenians, Kazakhs, Moldovans, Georgians, Tajiks, and every other people formerly colonized by Russia about the nobility of your position after Trump has permitted Putin to establish Russian Empire 2.0– I think they’ll really appreciate your moral backbone.
I'm autistic and my partner is transgender. We will both end up in those camps liberals always like to threaten leftists with. Neither of us (who both have much more to lose than comfortable investor-class liberals) is voting for Biden despite that.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:12 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
I'm autistic and my partner is transgender. We will both end up in those camps liberals always like to threaten leftists with. Neither of us (who both have much more to lose than comfortable investor-class liberals) is voting for Biden despite that.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:12 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
>Because if there are no moral lines, only the lesser evil, that's what people are saying.
yes, that's how elections work
posted by torokunai at 5:13 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
yes, that's how elections work
posted by torokunai at 5:13 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
Because if there are no moral lines, only the lesser evil, that's what people are saying.
That is not what people are saying at all. I referred to an actual thing said in this very thread. You are referring to an incredibly distorted version of what people you disagree with are saying— one that implies people who support Joe Biden and don’t want to see Donald Trump detonate America are fascists.
There are moral lines, yes. If you think abetting the re-election of Donald Trump is the noble thing to do, despite the demonstrably horrific consequences it will have for people around the world, then as far as I’m concerned, you’ve crossed all those moral lines.
posted by Method Man at 5:16 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
That is not what people are saying at all. I referred to an actual thing said in this very thread. You are referring to an incredibly distorted version of what people you disagree with are saying— one that implies people who support Joe Biden and don’t want to see Donald Trump detonate America are fascists.
There are moral lines, yes. If you think abetting the re-election of Donald Trump is the noble thing to do, despite the demonstrably horrific consequences it will have for people around the world, then as far as I’m concerned, you’ve crossed all those moral lines.
posted by Method Man at 5:16 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
>California senate race?
LOL, just learned about the Nov -> Jan term on election #1 for Feinstein's vacated seat.
Lee was the sole no vote on the 2001 AUMF so she's got the purity vote locked up.
Porter would be the 'vote with your heart' vote.
Schiff. Ugh.
Then there's the Accelerationist option left I guess.
posted by torokunai at 5:16 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
LOL, just learned about the Nov -> Jan term on election #1 for Feinstein's vacated seat.
Lee was the sole no vote on the 2001 AUMF so she's got the purity vote locked up.
Porter would be the 'vote with your heart' vote.
Schiff. Ugh.
Then there's the Accelerationist option left I guess.
posted by torokunai at 5:16 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
There are moral lines, yes. If you think abetting the re-election of Donald Trump is the noble thing to do, despite the demonstrably horrific consequences it will have for people around the world, then as far as I’m concerned, you’ve crossed all those moral lines.
And as far as I'm concerned anyone who calls themselves a Zionist and proclaims their support for Israel as it engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide has ALSO crossed any moral lines (that's Genocide Joe and most of the Democratic establishment, by the way). Sorry, but if the only thing on the menu is a shit sandwich, I'm not eating.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:18 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
And as far as I'm concerned anyone who calls themselves a Zionist and proclaims their support for Israel as it engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide has ALSO crossed any moral lines (that's Genocide Joe and most of the Democratic establishment, by the way). Sorry, but if the only thing on the menu is a shit sandwich, I'm not eating.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:18 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
I'm autistic and my partner is transgender. We will both end up in those camps liberals always like to threaten leftists with. Neither of us (who both have much more to lose than comfortable investor-class liberals) is voting for Biden despite that.
As a child of refugees of color who came to this country with exactly zero dollars, kindly stop implying that anyone who disagrees with your “I’d rather have Hitler than Biden” take is a “comfortable investor-class liberal.”
posted by Method Man at 5:22 PM on March 3 [24 favorites]
As a child of refugees of color who came to this country with exactly zero dollars, kindly stop implying that anyone who disagrees with your “I’d rather have Hitler than Biden” take is a “comfortable investor-class liberal.”
posted by Method Man at 5:22 PM on March 3 [24 favorites]
There are moral lines, yes. If you think abetting the re-election of Donald Trump is the noble thing to do, despite the demonstrably horrific consequences it will have for people around the world, then as far as I’m concerned, you’ve crossed all those moral lines.
And I think actively supporting genocide is the moral line, and whatever you convince yourself you're doing it in support of, you're still a genocide supporter, and I will be applying that label to Biden cheerleaders for the rest of my life. If you're really okay with the trade-off and moral balance there, I imagine I won't get any pushback!
I've said previously, I don't really hold it against anyone who makes the calculation that this support for genocide is strategic and will reduce genocide overall. But it doesn't make it not genocide support, and when people fight that label, I don't hear "they're so much better at moral maths than me" I hear "is not capable of doing that maths properly, because they refuse to weight one side properly".
Such a choice of lesser evils must be done with a clear understanding and acceptance of the lesser evil, or you're not really choosing the lesser evil, you're just choosing the more familiar and comfortable one.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:23 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
And I think actively supporting genocide is the moral line, and whatever you convince yourself you're doing it in support of, you're still a genocide supporter, and I will be applying that label to Biden cheerleaders for the rest of my life. If you're really okay with the trade-off and moral balance there, I imagine I won't get any pushback!
I've said previously, I don't really hold it against anyone who makes the calculation that this support for genocide is strategic and will reduce genocide overall. But it doesn't make it not genocide support, and when people fight that label, I don't hear "they're so much better at moral maths than me" I hear "is not capable of doing that maths properly, because they refuse to weight one side properly".
Such a choice of lesser evils must be done with a clear understanding and acceptance of the lesser evil, or you're not really choosing the lesser evil, you're just choosing the more familiar and comfortable one.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:23 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
The implication was that I would vote for no-one in that scenario; I'm really sorry you have such shitty reading comprehension.
If the only choices are Hitler and not-Hitler, opposing not-Hitler means accepting Hitler. I’m really sorry you have such poor political and moral comprehension. I’m even more sorry there’s a good chance the rest of us, including victims of imperialism around the world, will have to pay the price for it.
posted by Method Man at 5:31 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
If the only choices are Hitler and not-Hitler, opposing not-Hitler means accepting Hitler. I’m really sorry you have such poor political and moral comprehension. I’m even more sorry there’s a good chance the rest of us, including victims of imperialism around the world, will have to pay the price for it.
posted by Method Man at 5:31 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
Biden has been enthusiastically supporting genocide
Do you understand that this isn't true? Biden isn't releasing statements that say genocide is awesome and he hopes all Palestinians die? Because some people posting here seem to think he is and that anyone who intends to vote for him loves that about him. It's hard to take any discussion seriously when this is being said. It's simply not reality and signals that this isn't a serious conversation, it's just someone venting.
posted by bq at 5:47 PM on March 3 [31 favorites]
Do you understand that this isn't true? Biden isn't releasing statements that say genocide is awesome and he hopes all Palestinians die? Because some people posting here seem to think he is and that anyone who intends to vote for him loves that about him. It's hard to take any discussion seriously when this is being said. It's simply not reality and signals that this isn't a serious conversation, it's just someone venting.
posted by bq at 5:47 PM on March 3 [31 favorites]
please shove your “I need to be excited” perspective as we’re not 13 year old school children.
posted by Farce_First
Indeed. Does anybody choose their dentist on the basis of how exciting they are?
Exciting politics can be very dangerous for the average citizen, and the whole society. Germany got very excited and motivated in the 1930s. Don't think you would have found too many Germans in 1946 who still thought it was a good idea.
Nothing wrong with a bit of boring beige in your leadership and government.
Like many jobs, government works best when you don't notice it at work, when it is not on the front page every day, when you don't have to endlessly concern yourself with how it is all going.
The only way out is to change the structure of our electoral system. If we elected presidents by popular vote rather than the electoral college, Trump would never have been president, and he would have no shot now. If we voted using something like Approval Voting instead of our first-past-the-post system, we would not be stuck in a two-party system. We can have a better democracy if we had a better electoral system.
posted by nuvanrath
Until there is substantial electoral reform in the US then the political situation there is not going to change much. Any gains will remain largely marginal and fragile.
The EC can be worked around via increasing the House numbers, stronger voting rights legislation, and the interstate compact on the popular national vote.
The main structural barrier to reform and progress in US politics is the Senate. Good luck convincing the smaller states to give up their huge electoral advantage from that arrangement.
Sweden currently has a conservative PM, same thing in... Australia.
posted by torokunai
Australia currently has a (nominally) centre-left PM & government. You might be thinking of the decade of right wing government before the change of government in 2022.
posted by Pouteria at 5:47 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by Farce_First
Indeed. Does anybody choose their dentist on the basis of how exciting they are?
Exciting politics can be very dangerous for the average citizen, and the whole society. Germany got very excited and motivated in the 1930s. Don't think you would have found too many Germans in 1946 who still thought it was a good idea.
Nothing wrong with a bit of boring beige in your leadership and government.
Like many jobs, government works best when you don't notice it at work, when it is not on the front page every day, when you don't have to endlessly concern yourself with how it is all going.
The only way out is to change the structure of our electoral system. If we elected presidents by popular vote rather than the electoral college, Trump would never have been president, and he would have no shot now. If we voted using something like Approval Voting instead of our first-past-the-post system, we would not be stuck in a two-party system. We can have a better democracy if we had a better electoral system.
posted by nuvanrath
Until there is substantial electoral reform in the US then the political situation there is not going to change much. Any gains will remain largely marginal and fragile.
The EC can be worked around via increasing the House numbers, stronger voting rights legislation, and the interstate compact on the popular national vote.
The main structural barrier to reform and progress in US politics is the Senate. Good luck convincing the smaller states to give up their huge electoral advantage from that arrangement.
Sweden currently has a conservative PM, same thing in... Australia.
posted by torokunai
Australia currently has a (nominally) centre-left PM & government. You might be thinking of the decade of right wing government before the change of government in 2022.
posted by Pouteria at 5:47 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
21 responses and rising, pc, well done
posted by lalochezia at 5:47 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 5:47 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Klein shouldn’t be taken seriously because he has not considered incumbency at all. Incumbency is a profound electoral advantage!
Trump can and does claim that advantage, and there is no competing candidate who can offset that other than Joe Biden. Any other magical candidate will not have the incumbency advantage, and the idea of just leaving that on the table is just unserious. This is not a serious take that warrants the oxygen it has consumed, it does not help America defeat Trump, and it makes the author sound really stupid.
Fuck Joe Biden. But also, Vote Joe Biden!
posted by butterstick at 5:50 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Trump can and does claim that advantage, and there is no competing candidate who can offset that other than Joe Biden. Any other magical candidate will not have the incumbency advantage, and the idea of just leaving that on the table is just unserious. This is not a serious take that warrants the oxygen it has consumed, it does not help America defeat Trump, and it makes the author sound really stupid.
Fuck Joe Biden. But also, Vote Joe Biden!
posted by butterstick at 5:50 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Sorry, but if the only thing on the menu is a shit sandwich, I'm not eating
Now we’re getting somewhere - everyone thinks that it’s only shit sandwiches on the menu, it’s just that you’re going to be eating one or the other even if you don’t make a selection. And what the rest of us end up eating may depend on your actions.
One has a side of Medicare for all, the other white nationalism.
F’ing Mother Teresa knowingly took money that had been stolen from other poor people. There are no heros and that saddens me as well.
posted by Farce_First at 5:51 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Now we’re getting somewhere - everyone thinks that it’s only shit sandwiches on the menu, it’s just that you’re going to be eating one or the other even if you don’t make a selection. And what the rest of us end up eating may depend on your actions.
One has a side of Medicare for all, the other white nationalism.
F’ing Mother Teresa knowingly took money that had been stolen from other poor people. There are no heros and that saddens me as well.
posted by Farce_First at 5:51 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Or to put it another way:
Not sure what makes that "insane" as Biden has been enthusiastically supporting genocide whilst rejecting calls for a ceasefire and loudly declaiming his love for and admiration of the country committing the genocide. I see no moral difference between the two.
On Israel and Gaza? I, too, see no daylight between the two parties. If anything, the far right is actually less friendly to Israel on this one single, solitary issue, even if it's for precisely the wrong reason ("no foreign aid for anyone because America First" rather than giving a single wet slap about anyone but themselves).
Now.
On women's rights, on LGBT rights, on freedom of expression, on the economy, on Russia, on North Korea, on our relationships with the more rational nations of the world, on the role of government in general, on government shutdowns, on choices of what to fund and support, on who belongs in our courtrooms, on giving religious nuts freedom to dictate others' behavior, on the idea of elections themselves needing to be fair and meaningful, on the idea that people who attempt to overthrow the government should at least WORRY about negative consequences?
Yeah, on those? There are differences.
I can't tell others where their lines-of-no-return need to be. I'm an old suburbanite white boy who chooses to care about this issue rather than one who has family/friend/associate skin in the game. But I can be horrified about A and still concerned about B through Z, and also know that there's no one I can vote for that will prevent A. And if the other guy gets back in, the whole alphabet crumbles.
posted by delfin at 5:51 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
Not sure what makes that "insane" as Biden has been enthusiastically supporting genocide whilst rejecting calls for a ceasefire and loudly declaiming his love for and admiration of the country committing the genocide. I see no moral difference between the two.
On Israel and Gaza? I, too, see no daylight between the two parties. If anything, the far right is actually less friendly to Israel on this one single, solitary issue, even if it's for precisely the wrong reason ("no foreign aid for anyone because America First" rather than giving a single wet slap about anyone but themselves).
Now.
On women's rights, on LGBT rights, on freedom of expression, on the economy, on Russia, on North Korea, on our relationships with the more rational nations of the world, on the role of government in general, on government shutdowns, on choices of what to fund and support, on who belongs in our courtrooms, on giving religious nuts freedom to dictate others' behavior, on the idea of elections themselves needing to be fair and meaningful, on the idea that people who attempt to overthrow the government should at least WORRY about negative consequences?
Yeah, on those? There are differences.
I can't tell others where their lines-of-no-return need to be. I'm an old suburbanite white boy who chooses to care about this issue rather than one who has family/friend/associate skin in the game. But I can be horrified about A and still concerned about B through Z, and also know that there's no one I can vote for that will prevent A. And if the other guy gets back in, the whole alphabet crumbles.
posted by delfin at 5:51 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
Audreynachrome I'd argue that when the difference between the lesser evil and the greater evil has become irrelevant then it is no longer a question of voting, elections, and peaceful political involvement and becomes a question of the most effective means of tearing down a system you believe to be unsalvagable.
I'm not saying that anyone who won't vote for Biden has a moral obligation to start a revolution, or join a revolution. I am saying that they have passed into revolutionary thinking even if they haven't realized it. Revolutionary thought may, or may not, lead to revolutionary action and there are plenty of reasons beyond cowardice a person may not move from revolutionary thought to revolutionary action.
But if one cannot chose between the options available for their government, then one is necessarily rejecting the legitimacy of said government.
I am not, personally, at that point yet. The government of the USA has always been awful, and through American history people have made change slowly, incrementally, and at the cost of millions of deaths and tens of millions of rapes, tortures, and abuse.
I do not have words to describe the obscenity of denying justice because we are coddling reactionaries.
Men decided women shouldn't vote, and enforced that decision by force of arms, until 1920 when with absolutely no material expenditure whatsoever, men granted women the right to vote. Which leads instantly to the question: if the actual material cost of women's suffrage was $0, why the fuck didn't men do it in 1919. Or 1910. Or 1810. Or 1000? Why was it ever a thing for women NOT to have the right to vote?
And yet, despite the fact the entire issue was inside our own skulls and involved no material expense or resources of any sort, it took those of us men who weren't total misogynist assholes working together with women until 19 fucking 20 to convince enough misogynist men to change their minds that we could force the decision on the rest of the reactionary misogynist scum.
What do you tell the last woman who died before she could cast a vote? "Sorry, we didn't want to hurt the feelings of misogynists and thought that was more important than your rights" ?
What do you say to the last gay child who kills themselves before you FINALLY pass legislation to stop the bullying? Sorry kid, we valued your life less than Tucker Carlson's hurt feelings?
The very concept of waiting, while people suffer and die, to do something that has no cost at all because our system demands we get the consent of the people who are hurting us before we make them stop hurting us is utterly vile.
And it's also the only thing that has ever actually worked.
So I find myself hating my fellow Americans which isn't exactly healthy for me. And I find myself hating myself which is even less healthy.
And we could still end all this tomorrow. There is no REASON we don't except coddling evil. But we coddle the evil and those doing the coddling tell us it's the only way.
Why did Harris call for a ceasefire today instead of yesterday? Or the day before? or Back in January? Or back in November? Nothing actually changed, no price was paid, no material condition had to be met. She could have done it then. The only reason she didn't was because she didn't want to.
posted by sotonohito at 5:53 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
I'm not saying that anyone who won't vote for Biden has a moral obligation to start a revolution, or join a revolution. I am saying that they have passed into revolutionary thinking even if they haven't realized it. Revolutionary thought may, or may not, lead to revolutionary action and there are plenty of reasons beyond cowardice a person may not move from revolutionary thought to revolutionary action.
But if one cannot chose between the options available for their government, then one is necessarily rejecting the legitimacy of said government.
I am not, personally, at that point yet. The government of the USA has always been awful, and through American history people have made change slowly, incrementally, and at the cost of millions of deaths and tens of millions of rapes, tortures, and abuse.
I do not have words to describe the obscenity of denying justice because we are coddling reactionaries.
Men decided women shouldn't vote, and enforced that decision by force of arms, until 1920 when with absolutely no material expenditure whatsoever, men granted women the right to vote. Which leads instantly to the question: if the actual material cost of women's suffrage was $0, why the fuck didn't men do it in 1919. Or 1910. Or 1810. Or 1000? Why was it ever a thing for women NOT to have the right to vote?
And yet, despite the fact the entire issue was inside our own skulls and involved no material expense or resources of any sort, it took those of us men who weren't total misogynist assholes working together with women until 19 fucking 20 to convince enough misogynist men to change their minds that we could force the decision on the rest of the reactionary misogynist scum.
What do you tell the last woman who died before she could cast a vote? "Sorry, we didn't want to hurt the feelings of misogynists and thought that was more important than your rights" ?
What do you say to the last gay child who kills themselves before you FINALLY pass legislation to stop the bullying? Sorry kid, we valued your life less than Tucker Carlson's hurt feelings?
The very concept of waiting, while people suffer and die, to do something that has no cost at all because our system demands we get the consent of the people who are hurting us before we make them stop hurting us is utterly vile.
And it's also the only thing that has ever actually worked.
So I find myself hating my fellow Americans which isn't exactly healthy for me. And I find myself hating myself which is even less healthy.
And we could still end all this tomorrow. There is no REASON we don't except coddling evil. But we coddle the evil and those doing the coddling tell us it's the only way.
Why did Harris call for a ceasefire today instead of yesterday? Or the day before? or Back in January? Or back in November? Nothing actually changed, no price was paid, no material condition had to be met. She could have done it then. The only reason she didn't was because she didn't want to.
posted by sotonohito at 5:53 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
Another issue: If a Palestinian genocide is the cost of doing politics for Democrats, what ELSE could be the cost of doing politics to the Democrats? Who else will they let slide into oblivion because some third rate third way numpty tells them it's going to poll well?
Truly curious: you know, do you not, that Biden not winning will be worse for Palestine, correct? If so, how do you rationalize your lack of voting for him? And if not, do you think your knowledge of not voting for him will offer you much solace when things get worse for Palestinians?
Those saying Biden voters don't believe Palestinians are people or that they don't recognize the horror of what's going on seem ridiculously naive about how the world works and how politics work. If your response is, "Oh, I know how the world works, which is why I'm not voting for him!" then you've just added another layer to your not understanding.
posted by dobbs at 5:56 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Truly curious: you know, do you not, that Biden not winning will be worse for Palestine, correct? If so, how do you rationalize your lack of voting for him? And if not, do you think your knowledge of not voting for him will offer you much solace when things get worse for Palestinians?
Those saying Biden voters don't believe Palestinians are people or that they don't recognize the horror of what's going on seem ridiculously naive about how the world works and how politics work. If your response is, "Oh, I know how the world works, which is why I'm not voting for him!" then you've just added another layer to your not understanding.
posted by dobbs at 5:56 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
bq As for Biden being an enthusiastic genocide supporter, I'm hard pressed to see his decision to break US law for the purpose of expediting shipments of genocide weapons to Israel as anything but enthusiastic support for genocide.
Why would you think that action does not indicate enthusiastic support for the genocide? When a person says "I will break the law in order to provide a military that is actively engaging in genocide with the tools it takes to commit genocide" it's hard to see that as anything except enthusiastic support for genocide.
posted by sotonohito at 5:57 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
Why would you think that action does not indicate enthusiastic support for the genocide? When a person says "I will break the law in order to provide a military that is actively engaging in genocide with the tools it takes to commit genocide" it's hard to see that as anything except enthusiastic support for genocide.
posted by sotonohito at 5:57 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
but that he CAN singlehandedly denounce it, say he supports a ceasefire, and even if he can't end all military shipments to Israel he can at least slow walk them.
You get one nod from this non-American. At this point just vote abstain at the UNSC, and don't keep trying to slow walk the resolution drafting processes. The next president is going to find their foreign policy cachet significantly reduced and if this isn't important to you guys, I suppose I understand - but if I may offer a red flag for the next decade, listen to South American leaders over the weekend (Colombia especially; not to mention Nicaragua specifically taking Germany to court) and adjust your expectations accordingly.
posted by cendawanita at 6:00 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
You get one nod from this non-American. At this point just vote abstain at the UNSC, and don't keep trying to slow walk the resolution drafting processes. The next president is going to find their foreign policy cachet significantly reduced and if this isn't important to you guys, I suppose I understand - but if I may offer a red flag for the next decade, listen to South American leaders over the weekend (Colombia especially; not to mention Nicaragua specifically taking Germany to court) and adjust your expectations accordingly.
posted by cendawanita at 6:00 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
There is only evil.
Now we're making progress. Why not spread guilt over abortion?
posted by Brian B. at 6:06 PM on March 3
Now we're making progress. Why not spread guilt over abortion?
posted by Brian B. at 6:06 PM on March 3
One has a side of Medicare for all, the other white nationalism.
If I have to vote for genocide to get the former then I'm still not voting! Sorry I don't possess the required degree of moral flexibility to be okay with the perpetration of atrocities, as long as I get something out of it.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:08 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
If I have to vote for genocide to get the former then I'm still not voting! Sorry I don't possess the required degree of moral flexibility to be okay with the perpetration of atrocities, as long as I get something out of it.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:08 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
If the Trump option were less anti-Palestinian, your single-issue position would make sense in the moral dimension.
that it doesn't is what is perplexing us here.
“For anyone to think they could tell Israel that they can’t determine their destiny and their sovereignty doesn’t understand the people of Israel,” Garvey said.
posted by torokunai at 6:15 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
that it doesn't is what is perplexing us here.
“For anyone to think they could tell Israel that they can’t determine their destiny and their sovereignty doesn’t understand the people of Israel,” Garvey said.
posted by torokunai at 6:15 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
that it doesn't is what is perplexing us here
it's perplexing because of the audactity of the amorality
posted by lescour at 6:20 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
it's perplexing because of the audactity of the amorality
posted by lescour at 6:20 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Truly curious: you know, do you not, that Biden not winning will be worse for Palestine, correct?
I don't in any way know that. What could possibly be worse for Palestinian people than what's happening right now? Palestinians are at the end of the road in terms of the scale of violence that can be inflicted on a people. They are living the worst case scenario, right now, in real life, March 3, 2024.
posted by dusty potato at 6:20 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
I don't in any way know that. What could possibly be worse for Palestinian people than what's happening right now? Palestinians are at the end of the road in terms of the scale of violence that can be inflicted on a people. They are living the worst case scenario, right now, in real life, March 3, 2024.
posted by dusty potato at 6:20 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
If the Trump option were less anti-Palestinian, your single-issue position would make sense in the moral dimension.
Trump is a fucking monster and I'm not voting for him, either, nor am I arguing that anyone should. "He's not Trump" isn't good enough anymore, though.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:23 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Trump is a fucking monster and I'm not voting for him, either, nor am I arguing that anyone should. "He's not Trump" isn't good enough anymore, though.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:23 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
There are 2 candidates. Not voting for Biden *is* voting for Trump. It’s that simple.
posted by kerf at 6:31 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
posted by kerf at 6:31 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
it's perplexing because of the audactity of the amorality
The only amorality I see here is that of people voting for Biden despite his support of genocide because things will be better for them personally.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:33 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
The only amorality I see here is that of people voting for Biden despite his support of genocide because things will be better for them personally.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:33 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
The only amorality I see here is that of people voting for Biden despite his support of genocide because things will be better for them personally.
thank you for re-stating my proposition
posted by lescour at 6:36 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
thank you for re-stating my proposition
posted by lescour at 6:36 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Not voting for Biden *is* voting for Trump. It’s that simple.
It's clearly not, because voting for Trump is voting for Trump. Like, just maths-wise, the two are not the same.
Nobody here thinks Pseudonymous Cognomen is going to vote for Trump, except perhaps a couple of the most BlueMaga people who think half of us are Russian bots.
You know it's not the same thing. You would be responding very differently if someone was actually in this thread saying they were going to vote for Trump.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:38 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
It's clearly not, because voting for Trump is voting for Trump. Like, just maths-wise, the two are not the same.
Nobody here thinks Pseudonymous Cognomen is going to vote for Trump, except perhaps a couple of the most BlueMaga people who think half of us are Russian bots.
You know it's not the same thing. You would be responding very differently if someone was actually in this thread saying they were going to vote for Trump.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:38 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
I don't in any way know that.
How can you not know that?!
You think the guy who moved the American embassy is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause?
You think Bibi, who flew to the US to address a Republican Congress against the wishes of a Democratic President, would not prefer Trump in the White House?
The only amorality I see here is that of people voting for Biden despite his support of genocide because things will be better for them personally.
Or they're voting for him because they know that if Trump wins things will be worse for everyone on the planet, including Palestinians.
posted by dobbs at 6:38 PM on March 3 [17 favorites]
How can you not know that?!
You think the guy who moved the American embassy is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause?
You think Bibi, who flew to the US to address a Republican Congress against the wishes of a Democratic President, would not prefer Trump in the White House?
The only amorality I see here is that of people voting for Biden despite his support of genocide because things will be better for them personally.
Or they're voting for him because they know that if Trump wins things will be worse for everyone on the planet, including Palestinians.
posted by dobbs at 6:38 PM on March 3 [17 favorites]
Jesus Christ, what a dumpster fire this thread is. Pathetic even by late-Metafilter standards.
I can't believe that not only is a comment allowed to stand which equates Joe Biden with a genocidal dictator whose regime killed twelve million Jews, LGBTQ people and other dissidents and who was well on his way to enslaving tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe before being stopped... but the writer and their sympathizers keep doubling down.
Where are the mods? At least holocaust deniers recognize that a holocaust is a bad thing, and therefore deny it. I very much care about what's happening in Israel and Palestine, and hope that the United States can find ways to stop the Israeli government's ongoing slaughter of the people of Gaza, but this is completely unacceptable discourse. I applaud the people in this thread who have the energy to push back against the "progressive" anti-semitism (and also, complete ignorance about how a two-party system works in practice, but that's just normal dumb) rampant in this thread.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:40 PM on March 3 [40 favorites]
I can't believe that not only is a comment allowed to stand which equates Joe Biden with a genocidal dictator whose regime killed twelve million Jews, LGBTQ people and other dissidents and who was well on his way to enslaving tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe before being stopped... but the writer and their sympathizers keep doubling down.
Where are the mods? At least holocaust deniers recognize that a holocaust is a bad thing, and therefore deny it. I very much care about what's happening in Israel and Palestine, and hope that the United States can find ways to stop the Israeli government's ongoing slaughter of the people of Gaza, but this is completely unacceptable discourse. I applaud the people in this thread who have the energy to push back against the "progressive" anti-semitism (and also, complete ignorance about how a two-party system works in practice, but that's just normal dumb) rampant in this thread.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:40 PM on March 3 [40 favorites]
>Like, just maths-wise, the two are not the same.
There still seems to be some confusion how elections are tallied here.
Eg: Kerry lost Ohio by 118,601 votes, so the 118,601 registered voters who did not vote for him -- either by voting for Bush, the 2 independent candidates, or not bothering to mark the ballot at all, were responsible for retaining Bush in the White House 2005 - 2009, with secondary effects like the Roberts & Alito appointments.
Technically we can lay this responsibility on just 59,301 Bush voters, since a swing vote is worth 2 other votes/non-votes in elections, but in the end it's a collective thing that applies to all potential voters in the election.
posted by torokunai at 6:44 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
There still seems to be some confusion how elections are tallied here.
Eg: Kerry lost Ohio by 118,601 votes, so the 118,601 registered voters who did not vote for him -- either by voting for Bush, the 2 independent candidates, or not bothering to mark the ballot at all, were responsible for retaining Bush in the White House 2005 - 2009, with secondary effects like the Roberts & Alito appointments.
Technically we can lay this responsibility on just 59,301 Bush voters, since a swing vote is worth 2 other votes/non-votes in elections, but in the end it's a collective thing that applies to all potential voters in the election.
posted by torokunai at 6:44 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
I would not vote for him if he were running against literal Hitler.
I somehow missed this comment when reading the thread.
What an asshole I am for engaging with you.
posted by dobbs at 6:45 PM on March 3 [21 favorites]
I somehow missed this comment when reading the thread.
What an asshole I am for engaging with you.
posted by dobbs at 6:45 PM on March 3 [21 favorites]
the "progressive" anti-semitism [...] rampant in this thread
I'm Jewish, and nobody is falling for this cynical bullshit anymore. It's transparent, embarrassing, and gross.
posted by dusty potato at 6:45 PM on March 3 [16 favorites]
I'm Jewish, and nobody is falling for this cynical bullshit anymore. It's transparent, embarrassing, and gross.
posted by dusty potato at 6:45 PM on March 3 [16 favorites]
You think the guy who moved the American embassy is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause?
About as much as the guy who said "yeah, we're keeping the embassy in Jerusalem"? Which is to say, not at all. There's fundamentally no difference between Trump and Biden on Israel. That photo of Biden embracing Netanyahu will be in the history books on American support of genocide one day, assuming there's a future in which history books are written.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:46 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
"Exciting politics can be very dangerous for the average citizen, and the whole society. Germany got very excited and motivated in the 1930s. Don't think you would have found too many Germans in 1946 who still thought it was a good idea."
interesting. I'm going to go by the 1946 Berlin state election. there were 4 parties, the SDP won. The 1949 West German elections had 10 parties with many individual candidates. the CDU won. The 1932 German federal election had nearly 60 parties running with the Nazi party coming out on top. The march 1933 German election had about 14 parties and we know who won that.
He's not Trump" isn't good enough anymore, though. To a degree, yes but no why, Biden has two coins to toss, his own and that of the presidency, seems presidency is winning that argument. But Joe is also president and he can't see the will to use the power of the presidency to cut off the guns and he's made a critical error. Israel will not suffer from the lack of 14 billion in fucking pocket bombing money, United States spends that amount on pet food, late fees, and lost wages for running out of gas on the way to work each day but the Republicans bundled that package in with Ukraine and Taiwan and aid to Gaza, humanitarian aid that is. In a political climate that's lost almost all common sense what good will moral clarity do, what good would ethical debate be other than to ourselves.
The world is in a war for its survival and nothing will get in the way of that. so it's basically about a matter of what that survival will look like in the power to carry it out.
posted by clavdivs at 6:52 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
interesting. I'm going to go by the 1946 Berlin state election. there were 4 parties, the SDP won. The 1949 West German elections had 10 parties with many individual candidates. the CDU won. The 1932 German federal election had nearly 60 parties running with the Nazi party coming out on top. The march 1933 German election had about 14 parties and we know who won that.
He's not Trump" isn't good enough anymore, though. To a degree, yes but no why, Biden has two coins to toss, his own and that of the presidency, seems presidency is winning that argument. But Joe is also president and he can't see the will to use the power of the presidency to cut off the guns and he's made a critical error. Israel will not suffer from the lack of 14 billion in fucking pocket bombing money, United States spends that amount on pet food, late fees, and lost wages for running out of gas on the way to work each day but the Republicans bundled that package in with Ukraine and Taiwan and aid to Gaza, humanitarian aid that is. In a political climate that's lost almost all common sense what good will moral clarity do, what good would ethical debate be other than to ourselves.
The world is in a war for its survival and nothing will get in the way of that. so it's basically about a matter of what that survival will look like in the power to carry it out.
posted by clavdivs at 6:52 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
I don't really understand how we can both believe that Trump is unstable and unreliable and that we *definitely* know he would be worse for Palestinians.
I won't say it seems likely, but Netanyahu accidentally wounding Trump's personal pride and pissing him off into cutting off the free money tap actually seems more likely than outgrown_hobnail's fantasy that Biden really secretly hates what's going on, behind the scenes and is 5th dimensional chess engineering Free Palestine from the River to the Sea by October.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:52 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I won't say it seems likely, but Netanyahu accidentally wounding Trump's personal pride and pissing him off into cutting off the free money tap actually seems more likely than outgrown_hobnail's fantasy that Biden really secretly hates what's going on, behind the scenes and is 5th dimensional chess engineering Free Palestine from the River to the Sea by October.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:52 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
The only amorality I see here is that of people voting for Biden despite his support of genocide because things will be better for them personally.
Amorality. Of course you say you're not voting for Trump, because there is no optimal choices in a fallen world, so your concept of amorality contains democracy itself. Instead of sullying your hands with a free and personal decision, it is easier for you to accept the church chosen strong men to usher in the end of times. Not asking, just letting you know.
posted by Brian B. at 6:53 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Amorality. Of course you say you're not voting for Trump, because there is no optimal choices in a fallen world, so your concept of amorality contains democracy itself. Instead of sullying your hands with a free and personal decision, it is easier for you to accept the church chosen strong men to usher in the end of times. Not asking, just letting you know.
posted by Brian B. at 6:53 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
"I get the panic. But Trump isn't going to win in the general."
Really astonishing that people could live through the shock of 2016 and still believe this, even when all the polling is putting Trump decidedly in front.
"I wouldn't vote for Biden even if he were running against Hitler"
This pronouncement really upsets liberals but I think it's very important to recognise that under Biden, Gaza has transitioned from Concentration Camp to Death Camp status, with the highest rate of murder seen on Earth since Rwanda. Biden is Hitler in this election, and liberals are saying vote for Hitler or you'll end up with Hitler Plus.
posted by nikodym at 6:55 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Really astonishing that people could live through the shock of 2016 and still believe this, even when all the polling is putting Trump decidedly in front.
"I wouldn't vote for Biden even if he were running against Hitler"
This pronouncement really upsets liberals but I think it's very important to recognise that under Biden, Gaza has transitioned from Concentration Camp to Death Camp status, with the highest rate of murder seen on Earth since Rwanda. Biden is Hitler in this election, and liberals are saying vote for Hitler or you'll end up with Hitler Plus.
posted by nikodym at 6:55 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
Instead of sullying your hands with a free and personal decision
How is not voting NOT a "free and personal decision"? Certainly seems like one, from where I'm standing.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:56 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
How is not voting NOT a "free and personal decision"? Certainly seems like one, from where I'm standing.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:56 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
There's fundamentally no difference between Trump and Biden on Israel.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, there is vast difference between Trump and Biden on virtually every other issue. But it's not true.
Also we've been providing military aid to, to pick two other examples, Sudan and Myanmar for years so I assume you've been just as adamant about the President being basically Hitler the whole time? Because otherwise one would wonder what the difference is.
posted by Justinian at 6:57 PM on March 3 [16 favorites]
Even if that were true, which it isn't, there is vast difference between Trump and Biden on virtually every other issue. But it's not true.
Also we've been providing military aid to, to pick two other examples, Sudan and Myanmar for years so I assume you've been just as adamant about the President being basically Hitler the whole time? Because otherwise one would wonder what the difference is.
posted by Justinian at 6:57 PM on March 3 [16 favorites]
I have got to stop arguing on the internet with people who use “liberal” as a pejorative and think equating Joe Biden and Adolf Hitler is an appropriate or sensible thing to do.
posted by Method Man at 6:59 PM on March 3 [43 favorites]
posted by Method Man at 6:59 PM on March 3 [43 favorites]
When I first moved to Britain I had a conversation with a friend about Obama. He said that at first he was excited when Obama got elected because he seemed like a good guy, but a few years in he realized that all Obama could be was good for an American president. That's stuck with me and when I fill out my ballot every for years I realize that the best case scenario is to elect someone who is going to make a massive imperial power enmeshed in thousands of ways with a military industrial complex and in bed with dozens of unsavory regimes somewhat less bad.
I understand the outrage,, but I also don't see voting for President as one of the central moral acts of my life. At best it's the equivalent of voting in an election for the new CEO of an oil super major. However, if I'm given a vote in an election like that and one of the people I'd going to stay the course and the other is going to tear up the rules about safety, ignore warnings about pollution, and arrange for his opponents to be quietly disappeared, then yes I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the first guy. And then I'll go and find other ways to live out my morals where the choices are better and I can be more strategic in directing my energy.
There's a frustrating amount of presidential saviorism on the left, as if having the right person in office is what's going to set the country on the right course. The game of presidential politics is always, and has always been keeping the worst of the two candidates out. As someone in Europe who has hosted Ukrainian refugees, I'm frankly terrified of Trump 2. In this case, if come November left voters look at a ballot paper and decide that they're too outraged to make sure that the guy who is going to abandon Ukraine and Europe is going to get in because Ds policy on Israel/Palestine is too similar to Rs, then I'm going to be really angry.
All American presidents are shitty, but some are less shitty than others. If you are one of the 1 in 30 people on planet Earth who has some ability to stop the worst candidate getting control to the keys of the world's most powerful military then I suggest you use it.
posted by nangua at 7:01 PM on March 3 [37 favorites]
I understand the outrage,, but I also don't see voting for President as one of the central moral acts of my life. At best it's the equivalent of voting in an election for the new CEO of an oil super major. However, if I'm given a vote in an election like that and one of the people I'd going to stay the course and the other is going to tear up the rules about safety, ignore warnings about pollution, and arrange for his opponents to be quietly disappeared, then yes I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the first guy. And then I'll go and find other ways to live out my morals where the choices are better and I can be more strategic in directing my energy.
There's a frustrating amount of presidential saviorism on the left, as if having the right person in office is what's going to set the country on the right course. The game of presidential politics is always, and has always been keeping the worst of the two candidates out. As someone in Europe who has hosted Ukrainian refugees, I'm frankly terrified of Trump 2. In this case, if come November left voters look at a ballot paper and decide that they're too outraged to make sure that the guy who is going to abandon Ukraine and Europe is going to get in because Ds policy on Israel/Palestine is too similar to Rs, then I'm going to be really angry.
All American presidents are shitty, but some are less shitty than others. If you are one of the 1 in 30 people on planet Earth who has some ability to stop the worst candidate getting control to the keys of the world's most powerful military then I suggest you use it.
posted by nangua at 7:01 PM on March 3 [37 favorites]
Also we've been providing military aid to, to pick two other examples, Sudan and Myanmar for years so I assume you've been just as adamant about the President being basically Hitler the whole time? Because otherwise one would wonder what the difference is.
Has the president bypassed Congress to expedite shipment of arms to Sudan and Myanmar? Did he tell the governments of Sudan and Myanmar there were "no red lines"? Has he made comments to the effect that he doesn't really believe the casualty figures provided by Sudanese and Myanma victims of genocide? Has the president directed US representatives at the UN to veto any resolution condemning the governments of Sudan and Myanmar?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:08 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
Has the president bypassed Congress to expedite shipment of arms to Sudan and Myanmar? Did he tell the governments of Sudan and Myanmar there were "no red lines"? Has he made comments to the effect that he doesn't really believe the casualty figures provided by Sudanese and Myanma victims of genocide? Has the president directed US representatives at the UN to veto any resolution condemning the governments of Sudan and Myanmar?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:08 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
He's not done any of those things because apparently nobody cares about Myanmar and Sudan. That seems worse not better to me.
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
I'm Jewish, and nobody is falling for this cynical bullshit anymore. It's transparent, embarrassing, and gross.
I'm brown, I've been to both Israel and Palestine numerous times, my husband and I have personally been helping a friend in Hebron to sell things to our friends because he isn't able to operate his shop due to the war. When I said I care deeply about what's happening in Israel and Palestine, I very much meant it.
That doesn't mean that it is ok to equate Joe Biden with Adolf Hitler. It simply... isn't. Don't defend that guy; disagreeing with the Biden administration's policies is one thing but saying you won't vote because he's just as bad as Hitler and splitting up the one multi-racial party in this country with any hope of resisting fascism is exactly the kind of thing that got Hitler into power in the first place.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:10 PM on March 3 [30 favorites]
I'm brown, I've been to both Israel and Palestine numerous times, my husband and I have personally been helping a friend in Hebron to sell things to our friends because he isn't able to operate his shop due to the war. When I said I care deeply about what's happening in Israel and Palestine, I very much meant it.
That doesn't mean that it is ok to equate Joe Biden with Adolf Hitler. It simply... isn't. Don't defend that guy; disagreeing with the Biden administration's policies is one thing but saying you won't vote because he's just as bad as Hitler and splitting up the one multi-racial party in this country with any hope of resisting fascism is exactly the kind of thing that got Hitler into power in the first place.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:10 PM on March 3 [30 favorites]
>If you are one of the 1 in 30
Biden won Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin by a combined total of 43,735 votes
If 2024 is anything like 2020, that's one in 182,919
posted by torokunai at 7:11 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Biden won Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin by a combined total of 43,735 votes
If 2024 is anything like 2020, that's one in 182,919
posted by torokunai at 7:11 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
One of the things about the left side of the aisle (at least the white part) concluding that politics is moral is that it leads people to different conclusions about how to vote morally. Some people will only vote for a candidate who meets certain criteria; though, as nangua points out, anybody who can conceivably get elected US president is still in charge of the US imperium and the war machine, so already morally problematic. Other folks think the moral thing to do in the general is vote for the best US president we can get from the existing candidates in a form of harm reduction.
So I appreciate the moral intentions of the first group even though as a voter I'm firmly in the second. But just as it does me no good to try to hector people into voting by impugning their morality, it does people who think Biden is terrible and nobody with any morals could vote for him no good to impugn the morality of folks who pick harm reduction as their first voting criterion. Maybe everybody on both sides of that particular divide could remember we're all trying to do the best thing possible in a flawed and frankly immoral system?
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:18 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
So I appreciate the moral intentions of the first group even though as a voter I'm firmly in the second. But just as it does me no good to try to hector people into voting by impugning their morality, it does people who think Biden is terrible and nobody with any morals could vote for him no good to impugn the morality of folks who pick harm reduction as their first voting criterion. Maybe everybody on both sides of that particular divide could remember we're all trying to do the best thing possible in a flawed and frankly immoral system?
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:18 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
How is not voting NOT a "free and personal decision"? Certainly seems like one, from where I'm standing.
Indecision is not a decision, but it can be made to look like one. Note that the premise of free and personal choice is contradicted by condemning those to that do it. Incredibly, we're discussing Gaza, part of the Armageddon plan, which is an official Republican party platform in waiting upon this election. The hypocrisy of making this a Biden crime is not apparent to most secularists and their non-corrupted minds that aren't brainwashed in scripture. But most know the DARVO Trump playbook by now.
posted by Brian B. at 7:19 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Indecision is not a decision, but it can be made to look like one. Note that the premise of free and personal choice is contradicted by condemning those to that do it. Incredibly, we're discussing Gaza, part of the Armageddon plan, which is an official Republican party platform in waiting upon this election. The hypocrisy of making this a Biden crime is not apparent to most secularists and their non-corrupted minds that aren't brainwashed in scripture. But most know the DARVO Trump playbook by now.
posted by Brian B. at 7:19 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
I think at this point in the thread we’ve reached Peak Godwin. Pro or anti-Biden, we’re all enabling Hitler in our own separate ways, apparently. Which means it’s time for me to go to bed.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:19 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:19 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
In any case, it seems to have gotten lost in the acrimony but the polling shows that every other realistic Democrat (ie not something stupid like Michelle Obama) is weaker against Trump in 2024. Even if Biden was down by 15 in the polls if everybody else is down 20 it would make no sense to call for him to step aside.
It's not enough to say Biden's numbers are shaky. You have to have somebody whose numbers aren't at least as shaky to substitute. There is nobody.
Fundamentally the problem isn't that Biden is weak; the problem is that half the country are either fascist or fascist-curious and a bunch of the other half can't even tell you if unemployment is at an all time high or a historical low correctly. Everything we're discussing in this thread is secondary to those two facts.
posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on March 3 [25 favorites]
It's not enough to say Biden's numbers are shaky. You have to have somebody whose numbers aren't at least as shaky to substitute. There is nobody.
Fundamentally the problem isn't that Biden is weak; the problem is that half the country are either fascist or fascist-curious and a bunch of the other half can't even tell you if unemployment is at an all time high or a historical low correctly. Everything we're discussing in this thread is secondary to those two facts.
posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on March 3 [25 favorites]
Has the president bypassed Congress to expedite shipment of arms to Sudan and Myanmar?
whoa, you both wrong Justinian you should have done your homework, United States provides humanitarian aid through USAID, private us companies along with many other countries help supply weapons material to Myanmar.
posted by clavdivs at 7:21 PM on March 3
whoa, you both wrong Justinian you should have done your homework, United States provides humanitarian aid through USAID, private us companies along with many other countries help supply weapons material to Myanmar.
posted by clavdivs at 7:21 PM on March 3
>into power in the first place
Indeed; 1925 Geman Presidential Election:
posted by torokunai at 7:23 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Indeed; 1925 Geman Presidential Election:
Right: Hindenburg 14,655,641 Center/Left: Wilhelm Marx 13,751,605 KPD: Thälmann 1,931,151Through the twists & turns of the late 20s and early 1930s, Hindenburg ended up appointing Hitler Chancellor in 1933, and after the Reichstag Fire, the Centre Party (now under Cardinal Kaas, Marx had retired in 1932) threw the Left (Democratic Socialists & Communists) under the bus with the Enabling Act vote for dictatorship.
posted by torokunai at 7:23 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I would not vote for him if he were running against literal Hitler
I'm old enough to remember that time 6 months ago when a bunch of people on this site got real mad that the nazi bar analogy was being applied to Metafilter of all places. good times good times
posted by klaniaphage at 7:27 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
I'm old enough to remember that time 6 months ago when a bunch of people on this site got real mad that the nazi bar analogy was being applied to Metafilter of all places. good times good times
posted by klaniaphage at 7:27 PM on March 3 [4 favorites]
I don't really understand how we can both believe that Trump is unstable and unreliable and that we *definitely* know he would be worse for Palestinians
I *definitely* knew Trump would be disastrous, but I expected nuclear explosions or war with North Korea, what I got was a pandemic and 300,000 extra dead people, I have no doubt that President Trump would be disastrous for the whole world in new and unexpected ways.
posted by bq at 7:32 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I *definitely* knew Trump would be disastrous, but I expected nuclear explosions or war with North Korea, what I got was a pandemic and 300,000 extra dead people, I have no doubt that President Trump would be disastrous for the whole world in new and unexpected ways.
posted by bq at 7:32 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
This tweet from a HuffPo journalist on the WH beat (his scoops are usually sound) probably wouldn't be a good sign to the notion that Biden is interested to 5D chess a free Palestine by October.
posted by cendawanita at 7:45 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 7:45 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
>Australia currently has a (nominally) centre-left PM & government.
ah. So it does. Going swimmingly I see.
posted by torokunai at 7:53 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
ah. So it does. Going swimmingly I see.
posted by torokunai at 7:53 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
(apparently the supreme court could release its 14th amendment ruling tomorrow? so...i dunno, it doesn't make all this moot, but it's certainly something to keep the adrenaline flowing.)
posted by mittens at 8:02 PM on March 3
posted by mittens at 8:02 PM on March 3
I will be extremely shocked (and to be clear, very happy) if SCOTUS decides that Trump is not eligible to be President due to the fact that he did an insurrection.
Ultimately, though, the likelihood is that we will face a decision between an ignorant, egotistical and fascist man who wants to be dictator and a man who is not perfect but who is... at the VERY LEAST committed to democracy (and who has, by the way, done plenty of pretty good things with the cards he's been dealt, though you won't hear that from the New York Times or the Washington Post).
That's what it comes down to. Anything beside that is purely ignorant green-lantern thinking. We do what we can with what and whom we have -- and I believe, without particularly rose-colored glasses, that Joe Biden is... actually not terrible. Let alone a Hitler!
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:09 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Ultimately, though, the likelihood is that we will face a decision between an ignorant, egotistical and fascist man who wants to be dictator and a man who is not perfect but who is... at the VERY LEAST committed to democracy (and who has, by the way, done plenty of pretty good things with the cards he's been dealt, though you won't hear that from the New York Times or the Washington Post).
That's what it comes down to. Anything beside that is purely ignorant green-lantern thinking. We do what we can with what and whom we have -- and I believe, without particularly rose-colored glasses, that Joe Biden is... actually not terrible. Let alone a Hitler!
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:09 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
American Exceptionalism breaks people's brains. It makes warmongers think that anything the US does is justified merely because the US did it and it makes people believe that the US can just shout "NO" and stop any bad thing that's happening in the world. Neither of these things are true. The US has a lot of influence, but it does not control the choices other countries make.
maybe i need to make it clearer... I'm asking people to hold their nose if needed because a Republican candidate intends to exterminate people like me and then they'll probably move onto the next vulnerable group because that's what fascists do.
For those who aren't willing to give a shit about marginalized people here in the US (though this isn't so relevant to Mefites, but may be useful when speaking to others), Trump and the people he intends to return to power on his coattails don't just have it out for minorities and LGBTQ+ people. They have it out for the very idea of democracy itself. They are explicitly calling for a Christofascist state. Trump himself has already attempted a coup.
During the Obama years, the God Botherers developed deep ties to Russia, using it as a place of respite where they could continue to refine their tactics of repression and thanks to Putin's increasingly strong alliance with the Orthodox Church and increasingly strong anti-gay policies have come to see him as the model for remaking America. This is why it seems like all roads on the right seem to lead to Russia. They have come to realize that their social agenda can never win at the ballot box and have decided that it is worth giving up on democracy to get what they want. Not the nibbling around the edges bullshit they've been doing for my entire lifetime, but full on imprison your rivals and potemkin election shit like you see in Russia today.
These are the people with whom Trump has thrown his lot. I, for one, do not want to see the turmoil that will erupt around the world if they get their way. Even if they aren't courting it, rapid changes in the world order have literally never ended well. It will make the death and destruction we are seeing now look like child's play. I don't really give a shit if the US stops playing world police. Hell, that would probably be a good thing. However, I want an orderly transition that does not result in an orgy of violence on top of the severe economic dislocations that are otherwise nearly inevitable.
PS: I think it's unlikely things would progress to this point, but many of the NAR fucks who are supporting Trump believe that we are living in the end times and are convinced that total war in the Middle East is what will bring about the second coming of Christ. They think Israel and Iran slugging it out with nukes is a necessary precondition to Christ's return.
These are not sane people we are dealing with. It goes far beyond oppressing the marginalized or ending US democracy. This is an apocalyptic death cult we are dealing with. American Taliban doesn't even begin to cover it.
Lest you think I'm being hyperbolic, these are things they say openly. Just recently at CPAC attendees cheered when a speaker said that the time for democracy is over. The NAR has meetings broadcast on the goddamned Internet where they talk about all of this openly. Many adherents of these views already served in Trump's first term, and they've only gotten nuttier since, given that they saw COVID as one of the tribulations from the Book of Revelations.
Again, it's not just about power or persecution, it's about literally bringing Revelations to life. Never before have we had a critical mass of true believers so close to the levers of power. Their prepper fantasy isn't about the zombie apocalypse, my friend, it's about surviving the Tribulations of the Apocalypse and making sure it all happens in their lifetime.
That's why this really is the most important presidential election we've ever had in this country. Even Bush/Gore and the climate change catastrophe pales in comparison to what these sick fucks want to use a second Trump term to bring about.
posted by wierdo at 8:17 PM on March 3 [39 favorites]
maybe i need to make it clearer... I'm asking people to hold their nose if needed because a Republican candidate intends to exterminate people like me and then they'll probably move onto the next vulnerable group because that's what fascists do.
For those who aren't willing to give a shit about marginalized people here in the US (though this isn't so relevant to Mefites, but may be useful when speaking to others), Trump and the people he intends to return to power on his coattails don't just have it out for minorities and LGBTQ+ people. They have it out for the very idea of democracy itself. They are explicitly calling for a Christofascist state. Trump himself has already attempted a coup.
During the Obama years, the God Botherers developed deep ties to Russia, using it as a place of respite where they could continue to refine their tactics of repression and thanks to Putin's increasingly strong alliance with the Orthodox Church and increasingly strong anti-gay policies have come to see him as the model for remaking America. This is why it seems like all roads on the right seem to lead to Russia. They have come to realize that their social agenda can never win at the ballot box and have decided that it is worth giving up on democracy to get what they want. Not the nibbling around the edges bullshit they've been doing for my entire lifetime, but full on imprison your rivals and potemkin election shit like you see in Russia today.
These are the people with whom Trump has thrown his lot. I, for one, do not want to see the turmoil that will erupt around the world if they get their way. Even if they aren't courting it, rapid changes in the world order have literally never ended well. It will make the death and destruction we are seeing now look like child's play. I don't really give a shit if the US stops playing world police. Hell, that would probably be a good thing. However, I want an orderly transition that does not result in an orgy of violence on top of the severe economic dislocations that are otherwise nearly inevitable.
PS: I think it's unlikely things would progress to this point, but many of the NAR fucks who are supporting Trump believe that we are living in the end times and are convinced that total war in the Middle East is what will bring about the second coming of Christ. They think Israel and Iran slugging it out with nukes is a necessary precondition to Christ's return.
These are not sane people we are dealing with. It goes far beyond oppressing the marginalized or ending US democracy. This is an apocalyptic death cult we are dealing with. American Taliban doesn't even begin to cover it.
Lest you think I'm being hyperbolic, these are things they say openly. Just recently at CPAC attendees cheered when a speaker said that the time for democracy is over. The NAR has meetings broadcast on the goddamned Internet where they talk about all of this openly. Many adherents of these views already served in Trump's first term, and they've only gotten nuttier since, given that they saw COVID as one of the tribulations from the Book of Revelations.
Again, it's not just about power or persecution, it's about literally bringing Revelations to life. Never before have we had a critical mass of true believers so close to the levers of power. Their prepper fantasy isn't about the zombie apocalypse, my friend, it's about surviving the Tribulations of the Apocalypse and making sure it all happens in their lifetime.
That's why this really is the most important presidential election we've ever had in this country. Even Bush/Gore and the climate change catastrophe pales in comparison to what these sick fucks want to use a second Trump term to bring about.
posted by wierdo at 8:17 PM on March 3 [39 favorites]
I have no idea if he's a Hitler. But thinking of the tweet I linked just now: A US official familiar w/ top Biden aides' thinking tells me they expected scenarios like the flour massacre but know POTUS is "not budging" on pushing Israel in a real way despite Gaza's needs.
The result: "hard-to-do + low-yield PR stunts like air drops + portable port idea."
And then of course I'm reminded today of this 2020 ToI article: (quoting Menachem Begin) “A young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech — I must say that it’s been a while since I’ve heard such a talented speaker — and he actually supported Operation Peace for the Galilee,” Begin told Israeli reporters after he returned to Jerusalem.
The senator — Biden — said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.
“I disassociated myself from these remarks,” Begin said.
It's absolutely true there's still some air between Trump and Biden on other issues, but in this one it could be said that Biden is worse (because he can actually and effectively lead). This effectiveness to me sounds like a major risk, especially with the call/challenge he gave to Trump to work on the border issue together. I don't envy the voters.
posted by cendawanita at 8:22 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
The result: "hard-to-do + low-yield PR stunts like air drops + portable port idea."
And then of course I'm reminded today of this 2020 ToI article: (quoting Menachem Begin) “A young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech — I must say that it’s been a while since I’ve heard such a talented speaker — and he actually supported Operation Peace for the Galilee,” Begin told Israeli reporters after he returned to Jerusalem.
The senator — Biden — said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.
“I disassociated myself from these remarks,” Begin said.
It's absolutely true there's still some air between Trump and Biden on other issues, but in this one it could be said that Biden is worse (because he can actually and effectively lead). This effectiveness to me sounds like a major risk, especially with the call/challenge he gave to Trump to work on the border issue together. I don't envy the voters.
posted by cendawanita at 8:22 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
a man who is not perfect
"Not perfect" is how I refer to eggs I overdo a touch, not people actively enabling genocide from the most powerful office in the world.
Saying that genocide support is "not perfect" is a pretty clear way to telegraph that you're not *really* bothered by it.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:27 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
"Not perfect" is how I refer to eggs I overdo a touch, not people actively enabling genocide from the most powerful office in the world.
Saying that genocide support is "not perfect" is a pretty clear way to telegraph that you're not *really* bothered by it.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:27 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
Yeah, well maybe I can make distinctions between "American president who is doing a surprisingly good job at rebalancing the US relationship to Israel, in the face of a fascist opposition party which controls one house of Congress and the Supreme Court" with, y'know, adolf fucking hitler
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:31 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:31 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
It's not very surprising, actually. But the point of this whole thing is, do you want to vote for Biden or not? If people don't vote for Biden, Trump gets in. That is the hard and obvious fact, and anyone arguing otherwise, despite any protestations to the contrary, is helping Trump win.
Just own that.
But even beside that, the President isn't a dictator. The magical thinking there is incredible; yes, he has a lot of power but he is not omnipotent, he can't make things happen at the snap of his fingers, he rightly is circumscribed by legal and political systems which force him to work within a certain space. Within those constraints -- yeah, he's doing okay. I certainly have my disagreements with him (from the left) on various issues including his handling of the crisis (and I'm willing to use the term genocide there, though I don't think it's particularly helpful) in Israel/Palestine -- but pretending that the world is not as it is, and that we don't have to make hard and sometimes painful tradeoffs: that's fantasy talk.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
Just own that.
But even beside that, the President isn't a dictator. The magical thinking there is incredible; yes, he has a lot of power but he is not omnipotent, he can't make things happen at the snap of his fingers, he rightly is circumscribed by legal and political systems which force him to work within a certain space. Within those constraints -- yeah, he's doing okay. I certainly have my disagreements with him (from the left) on various issues including his handling of the crisis (and I'm willing to use the term genocide there, though I don't think it's particularly helpful) in Israel/Palestine -- but pretending that the world is not as it is, and that we don't have to make hard and sometimes painful tradeoffs: that's fantasy talk.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
I have no idea if he's a Hitler.
The multiple Biden/Hitler comparisons are frankly embarrassing to read, especially from people I know are smarter than this. I don't understand the doubling down on something so patently false and stupid, but here we are.
I'm going to sleep on it, but I'm thinking that it is time to take a break from the site. Passion is good, anger is good, but overt ignorance like what is on display in this thread is not my jam.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:43 PM on March 3 [24 favorites]
The multiple Biden/Hitler comparisons are frankly embarrassing to read, especially from people I know are smarter than this. I don't understand the doubling down on something so patently false and stupid, but here we are.
I'm going to sleep on it, but I'm thinking that it is time to take a break from the site. Passion is good, anger is good, but overt ignorance like what is on display in this thread is not my jam.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:43 PM on March 3 [24 favorites]
Can we at least be honest about the fact that if 30,000 Jews had been murdered over a five-month period, including 10,000 Jewish children, with two million Jews trapped with nowhere to flee and deliberately starved, nobody would be arguing that the Hitler comparison was inappropriate
posted by nikodym at 8:48 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
posted by nikodym at 8:48 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
Can we at least be honest that about the fact that if 30,000 Jews had been murdered over a five-month period, including 10,000 Jewish children, with two million Jews trapped with nowhere to flee and deliberately starved, nobody would be arguing that the Hitler comparison was inappropriate
Can we stop with this implicit and obviously false claim that Joe Biden is personally, gleefully committing genocide?
posted by Method Man at 8:53 PM on March 3 [21 favorites]
Can we stop with this implicit and obviously false claim that Joe Biden is personally, gleefully committing genocide?
posted by Method Man at 8:53 PM on March 3 [21 favorites]
>Australia currently has a (nominally) centre-left PM & government.
ah. So it does. Going swimmingly I see.
posted by torokunai
Yes, hence 'nominally'.
It is, as always, more complicated than that. Don't know how deep your knowledge is of politics here, but in fairness to the current mob (Labor) they did lose the previous previous election (2019) in no small part due to a policy of (long overdue) reform to negative gearing, so they are quite rightly very wary of touching that one again. At least for now.
My bet is that their plan is to not scare the voters over it nor their general economic credibility for the first term in order to help secure a second term, then look at it again, along with other economic issues like our ludicrously generous and market distorting franking credits scheme for shareholders.
They know it is all unsustainable budget wrecking stuff and must be changed. But they also know that they have to wait for the politics of it to cool off and move in favour of changing it.
Which it is doing with the combination of voter demographics changing, and housing costs spiralling out of control, as they are in many places around the world.
The Greens, of course, being very much a permanent minority left party, are making political hay while the sun shines, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to take the responsibility nor much electoral blame for implementing these changes.
(Which doesn't mean the Greens are wrong, but unlike the party actually in government they are able to posture about it at low risk.)
posted by Pouteria at 8:54 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
ah. So it does. Going swimmingly I see.
posted by torokunai
Yes, hence 'nominally'.
It is, as always, more complicated than that. Don't know how deep your knowledge is of politics here, but in fairness to the current mob (Labor) they did lose the previous previous election (2019) in no small part due to a policy of (long overdue) reform to negative gearing, so they are quite rightly very wary of touching that one again. At least for now.
My bet is that their plan is to not scare the voters over it nor their general economic credibility for the first term in order to help secure a second term, then look at it again, along with other economic issues like our ludicrously generous and market distorting franking credits scheme for shareholders.
They know it is all unsustainable budget wrecking stuff and must be changed. But they also know that they have to wait for the politics of it to cool off and move in favour of changing it.
Which it is doing with the combination of voter demographics changing, and housing costs spiralling out of control, as they are in many places around the world.
The Greens, of course, being very much a permanent minority left party, are making political hay while the sun shines, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to take the responsibility nor much electoral blame for implementing these changes.
(Which doesn't mean the Greens are wrong, but unlike the party actually in government they are able to posture about it at low risk.)
posted by Pouteria at 8:54 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Anyone who actually believes that staying home is the same as voting for Trump: Would you say it to a nonvoter who liked Trump? Or do you understand that this line of argument is disingenuous at best, and just not gaf?
It is possible to have an advanced knowledge of how the electoral system works and simultaneously believe that the system as it stands is not reformable, and thus that voting for Joe Biden would be selling one’s soul to put off the inevitable for a few years, while liberals continue to wither in denial instead of preparing for the coming danger. I understand Duverger’s Law just fine, but our system wasn’t made with all the people in mind and is in varying stages of collapse, there are no heroes on the horizon, and Democrats aren’t going to stop climate change or capitalism. It’s fine to disagree with my underlying ideas, but to assume people who disagree with you must be ignorant rubes is the height of hubris.
posted by vim876 at 8:55 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
It is possible to have an advanced knowledge of how the electoral system works and simultaneously believe that the system as it stands is not reformable, and thus that voting for Joe Biden would be selling one’s soul to put off the inevitable for a few years, while liberals continue to wither in denial instead of preparing for the coming danger. I understand Duverger’s Law just fine, but our system wasn’t made with all the people in mind and is in varying stages of collapse, there are no heroes on the horizon, and Democrats aren’t going to stop climate change or capitalism. It’s fine to disagree with my underlying ideas, but to assume people who disagree with you must be ignorant rubes is the height of hubris.
posted by vim876 at 8:55 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
Can we stop with this implicit and obviously false claim that Joe Biden is personally, gleefully committing genocide?
This should be getting argued in The Hague. Providing the weapons and diplomatic cover that enable genocide is complicity in genocide, and culpability under international law.
posted by nikodym at 8:57 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
This should be getting argued in The Hague. Providing the weapons and diplomatic cover that enable genocide is complicity in genocide, and culpability under international law.
posted by nikodym at 8:57 PM on March 3 [13 favorites]
Can we at least be honest about the fact that if 30,000 Jews had been murdered over a five-month period, including 10,000 Jewish children, with two million Jews trapped with nowhere to flee and deliberately starved, nobody would be arguing that the Hitler comparison was inappropriate
is this a counterpoint from father Coughlin
about the Roosevelt administration?
posted by clavdivs at 9:02 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
is this a counterpoint from father Coughlin
about the Roosevelt administration?
posted by clavdivs at 9:02 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Can we at least be honest that about the fact that if 30,000 Jews had been murdered over a five-month period, including 10,000 Jewish children, with two million Jews trapped with nowhere to flee and deliberately starved, nobody would be arguing that the Hitler comparison was inappropriate
I think this is an entirely fair point and worth addressing.
To be clear: I want Israel to stop, immediately, and to work with Palestinians to find ways to build trust that will lead to a reasonably just peace in the land. That is, I hope, a sentiment that everyone here does share.
I also draw a distinction between the anxiety of Israeli Jews, and of Jews outside the state of Israel, about the fact that there is no place where Jews can feel completely safe, and what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 40s. That is an understandable feeling and one which in no way is comparable to the voluntary decision of the Nazis to embrace and weaponize European anti-Semitism against the Jewish people. The West, particularly the US and Germany, have for a long time looked the other way when it came to what Israel is doing to Palestinians, and that has enabled what is happening now. We should own that.
But that being said, we are faced with the situation as it is. We do not have a time machine; we can't go back. Biden is doing, I think, what he can to push things in the right direction. And even if you don't think so, as I've said already, the worst outcome will be if Trump gets back in. He does not give one single fuck about Palestinian (or Israeli, for that matter) lives and he will happily do whatever makes him feel good in any moment. Again, and I can't believe this has to keep being said, a vote not for Biden (or a vote not cast) is a vote for Trump. I for one do not want to end up in a camp, I can't do one solitary good thing for Palestine or for anyone else there.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:14 PM on March 3 [20 favorites]
I think this is an entirely fair point and worth addressing.
To be clear: I want Israel to stop, immediately, and to work with Palestinians to find ways to build trust that will lead to a reasonably just peace in the land. That is, I hope, a sentiment that everyone here does share.
I also draw a distinction between the anxiety of Israeli Jews, and of Jews outside the state of Israel, about the fact that there is no place where Jews can feel completely safe, and what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 40s. That is an understandable feeling and one which in no way is comparable to the voluntary decision of the Nazis to embrace and weaponize European anti-Semitism against the Jewish people. The West, particularly the US and Germany, have for a long time looked the other way when it came to what Israel is doing to Palestinians, and that has enabled what is happening now. We should own that.
But that being said, we are faced with the situation as it is. We do not have a time machine; we can't go back. Biden is doing, I think, what he can to push things in the right direction. And even if you don't think so, as I've said already, the worst outcome will be if Trump gets back in. He does not give one single fuck about Palestinian (or Israeli, for that matter) lives and he will happily do whatever makes him feel good in any moment. Again, and I can't believe this has to keep being said, a vote not for Biden (or a vote not cast) is a vote for Trump. I for one do not want to end up in a camp, I can't do one solitary good thing for Palestine or for anyone else there.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:14 PM on March 3 [20 favorites]
They know it is all unsustainable budget wrecking stuff and must be changed. But they also know that they have to wait for the politics of it to cool off and move in favour of changing it.
Can't wait for the Global Dictatorship of the Proletariat which will solve everything!
posted by torokunai at 9:15 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Can't wait for the Global Dictatorship of the Proletariat which will solve everything!
posted by torokunai at 9:15 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Do we have to have a confused AusPol derail? Pouteria is referring to Labor, there, not the Greens, Labor probably have approximately the same politics as you, torokunai, or at least the same perspective on anyone who mentions the proletariat.
Also, just because your American Greens are a joke, doesn't mean the Australian Greens are. I'd wager they take a majority of the MeFite votes - they just don't get to keep them under 2PP.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:27 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Also, just because your American Greens are a joke, doesn't mean the Australian Greens are. I'd wager they take a majority of the MeFite votes - they just don't get to keep them under 2PP.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:27 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
It is possible to have an advanced knowledge of how the electoral system works and simultaneously believe that the system as it stands is not reformable, and thus that voting for Joe Biden would be selling one’s soul to put off the inevitable for a few years, while liberals continue to wither in denial instead of preparing for the coming danger.
No, it isn't. That's just not how it works. You do democracy by pushing forward with the people and systems you have, and making them better in an often-boring process of meetings and advocacy and talking to family and friends and developing in your fellow humans the hope that a better world is possible. Sorry if that's not as fun as righteously taking your ball and going home, but that's how things actually get done.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:27 PM on March 3 [29 favorites]
No, it isn't. That's just not how it works. You do democracy by pushing forward with the people and systems you have, and making them better in an often-boring process of meetings and advocacy and talking to family and friends and developing in your fellow humans the hope that a better world is possible. Sorry if that's not as fun as righteously taking your ball and going home, but that's how things actually get done.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:27 PM on March 3 [29 favorites]
I don't really understand how we can both believe that Trump is unstable and unreliable and that we *definitely* know he would be worse for Palestinians.
Trump is just the figurehead. He can be dangerous when he gets an idea in his head, but his second most defining characteristic after his pettiness is how little he gives a shit about anything that hasn't stuck in his craw. The Christofascists have been some of his most staunch supporters, so there is a very high likelihood he will reward them with positions of power in his administration, just like he rewarded them last time by giving them approval of his Supreme Court picks.
I may not know what Trump will do on a day to day basis beyond the usual bloviating, lashing out, and posting to Truth Social in the style of my deeply disordered ex-landlady, but I have zero doubts about what the people Trump is likely to install in positions of power will do.
posted by wierdo at 9:33 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
Trump is just the figurehead. He can be dangerous when he gets an idea in his head, but his second most defining characteristic after his pettiness is how little he gives a shit about anything that hasn't stuck in his craw. The Christofascists have been some of his most staunch supporters, so there is a very high likelihood he will reward them with positions of power in his administration, just like he rewarded them last time by giving them approval of his Supreme Court picks.
I may not know what Trump will do on a day to day basis beyond the usual bloviating, lashing out, and posting to Truth Social in the style of my deeply disordered ex-landlady, but I have zero doubts about what the people Trump is likely to install in positions of power will do.
posted by wierdo at 9:33 PM on March 3 [11 favorites]
> the same politics as you, torokunai
(I'm Labor in the streets and Green in the sheets . . . democracy is difficult, the intellectual exchanges between the uber-idealistic Upton Sinclair and uber-cynical H. L. Mencken were enlightening to me)
posted by torokunai at 9:35 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
(I'm Labor in the streets and Green in the sheets . . . democracy is difficult, the intellectual exchanges between the uber-idealistic Upton Sinclair and uber-cynical H. L. Mencken were enlightening to me)
posted by torokunai at 9:35 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Also, just because your American Greens are a joke
well now. I really don't know what American Green is, I call them Democrats. How about a "green" president.
Would you like to read more.
posted by clavdivs at 9:39 PM on March 3
well now. I really don't know what American Green is, I call them Democrats. How about a "green" president.
Would you like to read more.
posted by clavdivs at 9:39 PM on March 3
Anyone who actually believes that staying home is the same as voting for Trump: Would you say it to a nonvoter who liked Trump?
No, but that is because the statement is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting in the US works. To wit - if you support/align with Candidate A but elect to not vote, this functionally works as support for Candidate B. Thus, I would say nothing because the calculus works differently in the case you presented.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:03 PM on March 3
No, but that is because the statement is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting in the US works. To wit - if you support/align with Candidate A but elect to not vote, this functionally works as support for Candidate B. Thus, I would say nothing because the calculus works differently in the case you presented.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:03 PM on March 3
It is possible to have an advanced knowledge of how the electoral system works and simultaneously believe that the system as it stands is not reformable, and thus that voting for Joe Biden would be selling one’s soul to put off the inevitable for a few years, while liberals continue to wither in denial instead of preparing for the coming danger.
This is just another argument for accelerationism. Anyone already doing the hard and necessary community building work of "preparing for the coming danger" can spare the three seconds necessary to bubble in the bit next to Biden's name (I am assuming you're voting anyway, because odds are good there's some local race or proposition or library bond or whatever on that ballot that will make a material difference in the lives of vulnerable people). And if you believe we need to be preparing for some inevitable coming collapse, then it stands to reason you believe we're not prepared for that right now, so why would you not want to try to put off that danger to give more time for that preparation?
Frankly, if you're not in a swing state, I don't really care about your vote for President. It's a waste of time and energy to argue about it. If you're in a solid blue state and it makes your soul feel better to not check that box safe in the knowledge that other people will, sure, fine, let's all move on. But swing state voters have internet connections too. If deep down inside you, you can accept at a basic level that Trump would be worse, I'd love it if you could help avert that outcome, but the very least you could do is refrain from pissing in from the outside to make it even harder for the people doing the incredibly hard work of preventing that worse thing from happening.
That doesn't mean don't criticize Biden. It certainly doesn't mean not to march against atrocities in Gaza or to not vocally demand an end to these horrors. And it doesn't mean not to hold the Biden administration accountable for its promises and to live up to its stated values. These are all necessary and important things to do, and demanding better from our elected officials is in no way incompatible with preferring they be reelected to the alternative. But if you at some level believe that Trump winning the election would be bad, yet you nonetheless go around determined to make it the nationwide zeitgeist that Biden is no better than Hitler or whatever, then I have to ask who exactly are you helping to elect, why that's a good use of your limited time on earth, and how that possibly helps "prepare for the coming danger."
posted by zachlipton at 10:05 PM on March 3 [34 favorites]
This is just another argument for accelerationism. Anyone already doing the hard and necessary community building work of "preparing for the coming danger" can spare the three seconds necessary to bubble in the bit next to Biden's name (I am assuming you're voting anyway, because odds are good there's some local race or proposition or library bond or whatever on that ballot that will make a material difference in the lives of vulnerable people). And if you believe we need to be preparing for some inevitable coming collapse, then it stands to reason you believe we're not prepared for that right now, so why would you not want to try to put off that danger to give more time for that preparation?
Frankly, if you're not in a swing state, I don't really care about your vote for President. It's a waste of time and energy to argue about it. If you're in a solid blue state and it makes your soul feel better to not check that box safe in the knowledge that other people will, sure, fine, let's all move on. But swing state voters have internet connections too. If deep down inside you, you can accept at a basic level that Trump would be worse, I'd love it if you could help avert that outcome, but the very least you could do is refrain from pissing in from the outside to make it even harder for the people doing the incredibly hard work of preventing that worse thing from happening.
That doesn't mean don't criticize Biden. It certainly doesn't mean not to march against atrocities in Gaza or to not vocally demand an end to these horrors. And it doesn't mean not to hold the Biden administration accountable for its promises and to live up to its stated values. These are all necessary and important things to do, and demanding better from our elected officials is in no way incompatible with preferring they be reelected to the alternative. But if you at some level believe that Trump winning the election would be bad, yet you nonetheless go around determined to make it the nationwide zeitgeist that Biden is no better than Hitler or whatever, then I have to ask who exactly are you helping to elect, why that's a good use of your limited time on earth, and how that possibly helps "prepare for the coming danger."
posted by zachlipton at 10:05 PM on March 3 [34 favorites]
@tivalasvegas:
“It’s not the way things are done” is a terrible argument.
There is a climate crisis.
Every year reform takes, thousands, if not millions, of people will die.
Your blind loyalty to this system is not more important than their lives.
posted by vim876 at 10:14 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
“It’s not the way things are done” is a terrible argument.
There is a climate crisis.
Every year reform takes, thousands, if not millions, of people will die.
Your blind loyalty to this system is not more important than their lives.
posted by vim876 at 10:14 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Funny you should mention that, because I've thought about the climate disaster alternatives and have things to say. Firstly, the kind of total collapse that would be required to make a significant dent in global carbon emissions would itself kill billions. But let's assume for the sake of argument that it somehow wouldn't.
As it stands today, we have the means to implement, and to a lesser extent than is necessary, are in fact presently implementing, strategies that will either lessen the amount of warming or provide some mitigation of the effects of a warmer climate. Further, it is within our ken to use carbon capture to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We have the technology, we just don't have the collective will to direct our resources to doing so.
I fail to see how a world with a baked in 2C of warming (and likely higher given the immense emissions our final orgy of destruction and the hangover afterwards would itself add that much more carbon into the atmosphere) with no means of doing anything about that is better than a world in which we do have that capacity and need only make the choice to use it.
posted by wierdo at 10:30 PM on March 3
As it stands today, we have the means to implement, and to a lesser extent than is necessary, are in fact presently implementing, strategies that will either lessen the amount of warming or provide some mitigation of the effects of a warmer climate. Further, it is within our ken to use carbon capture to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We have the technology, we just don't have the collective will to direct our resources to doing so.
I fail to see how a world with a baked in 2C of warming (and likely higher given the immense emissions our final orgy of destruction and the hangover afterwards would itself add that much more carbon into the atmosphere) with no means of doing anything about that is better than a world in which we do have that capacity and need only make the choice to use it.
posted by wierdo at 10:30 PM on March 3
We don’t have to speculate on Trump’s Israel /Palestine policy we saw it when he was in office. He overturned decades of US policy and recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and gave Netanyahu his blessing to expand and increase settlements in the West Bank. His policy is to let Netanyahu do whatever he wants. It might be that it’s the people he surrounds himself with or it might be his own ideas. Why would you expect anything different under Trump’s second term?
posted by interogative mood at 10:38 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 10:38 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
if you support/align with Candidate A
That is precisely the issue. I emphatically do not align with Candidate A on his administration's extraordinary continued material and military support for and protection of a genocidal rogue state whose soldiers post photos and video of themselves gleefully committing blatant war crimes and crimes against humanity. Whether I align with him on other issues is, insofar as I am concerned, utterly irrelevant.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:46 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
That is precisely the issue. I emphatically do not align with Candidate A on his administration's extraordinary continued material and military support for and protection of a genocidal rogue state whose soldiers post photos and video of themselves gleefully committing blatant war crimes and crimes against humanity. Whether I align with him on other issues is, insofar as I am concerned, utterly irrelevant.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:46 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
We don’t have to speculate on Trump’s Israel /Palestine policy we saw it when he was in office. He overturned decades of US policy and recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and gave Netanyahu his blessing to expand and increase settlements in the West Bank. His policy is to let Netanyahu do whatever he wants. It might be that it’s the people he surrounds himself with or it might be his own ideas. Why would you expect anything different under Trump’s second term?
Biden inherited Trump's Israel/Palestine policy and changed absolutely nothing.
Biden doesn't care about Palestinian lives more than Trump does. He lied about seeing beheaded babies with his own eyes. He said that the Palestinian casualty figures were fake. He chose to expand the war to Yemen rather than support a ceasefire. He told Israel that there were no conditions on US support, green-lighting every ensuing atrocity.
He is, personally, a deeply racist and evil man.
There will likely be policy continuity under Trump in terms of uncritical support for Israeli genocide. But there will be two main differences:
The first difference will be that under Trump, the US and Israel will be far more isolated internationally than they are now. The fact that this genocide is attached to Biden rather than Trump goes a long way toward making it more acceptable in "liberal" Western capitals. By making the fascism transparent, Trump would force the international community - the cowardly Trudeaus, Macrons, Albaneses, Scholzes of the world - to pick a side in a way that Biden doesn't.
The second difference would be that liberals in the USA would be forced to pick a side. They wouldn't need to engage in disgusting moral contortions pretending that the guy providing all the weapons and vetoing all the ceasefires is powerless to do anything. They have to do that now, they have to defend Biden at all costs because he's the only thing standing between Trump and the White House. But if it were Trump in the White House, and all these kids getting blown to bits because of Trump instead of Biden, there will be a lot fewer liberals making excuses for it. A bunch of apologists might be able to locate their lost morality. You might even end up with only one side of US politics being pro-genocide, instead of both.
posted by nikodym at 11:00 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
Biden inherited Trump's Israel/Palestine policy and changed absolutely nothing.
Biden doesn't care about Palestinian lives more than Trump does. He lied about seeing beheaded babies with his own eyes. He said that the Palestinian casualty figures were fake. He chose to expand the war to Yemen rather than support a ceasefire. He told Israel that there were no conditions on US support, green-lighting every ensuing atrocity.
He is, personally, a deeply racist and evil man.
There will likely be policy continuity under Trump in terms of uncritical support for Israeli genocide. But there will be two main differences:
The first difference will be that under Trump, the US and Israel will be far more isolated internationally than they are now. The fact that this genocide is attached to Biden rather than Trump goes a long way toward making it more acceptable in "liberal" Western capitals. By making the fascism transparent, Trump would force the international community - the cowardly Trudeaus, Macrons, Albaneses, Scholzes of the world - to pick a side in a way that Biden doesn't.
The second difference would be that liberals in the USA would be forced to pick a side. They wouldn't need to engage in disgusting moral contortions pretending that the guy providing all the weapons and vetoing all the ceasefires is powerless to do anything. They have to do that now, they have to defend Biden at all costs because he's the only thing standing between Trump and the White House. But if it were Trump in the White House, and all these kids getting blown to bits because of Trump instead of Biden, there will be a lot fewer liberals making excuses for it. A bunch of apologists might be able to locate their lost morality. You might even end up with only one side of US politics being pro-genocide, instead of both.
posted by nikodym at 11:00 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
Mod note: A few removed. nikodym, you are on a 24-hour time-out for attacking another member. This will be converted to a full, permanent ban if it happens again.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:07 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 11:07 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
He chose to expand the war to Yemen rather than support a ceasefire.
He did not "expand the war to Yemen." Houthis in Yemen started shooting rockets at random ships in the Red Sea and launching drones with explosives. These attacks, among other things, made it harder for humanitarian aid to reach critical crisis areas like Sudan (we care about humanitarian issues there too, right?), endangered commercial ships with no involvement whatsoever in the crisis in Palestine, and endangered people pretty much all over the region-- as when a Houthi drone malfunctioned and crashed into a neighborhood in Egypt, injuring several people and nearly destroying a hospital. The main economy damaged by their attacks was... Egypt, not Israel.
Painting efforts to stop indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian ships as 'expanding the war' is intellectually dishonest-- but par for the course if you're at a point of calling Joe Biden Adolf Hitler, 'deeply racist and evil', etc, or accusing anybody who doesn't hate Joe Biden of being apologists with no moral compass.
posted by Method Man at 11:09 PM on March 3 [17 favorites]
He did not "expand the war to Yemen." Houthis in Yemen started shooting rockets at random ships in the Red Sea and launching drones with explosives. These attacks, among other things, made it harder for humanitarian aid to reach critical crisis areas like Sudan (we care about humanitarian issues there too, right?), endangered commercial ships with no involvement whatsoever in the crisis in Palestine, and endangered people pretty much all over the region-- as when a Houthi drone malfunctioned and crashed into a neighborhood in Egypt, injuring several people and nearly destroying a hospital. The main economy damaged by their attacks was... Egypt, not Israel.
Painting efforts to stop indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian ships as 'expanding the war' is intellectually dishonest-- but par for the course if you're at a point of calling Joe Biden Adolf Hitler, 'deeply racist and evil', etc, or accusing anybody who doesn't hate Joe Biden of being apologists with no moral compass.
posted by Method Man at 11:09 PM on March 3 [17 favorites]
He is, personally, a deeply racist and evil man.
This is a key requirement, at this point, of being the US President. I recognise this, I understand that there's many structural reasons why it must be so.
I really hate that people somehow go from "do you expect the POTUS not to be racist once we consider foreign policy, be real, fairy-headed leftists green lantern, the purpose of a state is to further it's own existence" to "Calling him racist is Russian propaganda, 55 Savushkina Street, you're going to the camps and you're going to be part of the reason why".
He's a deeply racist, bigoted, misogynist man, who definitely doesn't view Palestinian lives as equal to American lives, Israeli lives, or any Commonwealth or other white lives. And he's the current only hope against Trump. Trump is almost certain to be far worse. To bring it back to the article - I think it does have to be Biden, I think I like Harris even less. Trump could trigger a democracy collapse cascade across half the world and it's hard to believe that it isn't too late for anyone else to build up steam.
I just won't let that get in the way of being honest about what I think of Biden. Every single election it's the same "be quiet about our candidate's flaws, and we'll be right beside you criticising them once they're in power" and it never happens. It's always right into the next cycle, the next crisis, the next reason to give only full-throated support.
posted by Audreynachrome at 11:32 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
This is a key requirement, at this point, of being the US President. I recognise this, I understand that there's many structural reasons why it must be so.
I really hate that people somehow go from "do you expect the POTUS not to be racist once we consider foreign policy, be real, fairy-headed leftists green lantern, the purpose of a state is to further it's own existence" to "Calling him racist is Russian propaganda, 55 Savushkina Street, you're going to the camps and you're going to be part of the reason why".
He's a deeply racist, bigoted, misogynist man, who definitely doesn't view Palestinian lives as equal to American lives, Israeli lives, or any Commonwealth or other white lives. And he's the current only hope against Trump. Trump is almost certain to be far worse. To bring it back to the article - I think it does have to be Biden, I think I like Harris even less. Trump could trigger a democracy collapse cascade across half the world and it's hard to believe that it isn't too late for anyone else to build up steam.
I just won't let that get in the way of being honest about what I think of Biden. Every single election it's the same "be quiet about our candidate's flaws, and we'll be right beside you criticising them once they're in power" and it never happens. It's always right into the next cycle, the next crisis, the next reason to give only full-throated support.
posted by Audreynachrome at 11:32 PM on March 3 [12 favorites]
I'm surprised this isn't mentioned yet, one huge policy difference Trump has on Palestine is permanently ending UNRWA funding, all $300 mil of it in 2018
When was UNRWA funding restored? April 2021, after Biden was elected.
For context, top UNRWA donors in 2022:
USA - $344 mil
Germany - $202 mil
EU - $114 mil
Sweden - $61 mil
Norway -$34 mil
Japan - $30 mil
France - $29 mil
Saudi Arabia - $27 mil
In addition, US also provides $600 mil annually to Palestine via USAID (wiki link) and a total of $5.2 bil since 1994. This is also funding that Trump ended entirely in 2019.
USAID funding was also restored by Biden in May 2021.
Besides UNRWA and USAID, there's also direct funding of the PA, but a much lesser amount:
"According to figures released by the PA, only 22 percent of the $530 mil received since the beginning of 2010 came from Arab donors. Palestinian leaders stated the Arab world was "continuing to ignore" repeated requests for help".
I don't think it is a controversial statement that with Trump back in power Palestinians will lose over 50% of their total humanitarian aid funding once again, needless to say it would be devastating for a territory so dependent on Western external funding.
posted by xdvesper at 11:35 PM on March 3 [26 favorites]
When was UNRWA funding restored? April 2021, after Biden was elected.
For context, top UNRWA donors in 2022:
USA - $344 mil
Germany - $202 mil
EU - $114 mil
Sweden - $61 mil
Norway -$34 mil
Japan - $30 mil
France - $29 mil
Saudi Arabia - $27 mil
In addition, US also provides $600 mil annually to Palestine via USAID (wiki link) and a total of $5.2 bil since 1994. This is also funding that Trump ended entirely in 2019.
USAID funding was also restored by Biden in May 2021.
Besides UNRWA and USAID, there's also direct funding of the PA, but a much lesser amount:
"According to figures released by the PA, only 22 percent of the $530 mil received since the beginning of 2010 came from Arab donors. Palestinian leaders stated the Arab world was "continuing to ignore" repeated requests for help".
I don't think it is a controversial statement that with Trump back in power Palestinians will lose over 50% of their total humanitarian aid funding once again, needless to say it would be devastating for a territory so dependent on Western external funding.
posted by xdvesper at 11:35 PM on March 3 [26 favorites]
It is possible to have an advanced knowledge of how the electoral system works and simultaneously believe that the system as it stands is not reformable, and thus that voting for Joe Biden would be selling one’s soul to put off the inevitable for a few years, while liberals continue to wither in denial instead of preparing for the coming danger.
I am voting for Biden in November, but I'm willing to stipulate that voting for Biden merely puts off the inevitable. But if that's the case, we're going the accelerationist route & we need to own up to that. And if we are going to be accelerationist, can somebody who favors this path tell me what you are going to do strategic & tactically when Trump or another authoritarian comes to power?
I'm not asking this question rhetorically. I'm literally interested in what people's answers are, because it's not like I have the answer & I'm willing to join in the struggle if anybody has a good idea for how we survive Trump 2.0. Please tell me somebody has some idea how accelerationism might be pulled off.
posted by jonp72 at 11:36 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
I am voting for Biden in November, but I'm willing to stipulate that voting for Biden merely puts off the inevitable. But if that's the case, we're going the accelerationist route & we need to own up to that. And if we are going to be accelerationist, can somebody who favors this path tell me what you are going to do strategic & tactically when Trump or another authoritarian comes to power?
I'm not asking this question rhetorically. I'm literally interested in what people's answers are, because it's not like I have the answer & I'm willing to join in the struggle if anybody has a good idea for how we survive Trump 2.0. Please tell me somebody has some idea how accelerationism might be pulled off.
posted by jonp72 at 11:36 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
Tell me more about US funding of UNRWA. How's that going right now?
posted by Gadarene at 11:55 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
posted by Gadarene at 11:55 PM on March 3 [7 favorites]
Tell me more about US funding of UNRWA. How's that going right now?
Perfectly fine. No nation has announced a reduction or cessation of funding commitments for 2024, and we expect all funding to be delivered in full for 2024 and 2025. There is a temporary pause in disbursements while the legal issues get sorted out, and out of the hundreds of millions of US funding for 2024 already disbursed, roughly $0.3 mil is being held up. (Wikipedia)
Repeating catchy falsehoods like Genocide Joe isn't going to make it true any more than Fox News repeating that Obama is a Kenyan, or that he is a secret Muslim. Or people repeating that Covid vaccines have killed more people than Covid and that Ivermectin is the real cure. We've seen it all before. There's no changing people's mind and maybe saying things louder does make it sound more truthy.
My stance is mostly aligned with the ICJ. The ICJ ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine in its interim decision. On the other hand, the ICJ did not in its interim decision order Israel to halt its invasion of Gaza, thus explicitly recognizing it as a legitimate military operation in response to the Oct 7 attack that is permitted to continue.
posted by xdvesper at 12:14 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
Perfectly fine. No nation has announced a reduction or cessation of funding commitments for 2024, and we expect all funding to be delivered in full for 2024 and 2025. There is a temporary pause in disbursements while the legal issues get sorted out, and out of the hundreds of millions of US funding for 2024 already disbursed, roughly $0.3 mil is being held up. (Wikipedia)
Repeating catchy falsehoods like Genocide Joe isn't going to make it true any more than Fox News repeating that Obama is a Kenyan, or that he is a secret Muslim. Or people repeating that Covid vaccines have killed more people than Covid and that Ivermectin is the real cure. We've seen it all before. There's no changing people's mind and maybe saying things louder does make it sound more truthy.
My stance is mostly aligned with the ICJ. The ICJ ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine in its interim decision. On the other hand, the ICJ did not in its interim decision order Israel to halt its invasion of Gaza, thus explicitly recognizing it as a legitimate military operation in response to the Oct 7 attack that is permitted to continue.
posted by xdvesper at 12:14 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
On the other hand, the ICJ did not in its interim decision order Israel to halt its invasion of Gaza, thus explicitly recognizing it as a legitimate military operation in response to the Oct 7 attack that is permitted to continue.
We understand different types of English then, but I've heard this formulation from those who argued that no ceasefire was called as well. Self-defence (the argument from Israel to the court) was heard (summarised finally in para 40) but the court did not explicitly agree or disagree with it, instead going straight in its judgement (para 46 onwards) into testimonials from various agencies of the documented harm already caused that led the court to find in South Africa's favour that there is a plausible case for genocide (ETA: critically, and urgency to avoid the further risk of irreparable harm) enough to call for provisional measures. I find there is more consensus amongst legal scholars that this is not a successful argument of self-defence (not to mention this goes against established IHL, just that usually most western countries don't get their moves contested in progress), so it is extremely dishonest in my view to say there's an explicit recognition of the legitimacy of the military ops as it is (as argued by Israel itself in front of ICJ) when more explicitly the call was "Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts" and so forth in para 78 and onwards.
posted by cendawanita at 12:36 AM on March 4 [12 favorites]
We understand different types of English then, but I've heard this formulation from those who argued that no ceasefire was called as well. Self-defence (the argument from Israel to the court) was heard (summarised finally in para 40) but the court did not explicitly agree or disagree with it, instead going straight in its judgement (para 46 onwards) into testimonials from various agencies of the documented harm already caused that led the court to find in South Africa's favour that there is a plausible case for genocide (ETA: critically, and urgency to avoid the further risk of irreparable harm) enough to call for provisional measures. I find there is more consensus amongst legal scholars that this is not a successful argument of self-defence (not to mention this goes against established IHL, just that usually most western countries don't get their moves contested in progress), so it is extremely dishonest in my view to say there's an explicit recognition of the legitimacy of the military ops as it is (as argued by Israel itself in front of ICJ) when more explicitly the call was "Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts" and so forth in para 78 and onwards.
posted by cendawanita at 12:36 AM on March 4 [12 favorites]
There's plenty people saying it's a stupid idea for Biden to step away, and in some ways it might be. But he was a stupid selection 4 years ago and is only worse now. Democrats have engineered a stupid situation, and appear to respond to it by criticising people for pointing it out, or pointing to only one side of their own stupidity as if that negates the fact that Biden standing remains dumb. Once again, Trump gets to stand beside someone who it's very easy to portray as an open goal.
I genuinely think Biden should step aside, the earlier the better, and it would be better for everyone. If he loses to Trump, after a campaign he's too old and slow and confused to win, then the same people saying, Of course Biden is the right candidate, will then just make it all about resisting Trump. But by consistently fielding weak candidates, what do you expect? "He isn't the other guy" really isn't enough. You have to fight back, and that's not mitigated by complacency about a 700 year old candidate who is laughably poor to most people.
But sure, he's not the other guy, you roll those dice. I'm sure it'll be fine.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 12:46 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
I genuinely think Biden should step aside, the earlier the better, and it would be better for everyone. If he loses to Trump, after a campaign he's too old and slow and confused to win, then the same people saying, Of course Biden is the right candidate, will then just make it all about resisting Trump. But by consistently fielding weak candidates, what do you expect? "He isn't the other guy" really isn't enough. You have to fight back, and that's not mitigated by complacency about a 700 year old candidate who is laughably poor to most people.
But sure, he's not the other guy, you roll those dice. I'm sure it'll be fine.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 12:46 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
This is one of the worst threads I’ve ever read on Metafilter. It gets even worse but I just couldn’t get past the poster gleefully imagining “Mr Klein” being “loaded onto a train, or more likely a boxcar on the back of a semi”.
Christ alive. Did this not stand out to anybody else as being just a little bit fucked up, regardless of your actual politics? Ghoulish stuff, like so much of this thread.
posted by Ted Maul at 12:51 AM on March 4 [18 favorites]
Christ alive. Did this not stand out to anybody else as being just a little bit fucked up, regardless of your actual politics? Ghoulish stuff, like so much of this thread.
posted by Ted Maul at 12:51 AM on March 4 [18 favorites]
Mod note: Some comments deleted for attacks on other members, and possibly more to come as I continue to go through this thread. Audreynachrome, you have a 24-ban for verbal abuse of another member; do not do this again, or face a permanent ban. Pseudonymous Cognomen, you are overcommenting here to an extreme degree, and you need to give this thread a rest. Everyone, please dial back the over the top accusations, flaming, and repetitive mudslinging. Please try to make this thread not be utterly useless with infighting and histrionics. Thank you.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:56 AM on March 4 [36 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:56 AM on March 4 [36 favorites]
I just linked this New Humanitarian piece (an interview with Tom Dannenbaum) in the Rafah thread but I just want to share as a specific response to the idea that the ICJ ruling is read as explicit recognition of Israel's military ops, which I then replied that this does not seem to be the legal consensus (then I'm going to cut myself off from pursuing the tangent here): "Absolutely, opening that crossing alone is not going to be sufficient. There needs to be a significant scaling back of military operations. There needs to be full deconfliction with humanitarian actors to make sure that they're safely able to access populations in need. Absent those changes, all sorts of problems would still exist that would preclude full compliance with the ICJ order." (emphasis mine)
posted by cendawanita at 1:11 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 1:11 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
I don't really see any truly accelerationist position being taken. I see disillusionment and alienation, maybe some conscientious objection against the idea of strategic voting for a highly problematic mainstream political party, in the context of a false choice scenario (and divisiveness and hostility being a manifestation of people internalizing a false choice framing).
The way out of that is connection and empathy. Putting ourselves in the shoes of those with different lived experiences than our own. And maybe after that it is possible to set aside those unsolvable, indeterminate philosophical riddles (e.g. accelerationist vs. incrementalist), or demand impossibilities (e.g. I'd prefer that the Democrat party picks AOC for president), and satisfy reluctant factions with material concessions. For example how the Biden campaign incorporated and made good with Bernie's healthcare reforms and whatnot. People can be persuaded by material gestures, plus leaders who can articulate their spiritual lives, make their voices heard. There's hard work in that, too.
posted by polymodus at 1:24 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
The way out of that is connection and empathy. Putting ourselves in the shoes of those with different lived experiences than our own. And maybe after that it is possible to set aside those unsolvable, indeterminate philosophical riddles (e.g. accelerationist vs. incrementalist), or demand impossibilities (e.g. I'd prefer that the Democrat party picks AOC for president), and satisfy reluctant factions with material concessions. For example how the Biden campaign incorporated and made good with Bernie's healthcare reforms and whatnot. People can be persuaded by material gestures, plus leaders who can articulate their spiritual lives, make their voices heard. There's hard work in that, too.
posted by polymodus at 1:24 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
I'm willing to join in the struggle if anybody has a good idea for how we survive Trump 2.0. Please tell me somebody has some idea how accelerationism might be pulled off.
Let's be honest: Ezra Klein is a member of the intelligentsia of useful idiots that provide cover to Republicans, and he will probably not be murdered by a Trump dictatorship; his larger family will also be safe from being targeted by the Fascist Right.
But my life is at risk and the lives of many like me and those I care about. So I'd second this request, if only because I have real questions to put to folks about the notion that we must go through Trump 2.0 at the behest of an op-ed writer who won't have to deal with the lethal consequences the rest of us will almost certainly suffer.
I took a years-long break from this site after Trump was elected. I warned people repeatedly what would happen by ignoring him and his cult. Some people here are making the same mistake not taking him and Republicans seriously when they are now already doing what they said they wanted to do back in 2016.
2020 was a last ditch effort to maybe get back to some kind of sanity. Most of us are not going to live to get another Second Chance to recover from a Republican Fascist taking the highest office once again. I really can't put that to you folks any more clearly. If there is some way to survive the accelerationist fantasy some of you are pushing, I'm all ears, if only because it might help me live through that coming dictatorship some of you seem hellbent on embracing.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:23 AM on March 4 [19 favorites]
Let's be honest: Ezra Klein is a member of the intelligentsia of useful idiots that provide cover to Republicans, and he will probably not be murdered by a Trump dictatorship; his larger family will also be safe from being targeted by the Fascist Right.
But my life is at risk and the lives of many like me and those I care about. So I'd second this request, if only because I have real questions to put to folks about the notion that we must go through Trump 2.0 at the behest of an op-ed writer who won't have to deal with the lethal consequences the rest of us will almost certainly suffer.
I took a years-long break from this site after Trump was elected. I warned people repeatedly what would happen by ignoring him and his cult. Some people here are making the same mistake not taking him and Republicans seriously when they are now already doing what they said they wanted to do back in 2016.
2020 was a last ditch effort to maybe get back to some kind of sanity. Most of us are not going to live to get another Second Chance to recover from a Republican Fascist taking the highest office once again. I really can't put that to you folks any more clearly. If there is some way to survive the accelerationist fantasy some of you are pushing, I'm all ears, if only because it might help me live through that coming dictatorship some of you seem hellbent on embracing.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:23 AM on March 4 [19 favorites]
i imagine many of the commenters in this thread are a font of useful information about what organising efforts are underway to bring about electoral and/or constitutional reform in the US, right? lots of people in here going to lots of meetings pushing forward a serious multi-decade entryist strategy to slowly mutate the democratic party into a reliable political force for your ostensible political goals, like the far-white has done very successfully with the republican party?
otherwise all the punching left sounds a little too gleeful, and the "not perfect"s and "slow progress"es ring a bit hollow given the litany of defeats and refusal to change course in a significant way despite them. i voted for joe "just shoot 'em the leg" biden last time and most likely will vote for joe "hug a likudnik" biden this time, because it's an essentially negligible exercise from the point of view of any individual voter, but it's fairly clear to me that the liberals are not honest about the extent to which they support what they fearfully euphemistically call "progressive" goals, and it's clear to me that most of the emotional overinvolvement and magical thinking is not from the left. it's from the people who not only want me to vote a certain way, or to accept certain political circumstances as immutable, but who evidently won't be happy until i accept in my heart (yes, it's liberals, not leftists, who overfocus on feelings instead of power) that the best possible political outcome is people younger than me dying fighting fascists on a burning planet, but far enough in the future that the people currently opining soberly on the boundaries of the space of possibilities don't have to see it firsthand.
it's fine to make observations about the current space of possibilities, but what is anyone making those observations doing to render them inaccurate? clicking links in democratic party spam emails? 'cause the american leftists i know are getting fired, getting doxxed, getting arrested, etc. trying to end just one episode of american complicity in the premeditated starvation of children, and they are getting very little backup from the same crowd who are demanding their electoral support.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:56 AM on March 4 [15 favorites]
otherwise all the punching left sounds a little too gleeful, and the "not perfect"s and "slow progress"es ring a bit hollow given the litany of defeats and refusal to change course in a significant way despite them. i voted for joe "just shoot 'em the leg" biden last time and most likely will vote for joe "hug a likudnik" biden this time, because it's an essentially negligible exercise from the point of view of any individual voter, but it's fairly clear to me that the liberals are not honest about the extent to which they support what they fearfully euphemistically call "progressive" goals, and it's clear to me that most of the emotional overinvolvement and magical thinking is not from the left. it's from the people who not only want me to vote a certain way, or to accept certain political circumstances as immutable, but who evidently won't be happy until i accept in my heart (yes, it's liberals, not leftists, who overfocus on feelings instead of power) that the best possible political outcome is people younger than me dying fighting fascists on a burning planet, but far enough in the future that the people currently opining soberly on the boundaries of the space of possibilities don't have to see it firsthand.
it's fine to make observations about the current space of possibilities, but what is anyone making those observations doing to render them inaccurate? clicking links in democratic party spam emails? 'cause the american leftists i know are getting fired, getting doxxed, getting arrested, etc. trying to end just one episode of american complicity in the premeditated starvation of children, and they are getting very little backup from the same crowd who are demanding their electoral support.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:56 AM on March 4 [15 favorites]
I find all the "genocide Joe" business deeply weird, and I say that as a person who is horrified and distressed by Israel's fairly clearly genocidal activities.
Yes, it is true that the Biden administration has shown an unwavering commitment to military support of Israel notwithstanding atrocities. But that's exactly in line with American foreign policy towards Israel for decades, through multiple administrations of both parties. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the Biden administration did anything different.
Like, a thought experiment for you: suppose you could replace Joe Biden as President right now with some other influential figure in American foreign policy from the last fifty years. To pin that down, let's say, some other President, or Secretary of State, or Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That's a good range of people with a good range of positions on a lot of things. Can you think of a single person who, in the big chair, would have the personal courage to overturn the established position on Israel? Note that many of those people, in the face of smaller atrocities, chose not to do so.
This is not to exonerate Joe Biden. America, on an institutional level, is complicit in this genocide. Now is absolutely the time to push for humanitarian change on America's policy of unconditional allegiance to Israel. I honor and respect those who are doing so. I think the fact that Joe Biden is not one of them is, in fact, a serious stain on his character. But I'd say that if you're going to go from "cravenly upholding a long-established foreign policy status quo" to "personally committing genocide", you've moved past substantive allegations and into pure rhetorical flourishes.
posted by jackbishop at 4:26 AM on March 4 [33 favorites]
Yes, it is true that the Biden administration has shown an unwavering commitment to military support of Israel notwithstanding atrocities. But that's exactly in line with American foreign policy towards Israel for decades, through multiple administrations of both parties. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the Biden administration did anything different.
Like, a thought experiment for you: suppose you could replace Joe Biden as President right now with some other influential figure in American foreign policy from the last fifty years. To pin that down, let's say, some other President, or Secretary of State, or Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That's a good range of people with a good range of positions on a lot of things. Can you think of a single person who, in the big chair, would have the personal courage to overturn the established position on Israel? Note that many of those people, in the face of smaller atrocities, chose not to do so.
This is not to exonerate Joe Biden. America, on an institutional level, is complicit in this genocide. Now is absolutely the time to push for humanitarian change on America's policy of unconditional allegiance to Israel. I honor and respect those who are doing so. I think the fact that Joe Biden is not one of them is, in fact, a serious stain on his character. But I'd say that if you're going to go from "cravenly upholding a long-established foreign policy status quo" to "personally committing genocide", you've moved past substantive allegations and into pure rhetorical flourishes.
posted by jackbishop at 4:26 AM on March 4 [33 favorites]
Fucking Ezra Klein, he looked at Friedman and was like, "Oh, 'the World is Flat' is it? hold my beer baby, hold my beer... I'll show you boomers how to Oh-pine"
...cue Benny Hill theme song and we're off to the races.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:43 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
...cue Benny Hill theme song and we're off to the races.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:43 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
Let's read The New Yorker instead! It's Evan Osno's new profile: Joe Biden's Last Campaign.
posted by mittens at 4:57 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
posted by mittens at 4:57 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
I genuinely think Biden should step aside, the earlier the better, and it would be better for everyone. If he loses to Trump, after a campaign he's too old and slow and confused to win, then the same people saying, Of course Biden is the right candidate, will then just make it all about resisting Trump. But by consistently fielding weak candidates, what do you expect? "He isn't the other guy" really isn't enough. You have to fight back, and that's not mitigated by complacency about a 700 year old candidate who is laughably poor to most people.
I would be okay with Biden stepping aside at some point during his second term, even though I can imagine the extreme histrionics that would follow. (Imagine the House that demonstrably can't elect a Speaker without extended slapfighting trying to confirm a new Vice President, for instance.)
But now? On the eve of Super Tuesday, after which Biden will have 3/4 of the necessary delegates for his fait accompli re-nomination?
I want to know who the miracle candidate is who could step in at that point and overcome every single media outlet shrieking CHAOS IN THE CAPITOL -- DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY, instill immediate confidence, unite the Democratic caucus behind them, appeal to independents, and answer the question "Why should anyone vote for you when you're only running because the corpse they were propping up finally fell over?" convincingly?
When muddled undecideds frown at Trump, but then fall prey to the siren's song of "at least he's been there, he has experience as POTUS, he's not someone new shoved into that role as a placeholder," what's the answer that will sway them?
This is one of many reasons why I didn't want Biden as the nominee in 2020. But in March of 2024, it's a terrible time to announce "on second thought, we're trying something different now."
posted by delfin at 6:29 AM on March 4 [14 favorites]
I would be okay with Biden stepping aside at some point during his second term, even though I can imagine the extreme histrionics that would follow. (Imagine the House that demonstrably can't elect a Speaker without extended slapfighting trying to confirm a new Vice President, for instance.)
But now? On the eve of Super Tuesday, after which Biden will have 3/4 of the necessary delegates for his fait accompli re-nomination?
I want to know who the miracle candidate is who could step in at that point and overcome every single media outlet shrieking CHAOS IN THE CAPITOL -- DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY, instill immediate confidence, unite the Democratic caucus behind them, appeal to independents, and answer the question "Why should anyone vote for you when you're only running because the corpse they were propping up finally fell over?" convincingly?
When muddled undecideds frown at Trump, but then fall prey to the siren's song of "at least he's been there, he has experience as POTUS, he's not someone new shoved into that role as a placeholder," what's the answer that will sway them?
This is one of many reasons why I didn't want Biden as the nominee in 2020. But in March of 2024, it's a terrible time to announce "on second thought, we're trying something different now."
posted by delfin at 6:29 AM on March 4 [14 favorites]
Like, a thought experiment for you: suppose you could replace Joe Biden as President right now with some other influential figure in American foreign policy from the last fifty years.
i personally am not an idiot, and obviously "genocide joe" is a synecdoche for an entire set of policies that biden, or pretty much any other plausible democratic president, will more or less perpetuate, absent public pressure that a large contingent of notional "progressives" play a key role in suppressing, in a dynamic repeated on all manner of issues. would you prefer the left, instead of pointing out that whoever's in the imperial chair is occupying the imperial chair (with the, yes, dishonest, but at least not totally cynical implication that it matters who's in the chair, beyond just "not Trump"), just came out and said that the US is a probably irredeemable endeavour, the problem with which is that it's working out reasonably well for a very large number of predictably complacent people, many democratic voters included, at everyone else's expense, and nobody knows how to do anything that inspires any really realistic large-scale hope? that enough of the real centres of power are located outside of genuinely democratic structures at this point that democratic ideals and large-scale mutual aid and social progress and real concern about maintaining a functioning planet were probably kind of a little flash in the pan that our parents got talked into abandoning in favour of cheap shit or culture-war whatever? i feel like my socialist and anarchist and communist friends who are fully aware of the above but sitting down in the street in front of senators' offices or whatever other act of hope are not the ones being too blinkered to get their hands dirty, here. even if they call him "genocide joe" and will have a similar name for his equally deserving successor.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:31 AM on March 4 [10 favorites]
i personally am not an idiot, and obviously "genocide joe" is a synecdoche for an entire set of policies that biden, or pretty much any other plausible democratic president, will more or less perpetuate, absent public pressure that a large contingent of notional "progressives" play a key role in suppressing, in a dynamic repeated on all manner of issues. would you prefer the left, instead of pointing out that whoever's in the imperial chair is occupying the imperial chair (with the, yes, dishonest, but at least not totally cynical implication that it matters who's in the chair, beyond just "not Trump"), just came out and said that the US is a probably irredeemable endeavour, the problem with which is that it's working out reasonably well for a very large number of predictably complacent people, many democratic voters included, at everyone else's expense, and nobody knows how to do anything that inspires any really realistic large-scale hope? that enough of the real centres of power are located outside of genuinely democratic structures at this point that democratic ideals and large-scale mutual aid and social progress and real concern about maintaining a functioning planet were probably kind of a little flash in the pan that our parents got talked into abandoning in favour of cheap shit or culture-war whatever? i feel like my socialist and anarchist and communist friends who are fully aware of the above but sitting down in the street in front of senators' offices or whatever other act of hope are not the ones being too blinkered to get their hands dirty, here. even if they call him "genocide joe" and will have a similar name for his equally deserving successor.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:31 AM on March 4 [10 favorites]
Re: electoral math
Say there are 3 candidates:
- Dr. Evil
- Professor Milquetoast
- Lyndon LaRouche
There are 10 voters. Of the 10, 4 are fully aligned with Dr. Evil, 1 is a LaRouche devotee, 2 are unaffiliated and 3 are Milquetoastians. The only plausible outcomes are victory for Evil or Milquetoast. Everyone who is not voting for Evil thinks he is The Worst and wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances.
Because the LaRouche voter will vote for neither plausible candidate, that reduces the pool of relevant voters to 9. This means that Evil now only needs one additional vote to win. The two unaffiliated voters feel that while Evil is undeniably evil and truly awful and no good, Professor Milquetoast is not going far enough with his policies to earn their votes, and has in fact been party to some pretty awful stuff. They decide not to vote at all, to protest Milquetoast's refusal to accede to their demands.
This has reduced the voting pool to 4 Evil voters and 3 Milquetoast voters. Evil wins, despite a majority of the voting populace not wanting him in office, and despite having recruited no additional votes. This is a direct result of people not voting or voting for non-viable candidates, as each of those actions made Evil's 4 votes more significant. That's what it means when someone says not voting is a vote for Trump.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:32 AM on March 4 [13 favorites]
Say there are 3 candidates:
- Dr. Evil
- Professor Milquetoast
- Lyndon LaRouche
There are 10 voters. Of the 10, 4 are fully aligned with Dr. Evil, 1 is a LaRouche devotee, 2 are unaffiliated and 3 are Milquetoastians. The only plausible outcomes are victory for Evil or Milquetoast. Everyone who is not voting for Evil thinks he is The Worst and wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances.
Because the LaRouche voter will vote for neither plausible candidate, that reduces the pool of relevant voters to 9. This means that Evil now only needs one additional vote to win. The two unaffiliated voters feel that while Evil is undeniably evil and truly awful and no good, Professor Milquetoast is not going far enough with his policies to earn their votes, and has in fact been party to some pretty awful stuff. They decide not to vote at all, to protest Milquetoast's refusal to accede to their demands.
This has reduced the voting pool to 4 Evil voters and 3 Milquetoast voters. Evil wins, despite a majority of the voting populace not wanting him in office, and despite having recruited no additional votes. This is a direct result of people not voting or voting for non-viable candidates, as each of those actions made Evil's 4 votes more significant. That's what it means when someone says not voting is a vote for Trump.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:32 AM on March 4 [13 favorites]
fascism finally swamped america not because of unexpunged colonialism and militarism and the non-fascists having no credible answer to inequality and exploitation and the fascists being able to lie and say they do. it'll be cause some college kids said "from the river to the genocide joe". of course.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:37 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
posted by busted_crayons at 6:37 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
Here's the thing though.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that at some future point the US will tell Israel that either the genocide ends or the weapon shipments end.
Most of the people here arguing for Biden appear to be arguing from that standpoint if I'm reading correctly.
If that's the endgame, then why is it somehow foolish and naive to say we should jump to that right now?
Is there some sort of scorecard for deaths? Some idea that until X Gazans have been murdered it wouldn't be fair, or something, to demand Israel stop?
If you think at some future point America will demand a ceasefire and back that up with threats of cutting off aid, then WHY NOT NOW?
posted by sotonohito at 6:45 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
Assume, for the sake of argument, that at some future point the US will tell Israel that either the genocide ends or the weapon shipments end.
Most of the people here arguing for Biden appear to be arguing from that standpoint if I'm reading correctly.
If that's the endgame, then why is it somehow foolish and naive to say we should jump to that right now?
Is there some sort of scorecard for deaths? Some idea that until X Gazans have been murdered it wouldn't be fair, or something, to demand Israel stop?
If you think at some future point America will demand a ceasefire and back that up with threats of cutting off aid, then WHY NOT NOW?
posted by sotonohito at 6:45 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
i don't think anyone is saying don't do that right now. we're also acknowledging that our government doesn't work by fiat (by tantrum, as the facists have demonstrated, maybe, but not by fiat). we're also acknowledging that deciding not to vote for Biden because of this one issue is shortsighted (unless you're an accelerationist, in which case, by all means, own it).
posted by kokaku at 6:49 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 6:49 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
I don't think this man will change. I think that Joe Biden formed his views back in the 60s and 70s. I think those are extremely firmly held views. I think his biased perception of Palestinians and his— I don't know the words— illusory perception of Israelis is not gonna change in four years or, if he lives so long, in forty years. And I actually do think that this administration has been worse for Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims than the Trump administration. Now, will the next Trump administration be even worse than this one? Very possibly. I just don't see how anybody with any moral sense can vote for Joe Biden if they sincerely believe that what is being done is immoral...
—Rashid Khalidi
posted by i like crows very much at 6:50 AM on March 4 [9 favorites]
—Rashid Khalidi
posted by i like crows very much at 6:50 AM on March 4 [9 favorites]
i looked at the supreme court page - they have just ruled that congress, not individual states must disqualify candidates and trump must be on the ballot
posted by pyramid termite at 7:04 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 7:04 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
I don't really see any truly accelerationist position being taken. I see disillusionment and alienation, maybe some conscientious objection against the idea of strategic voting for a highly problematic mainstream political party, in the context of a false choice scenario (and divisiveness and hostility being a manifestation of people internalizing a false choice framing).
I understand the frustration with strategic voting. I understand the frustration with an electoral system that fundamentally leaves us with only two choices.
But all our actions have consequences here. Even if I vote for Joe Biden, it's already clear that not everybody on this message board will do that. And if not everybody on this message board will do that, then there is a possibility that Donald Trump will become president.
If Donald Trump becomes president, my assumption is that Trump will do a lot of bad things that will hurt a lot of people in my own country, including a lot of people I love. There's a very unproductive discussion here about whether there will be "camps" coming for us under a second Trump Administration & while that specific scenario might not come to pass, I still think there's a significant contingent here who is handwaving away the increased risks to people's life and freedom that will exist under a 2nd Trump Administration, even if we can't predict the future or agree on which specific bad things Trump will do.
So what I ask is, "When the shit really hits fan, what the fuck are we going to do?" I don't really see an answer here. Instead, I see some people who seem to be looking forward to the shit hitting the fan, but they don't really have an answer for me of what I should do when I get splattered with shit.
posted by jonp72 at 7:06 AM on March 4 [10 favorites]
I understand the frustration with strategic voting. I understand the frustration with an electoral system that fundamentally leaves us with only two choices.
But all our actions have consequences here. Even if I vote for Joe Biden, it's already clear that not everybody on this message board will do that. And if not everybody on this message board will do that, then there is a possibility that Donald Trump will become president.
If Donald Trump becomes president, my assumption is that Trump will do a lot of bad things that will hurt a lot of people in my own country, including a lot of people I love. There's a very unproductive discussion here about whether there will be "camps" coming for us under a second Trump Administration & while that specific scenario might not come to pass, I still think there's a significant contingent here who is handwaving away the increased risks to people's life and freedom that will exist under a 2nd Trump Administration, even if we can't predict the future or agree on which specific bad things Trump will do.
So what I ask is, "When the shit really hits fan, what the fuck are we going to do?" I don't really see an answer here. Instead, I see some people who seem to be looking forward to the shit hitting the fan, but they don't really have an answer for me of what I should do when I get splattered with shit.
posted by jonp72 at 7:06 AM on March 4 [10 favorites]
I want to know who the miracle candidate is who could step in at that point and overcome every single media outlet shrieking CHAOS IN THE CAPITOL -- DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY, instill immediate confidence, unite the Democratic caucus behind them, appeal to independents, and answer the question "Why should anyone vote for you when you're only running because the corpse they were propping up finally fell over?" convincingly?
I mean, I know this is wishful thinking, but....Gretchen Whitmer + Ro Khanna as a Liberal/Progressive unity ticket. Or Cory Booker + Pramila Jayapal (same idea). If he hadn't turned down running for Senate b/c of his recent health scare/recovery, I'd say Jamie Raskin is a good candidate for someone who can garner progressive and centrist appeal. Anyway, I could keep throwing out names, because despite what some people have written in this thread, Democrats actually have a pretty deep bench. For this to work, Biden, the DNC, every Dem politician would have to be 100% on board and united, yes - which means there would need to be a lot of backdoor meetings before anything was announced. Polling of different ticket options would need to happen in all key swing states. Money would be thrown into marketing, there would be massive campaign tours to every square inch of every swing state, etc. The message would be "DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY THAT LISTENS TO THE PEOPLE" I really do think that more voters could get excited about a new ticket if that ticket was adequately hyped by the party machine.
Again, I realize it probably won't happen, but I think it's delusional to think Biden is really the strongest candidate.
posted by coffeecat at 7:11 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
I mean, I know this is wishful thinking, but....Gretchen Whitmer + Ro Khanna as a Liberal/Progressive unity ticket. Or Cory Booker + Pramila Jayapal (same idea). If he hadn't turned down running for Senate b/c of his recent health scare/recovery, I'd say Jamie Raskin is a good candidate for someone who can garner progressive and centrist appeal. Anyway, I could keep throwing out names, because despite what some people have written in this thread, Democrats actually have a pretty deep bench. For this to work, Biden, the DNC, every Dem politician would have to be 100% on board and united, yes - which means there would need to be a lot of backdoor meetings before anything was announced. Polling of different ticket options would need to happen in all key swing states. Money would be thrown into marketing, there would be massive campaign tours to every square inch of every swing state, etc. The message would be "DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY THAT LISTENS TO THE PEOPLE" I really do think that more voters could get excited about a new ticket if that ticket was adequately hyped by the party machine.
Again, I realize it probably won't happen, but I think it's delusional to think Biden is really the strongest candidate.
posted by coffeecat at 7:11 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
I mean, I know this is wishful thinking, but....Gretchen Whitmer + Ro Khanna as a Liberal/Progressive unity ticket.
In a hypothetical matchup between Donald Trump and Gretchen Whitmer, Trump gets 45% versus 33% for Gretchen Whitmer (cite). If we had a poll or a grass roots campaign that clearly pointed to a specific non-Biden Democrat who would do better than Biden against Trump, that would be the evidence needed to justify replacing Biden on the ticket with somebody else. But we can't justify that, because that evidence isn't there.
posted by jonp72 at 7:20 AM on March 4 [11 favorites]
In a hypothetical matchup between Donald Trump and Gretchen Whitmer, Trump gets 45% versus 33% for Gretchen Whitmer (cite). If we had a poll or a grass roots campaign that clearly pointed to a specific non-Biden Democrat who would do better than Biden against Trump, that would be the evidence needed to justify replacing Biden on the ticket with somebody else. But we can't justify that, because that evidence isn't there.
posted by jonp72 at 7:20 AM on March 4 [11 favorites]
So what I ask is, "When the shit really hits fan, what the fuck are we going to do?" I don't really see an answer here. Instead, I see some people who seem to be looking forward to the shit hitting the fan, but they don't really have an answer for me of what I should do when I get splattered with shit.
Honestly, I don't think we know right now in any specific way, because the big question is whether anything is going to be left to the states (other than "you can be extra white supremacist if you want") or if it's all going to be handled at the federal level. I know about the 2025 plan - another question is simply how seriously that plan is taken and to what degree it's red meat for the base. Another question is "how much are centrist rich people going to be listened to" - obviously the centrist rich would gladly feed us all to tigers on live TV rather than give up a penny of their wealth, but a lot of their wealth comes from things that Christian nationalists at least officially want to eliminate.
The good scenario is "when push comes to shove, the GOP doesn't have quite enough power, money and will to do everything at the federal level, so there are comparatively safe states where birth control is available, queer people don't get thrown in jail, immigrants are treated with no more than current cruelty, and all the million horrible things we haven't even started to think about mostly don't happen".
The bad scenario is that they do everything at the federal level, there is no birth control, being GLBTQ is criminal, god knows what happens to immigrants, white nationalist school curriculum, no more vaccines, etc. No Medicaid, probably no Medicare or Social Security for anyone under 55, etc.
A subsidiary factor - what happens if the states don't all cooperate? Most of them will roll over on most things, but some of them would probably flinch at certain policies. Further, the centrist rich won't be thrilled by all this stuff and may try to twist some arms. If the states don't cooperate, will they have enough power to get away with it or will there be, eg, arrests of non-cooperating governors?
A question in my mind - how cynical is the GOP? It's obvious that just on a national survival level most of these policies are terrible, like getting rid of childhood vaccines and freezing out the young, healthy, taxpaying immigrant workforce we really need. Once they're in power, are they just going to gesture at that stuff, create the most inconvenience and suffering they can and leave loopholes, or is it going to be full Handmaid's Tale?
What do I expect to do? I'm not sure yet. Is it going to be a frantic attempt to escape the country which I should have started in 2016? Keeping my head well down and hoping to squeak by? Meeting a terrible end either because I'm homeless because queer people are unemployable or because I'm in a camp? Meeting a terrible end because I'm brave enough to protest while my friends are dragged away? Not being brave enough and eking out a life with my family until the next pandemic kills me? Dunno. Not feeling good about it, TBQH.
posted by Frowner at 7:22 AM on March 4 [11 favorites]
Honestly, I don't think we know right now in any specific way, because the big question is whether anything is going to be left to the states (other than "you can be extra white supremacist if you want") or if it's all going to be handled at the federal level. I know about the 2025 plan - another question is simply how seriously that plan is taken and to what degree it's red meat for the base. Another question is "how much are centrist rich people going to be listened to" - obviously the centrist rich would gladly feed us all to tigers on live TV rather than give up a penny of their wealth, but a lot of their wealth comes from things that Christian nationalists at least officially want to eliminate.
The good scenario is "when push comes to shove, the GOP doesn't have quite enough power, money and will to do everything at the federal level, so there are comparatively safe states where birth control is available, queer people don't get thrown in jail, immigrants are treated with no more than current cruelty, and all the million horrible things we haven't even started to think about mostly don't happen".
The bad scenario is that they do everything at the federal level, there is no birth control, being GLBTQ is criminal, god knows what happens to immigrants, white nationalist school curriculum, no more vaccines, etc. No Medicaid, probably no Medicare or Social Security for anyone under 55, etc.
A subsidiary factor - what happens if the states don't all cooperate? Most of them will roll over on most things, but some of them would probably flinch at certain policies. Further, the centrist rich won't be thrilled by all this stuff and may try to twist some arms. If the states don't cooperate, will they have enough power to get away with it or will there be, eg, arrests of non-cooperating governors?
A question in my mind - how cynical is the GOP? It's obvious that just on a national survival level most of these policies are terrible, like getting rid of childhood vaccines and freezing out the young, healthy, taxpaying immigrant workforce we really need. Once they're in power, are they just going to gesture at that stuff, create the most inconvenience and suffering they can and leave loopholes, or is it going to be full Handmaid's Tale?
What do I expect to do? I'm not sure yet. Is it going to be a frantic attempt to escape the country which I should have started in 2016? Keeping my head well down and hoping to squeak by? Meeting a terrible end either because I'm homeless because queer people are unemployable or because I'm in a camp? Meeting a terrible end because I'm brave enough to protest while my friends are dragged away? Not being brave enough and eking out a life with my family until the next pandemic kills me? Dunno. Not feeling good about it, TBQH.
posted by Frowner at 7:22 AM on March 4 [11 favorites]
Map: 29 million Americans live under new voter ID laws put in place since 2020 (NBC) Eight states have enacted voter ID laws since the 2020 election, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures: Arkansas, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and Wyoming. The rash of new laws affects 29 million adults. One in 6 voters live in anticipated 2024 battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — with new ID requirements.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:22 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:22 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
jonp72, the poll you cite is a general one - I want to see a breakdown in the key swing states, as those are the only ones that really matter. But also, that poll you link to doesn't show Trump getting more votes when put against any of the other candidates, it just shows that there is more people picking "undecided" - 22% when it comes to Whitmer.
posted by coffeecat at 7:28 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 7:28 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
So what I ask is, "When the shit really hits fan, what the fuck are we going to do?" I don't really see an answer here. Instead, I see some people who seem to be looking forward to the shit hitting the fan, but they don't really have an answer for me of what I should do when I get splattered with shit.
If “vote for the Dem front runner in every upcoming election and then shut up” is supposed to be good enough for Americans whose families are currently being murdered and starved to death in Gaza, then it should be good enough for hypothetical future you. If it doesn’t seem sufficient for your future speculative dire circumstances, then don’t expect it to be good enough for those in actual dire circumstances right now.
posted by ohneat at 7:31 AM on March 4 [12 favorites]
If “vote for the Dem front runner in every upcoming election and then shut up” is supposed to be good enough for Americans whose families are currently being murdered and starved to death in Gaza, then it should be good enough for hypothetical future you. If it doesn’t seem sufficient for your future speculative dire circumstances, then don’t expect it to be good enough for those in actual dire circumstances right now.
posted by ohneat at 7:31 AM on March 4 [12 favorites]
i looked at the supreme court page - they have just ruled that congress, not individual states must disqualify candidates and trump must be on the ballot
Unanimous vote that states can't keep a federal candidate off the ballot. However the conservatives also said only congress can apply the 14th amendment. The other 4 said that was going too far and that there should be the possibility for judicial application of the 14th.
posted by charred husk at 7:54 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
Unanimous vote that states can't keep a federal candidate off the ballot. However the conservatives also said only congress can apply the 14th amendment. The other 4 said that was going too far and that there should be the possibility for judicial application of the 14th.
posted by charred husk at 7:54 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
I want to see a breakdown in the key swing states, as those are the only ones that really matter. But also, that poll you link to doesn't show Trump getting more votes when put against any of the other candidates
none of the people in your comment (whitmer/khanna/booker/jayapalare) are candidates though
posted by lescour at 7:58 AM on March 4
none of the people in your comment (whitmer/khanna/booker/jayapalare) are candidates though
posted by lescour at 7:58 AM on March 4
Map: 29 million Americans live under new voter ID laws put in place since 2020 (NBC) Eight states have enacted voter ID laws since the 2020 election, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures: Arkansas, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and Wyoming. The rash of new laws affects 29 million adults. One in 6 voters live in anticipated 2024 battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — with new ID requirements.
The effect of these voter ID laws on voting behavior is almost nil.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:03 AM on March 4
Is it reasonable to think Trump might invade Mexico?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:08 AM on March 4
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:08 AM on March 4
Yes, it is true that the Biden administration has shown an unwavering commitment to military support of Israel notwithstanding atrocities. But that's exactly in line with American foreign policy towards Israel for decades, through multiple administrations of both parties.
I don't think this is true. Yes the US is Israel's strongest support, but that support isn't unconditional nor is it unwavering. Its an alliance, and alliances are almost by definition contentious when interests diverge. The US has the ability to constrain Israel and has done so in the past. Abraham Ben-Zvi has a book on this.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:09 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
I don't think this is true. Yes the US is Israel's strongest support, but that support isn't unconditional nor is it unwavering. Its an alliance, and alliances are almost by definition contentious when interests diverge. The US has the ability to constrain Israel and has done so in the past. Abraham Ben-Zvi has a book on this.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:09 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
The most frustrating part of this thread, which I came to because I have real issues with Ezra, even though I was a regular listener for a long time, the greatest disappointment, is with so many of my fellow MeFites.
I've been here for almost 20 years, and the lack of grace being extended in this thread, the absolute disrespect and inability/refusal to engage with people where they are instead of engaging in personal attacks and vitriol . . . . it's beyond sad.
I've got nothing of substance to add, really.
Ezra is doing his performatively thoughtful, ineffective schtick.
Israel is committing genocide.
Biden is supporting that genocide, though I doubt he sees it as such, which, unfortunately, makes all of us in the US complicit, as we are in all of our genocides and other crimes against humanity.
Christofascists, fascists, authoritarians, and generally repugnant people are all around us and gaining power, and we have to stop them.
Democracy is project of endurance and faith that can never be walked away from if it's going to "work", and wishing it were something else while walking away from it is stupid.
Humanity is deeply, deeply flawed, and I wish more people took seriously the idea that, whatever healing and light and justice we can hope for is created, and takes effort.
Let's keep trying, MeFites.
Love to you all.
posted by pt68 at 8:16 AM on March 4 [29 favorites]
I've been here for almost 20 years, and the lack of grace being extended in this thread, the absolute disrespect and inability/refusal to engage with people where they are instead of engaging in personal attacks and vitriol . . . . it's beyond sad.
I've got nothing of substance to add, really.
Ezra is doing his performatively thoughtful, ineffective schtick.
Israel is committing genocide.
Biden is supporting that genocide, though I doubt he sees it as such, which, unfortunately, makes all of us in the US complicit, as we are in all of our genocides and other crimes against humanity.
Christofascists, fascists, authoritarians, and generally repugnant people are all around us and gaining power, and we have to stop them.
Democracy is project of endurance and faith that can never be walked away from if it's going to "work", and wishing it were something else while walking away from it is stupid.
Humanity is deeply, deeply flawed, and I wish more people took seriously the idea that, whatever healing and light and justice we can hope for is created, and takes effort.
Let's keep trying, MeFites.
Love to you all.
posted by pt68 at 8:16 AM on March 4 [29 favorites]
There's a lot of overlap in the arguments for withholding a vote between principles of protest and punishment. That punishment would be collective. That protest would be largely personal/private.
The pro-imperialist forces in the USGov, the failures of the electoral system, the occupation of Palestine, and many other factors in this discussion have preceded near all of our entire lives. They've been horrible this whole time. They would all be simply and immediately fixed with a magical ubiquitous universal perspective shift on the part of humanity. Such shifts do not become better quickly, but they can become worse. Accelerating the pain does not bring out the most generous and inclusive properties in people.
It's not just now that something has needed to change. It's vital that we maintain the unromantic work of looking out for our communities as concurrent work by fielding off the worst of what could happen. If NOW is the point of urgency to act on behalf of Gaza, then the terrible status quo of last year would seem preferable. Imagine then Biden in the position of that terrible status quo.
We have to change all of it, but we have to keep our allies alive in the meantime. We have to figure out a way to build and sustain these allegiances even as very strong feelings are associated with our personal hierarchies of what is MOST important or urgent. The people in this thread want freedom and safety for Palestine and robust democracy in the US.
Even with those shared values, *gestures vaguely at... this*.
Easier said than done, is what I'm saying. That is meant to be literal and not defeatist. We can all build grand maps in our minds, but we need each other to enact them in the world.
posted by droomoord at 8:24 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
The pro-imperialist forces in the USGov, the failures of the electoral system, the occupation of Palestine, and many other factors in this discussion have preceded near all of our entire lives. They've been horrible this whole time. They would all be simply and immediately fixed with a magical ubiquitous universal perspective shift on the part of humanity. Such shifts do not become better quickly, but they can become worse. Accelerating the pain does not bring out the most generous and inclusive properties in people.
It's not just now that something has needed to change. It's vital that we maintain the unromantic work of looking out for our communities as concurrent work by fielding off the worst of what could happen. If NOW is the point of urgency to act on behalf of Gaza, then the terrible status quo of last year would seem preferable. Imagine then Biden in the position of that terrible status quo.
We have to change all of it, but we have to keep our allies alive in the meantime. We have to figure out a way to build and sustain these allegiances even as very strong feelings are associated with our personal hierarchies of what is MOST important or urgent. The people in this thread want freedom and safety for Palestine and robust democracy in the US.
Even with those shared values, *gestures vaguely at... this*.
Easier said than done, is what I'm saying. That is meant to be literal and not defeatist. We can all build grand maps in our minds, but we need each other to enact them in the world.
posted by droomoord at 8:24 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
Democracy is project of endurance and faith that can never be walked away from if it's going to "work", and wishing it were something else while walking away from it is stupid.
Humanity is deeply, deeply flawed, and I wish more people took seriously the idea that, whatever healing and light and justice we can hope for is created, and takes effort.
QFT. Thank you.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:25 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
Humanity is deeply, deeply flawed, and I wish more people took seriously the idea that, whatever healing and light and justice we can hope for is created, and takes effort.
QFT. Thank you.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:25 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
fascism finally swamped america not because of unexpunged colonialism and militarism and the non-fascists having no credible answer to inequality and exploitation and the fascists being able to lie and say they do. it'll be cause some college kids said "from the river to the genocide joe". of course.
Lol exactly. Like ok, do you consider all the young lefty holier-than-thou-anti-democrat-DSA-uncommitted-unreasonable-college-youth-vote an actual threat to Biden winning, the true obstruction standing in the way of protecting the US from fascism?
To put more bluntly: Do you consider them an actual, serious voting bloc? Ok, then maybe the administration has a responsibility in trying to win this voting bloc if they are truly make-or-break?
Or: Do you think they just aren't important enough, their demands are unrealistic because they are outnumbered, not enough people share their concerns, dems will always support XYZ right-wing policy no matter what, because there is no real threat to them changing their ways/that's just reality/the left is outnumbered, etc?
Which fucking one is it? Thinking you're going to just corral everyone into shutting the fuck up about any Biden criticism - especially during a US-supported genocide, for chrissake - is just not living in any sort of reality. People are going to keep shitting on the democratic party no matter how much you think they should "grow up" or "don't understand the ramifications" or that "democracy is at stake" and blah blah blah while they look at images of mutilated children and an implicit understanding that the US supports this.
If this voting bloc is that important, then at what point do democrats and the Biden administration have a responsibility to start seriously pandering to their concerns, directly and urgently, the way they pander to people on the right? Or do they not have any responsibility at all? You just wish everyone was smarter and better and understood the Real Threat of Trump and the looming Threat of Democracy and blah blah fuckity blah trust me they've heard it all. Because let me tell you that latter option is wish casting, that's all it is, it's nothing, it's not a thing, it's not politics. It's wishing that millions of individual disparate alienated voters will come to some kind of epiphany and do what is right if we all just squawk at them enough, and that is fantasy.
posted by windbox at 8:53 AM on March 4 [19 favorites]
Lol exactly. Like ok, do you consider all the young lefty holier-than-thou-anti-democrat-DSA-uncommitted-unreasonable-college-youth-vote an actual threat to Biden winning, the true obstruction standing in the way of protecting the US from fascism?
To put more bluntly: Do you consider them an actual, serious voting bloc? Ok, then maybe the administration has a responsibility in trying to win this voting bloc if they are truly make-or-break?
Or: Do you think they just aren't important enough, their demands are unrealistic because they are outnumbered, not enough people share their concerns, dems will always support XYZ right-wing policy no matter what, because there is no real threat to them changing their ways/that's just reality/the left is outnumbered, etc?
Which fucking one is it? Thinking you're going to just corral everyone into shutting the fuck up about any Biden criticism - especially during a US-supported genocide, for chrissake - is just not living in any sort of reality. People are going to keep shitting on the democratic party no matter how much you think they should "grow up" or "don't understand the ramifications" or that "democracy is at stake" and blah blah blah while they look at images of mutilated children and an implicit understanding that the US supports this.
If this voting bloc is that important, then at what point do democrats and the Biden administration have a responsibility to start seriously pandering to their concerns, directly and urgently, the way they pander to people on the right? Or do they not have any responsibility at all? You just wish everyone was smarter and better and understood the Real Threat of Trump and the looming Threat of Democracy and blah blah fuckity blah trust me they've heard it all. Because let me tell you that latter option is wish casting, that's all it is, it's nothing, it's not a thing, it's not politics. It's wishing that millions of individual disparate alienated voters will come to some kind of epiphany and do what is right if we all just squawk at them enough, and that is fantasy.
posted by windbox at 8:53 AM on March 4 [19 favorites]
Speaking as a voter in a swing state whose own state government is the more immediate threat to my personal health and safety, do what you're going to do in the Presidential, but PLEASE do not neglect down-ballot races. And not just Federal. The Fascists do a whole lot of damage on the state level, especially in judicial, legislative (and my personal favorite) the school board.
I get that plenty of people are entirely focused on Israel/Palestine, but even if Biden stays president, and the Ds are able to squeak out a congressional victory, the less glamorous elections can be the ones that make the biggest difference in your life.
Sincerely,
A North Carolina voter
posted by thivaia at 9:15 AM on March 4 [25 favorites]
I get that plenty of people are entirely focused on Israel/Palestine, but even if Biden stays president, and the Ds are able to squeak out a congressional victory, the less glamorous elections can be the ones that make the biggest difference in your life.
Sincerely,
A North Carolina voter
posted by thivaia at 9:15 AM on March 4 [25 favorites]
almost nil -- 95 voting-rights court cases (ACLU). Picking Georgia (as Biden was the first Dem presidential nominee in 28 years to win Georgia): "Georgia’s majority-Republican General Assembly changed ID requirements after a record number of voters cast absentee ballots in November 2020 — about one-quarter of the state’s 5 million turnout." ([New] Georgia absentee ID law has outsized impact on Black and metro voters, AJC) Georgia's Election Integrity Act of 2021: How Strict Voter ID Requirements Negatively Impact People of Color. DOJ lawsuit. Disability-rights voting lawsuit, news. In 2020 Fulton County introduced mobile voting units to expand early voting; now the units can only be used during a declared disaster. This law also "makes it a felony for friends, neighbors, or staff who work in shelters or nursing homes to help people receive or return an absentee ballot, even if the person has a disability. The law says that only a “caregiver” or certain family members can help with ballot return, but it doesn’t say anything about who counts as a “caregiver” under the law, and Georgia has refused to offer guidance about it." Previous disenfranchisement bids in Georgia.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:17 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:17 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
To me voting for Biden is not giving him a pass on genocide. It's giving me four more years to hold him accountable.
posted by grog at 9:27 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
posted by grog at 9:27 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
How so?
posted by Selena777 at 9:50 AM on March 4 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 9:50 AM on March 4 [1 favorite]
grog how?
I'm having a difficult time seeing what leverage exists OTHER than voting.
Protests mean nothing, not even big ones like the BLM protests. You'd need to go Arab Spring style block the roads and shut down commerce for months for a protest to be meaningful.
Letters and other communication means nothing at all.
So what mechanism exists to hold an office holder accountable other than voting? They're pretty close to perfectly insulated from us.
posted by sotonohito at 9:53 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
I'm having a difficult time seeing what leverage exists OTHER than voting.
Protests mean nothing, not even big ones like the BLM protests. You'd need to go Arab Spring style block the roads and shut down commerce for months for a protest to be meaningful.
Letters and other communication means nothing at all.
So what mechanism exists to hold an office holder accountable other than voting? They're pretty close to perfectly insulated from us.
posted by sotonohito at 9:53 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
I don't think the U.S. has much time left as a functional democracy. I don't blame anyone, anywhere for not liking Biden/the Democrats, or even hating them for what they have or have not done, and nobody "owes" them a vote...but there are going to be two choices on the ballot in November, one of which is going to be full-on Christofascism/kleptocracy, and it will not solve your problems or save lives. Most likely quite the contrary.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:56 AM on March 4 [9 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:56 AM on March 4 [9 favorites]
QFT from above:
If “vote for the Dem front runner in every upcoming election and then shut up” is supposed to be good enough for Americans whose families are currently being murdered and starved to death in Gaza, then it should be good enough for hypothetical future you. If it doesn’t seem sufficient for your future speculative dire circumstances, then don’t expect it to be good enough for those in actual dire circumstances right now.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:59 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
If “vote for the Dem front runner in every upcoming election and then shut up” is supposed to be good enough for Americans whose families are currently being murdered and starved to death in Gaza, then it should be good enough for hypothetical future you. If it doesn’t seem sufficient for your future speculative dire circumstances, then don’t expect it to be good enough for those in actual dire circumstances right now.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:59 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
To me voting for Biden is not giving him a pass on genocide. It's giving me four more years to hold him accountable.
I don't think the U.S. has much time left as a functional democracy. I don't blame anyone, anywhere for not liking Biden/the Democrats, or even hating them for what they have or have not done, and nobody "owes" them a vote...but there are going to be two choices on the ballot in November, one of which is going to be full-on Christofascism/kleptocracy, and it will not solve your problems or save lives. Most likely quite the contrary.
Blah blah blah. These are good examples of what I'm talking about - unfortunately there are tons of people who read this stuff as "so you're saying the Biden administration will *not* pull US support for a genocide? Ok well fuck him then!" and unfortuantely there's nothing anyone can do about that except for Biden and his administration.
If that's just such a juvenile and unrealistic expectation then I'll say it's objectively more unrealistic and juvenile to expect millions of disparate individuals who feel alienated by both parties will have some kind of epiphany in the next few months if they just hear enough liberal West Wing spec script platitudes about "perfect being the enemy of good" or "voting for the party you would rather protest against" or whatever other variation of lesser-of-two evils, I promise you it doesn't mean jack shit to them no matter how much anyone thinks they are risking "full-on Christofascism". They have heard it all.
These are people who long ago realized they don't have any actual power or say in anything the way people on the center-right seem to. But apparently when they threaten to withhold their vote for Democrats, they really flip out and *need* them all the sudden - so it must mean something! Call it childish all you want, doesn't change the reality of it all and at a certain point you have to start dealing with reality instead of fantasy.
posted by windbox at 10:03 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
I don't think the U.S. has much time left as a functional democracy. I don't blame anyone, anywhere for not liking Biden/the Democrats, or even hating them for what they have or have not done, and nobody "owes" them a vote...but there are going to be two choices on the ballot in November, one of which is going to be full-on Christofascism/kleptocracy, and it will not solve your problems or save lives. Most likely quite the contrary.
Blah blah blah. These are good examples of what I'm talking about - unfortunately there are tons of people who read this stuff as "so you're saying the Biden administration will *not* pull US support for a genocide? Ok well fuck him then!" and unfortuantely there's nothing anyone can do about that except for Biden and his administration.
If that's just such a juvenile and unrealistic expectation then I'll say it's objectively more unrealistic and juvenile to expect millions of disparate individuals who feel alienated by both parties will have some kind of epiphany in the next few months if they just hear enough liberal West Wing spec script platitudes about "perfect being the enemy of good" or "voting for the party you would rather protest against" or whatever other variation of lesser-of-two evils, I promise you it doesn't mean jack shit to them no matter how much anyone thinks they are risking "full-on Christofascism". They have heard it all.
These are people who long ago realized they don't have any actual power or say in anything the way people on the center-right seem to. But apparently when they threaten to withhold their vote for Democrats, they really flip out and *need* them all the sudden - so it must mean something! Call it childish all you want, doesn't change the reality of it all and at a certain point you have to start dealing with reality instead of fantasy.
posted by windbox at 10:03 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
From the New Yorker article:
Unsurprisingly, Biden’s aides reject the idea that the White House is insular or dismissive of reality. Zients, who succeeded Ron Klain as chief of staff last year, pointed to Biden’s reputation for soliciting opinions from critics. “Just the other day, he picked up the phone and called Larry Summers,” Zients said. As outreach goes, it was relatively safe; Summers, despite his critical comments, is a longtime adviser to Presidents. Biden’s other occasional calls range from the columnist Thomas Friedman to the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. “That’s how you pressure-test decisions,” Zients said.
Absolutely terrifying.
(Biden also reaffirms in that article that he does not personally believe that women should have bodily autonomy re abortion, so that's fun too.)
posted by Gadarene at 10:16 AM on March 4 [14 favorites]
Unsurprisingly, Biden’s aides reject the idea that the White House is insular or dismissive of reality. Zients, who succeeded Ron Klain as chief of staff last year, pointed to Biden’s reputation for soliciting opinions from critics. “Just the other day, he picked up the phone and called Larry Summers,” Zients said. As outreach goes, it was relatively safe; Summers, despite his critical comments, is a longtime adviser to Presidents. Biden’s other occasional calls range from the columnist Thomas Friedman to the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. “That’s how you pressure-test decisions,” Zients said.
Absolutely terrifying.
(Biden also reaffirms in that article that he does not personally believe that women should have bodily autonomy re abortion, so that's fun too.)
posted by Gadarene at 10:16 AM on March 4 [14 favorites]
adrienneleigh & ohneat
Except . . . nobody here actually said anything remotely like “vote for the Dem front runner in every upcoming election and then shut up”.
posted by pt68 at 10:16 AM on March 4 [9 favorites]
Except . . . nobody here actually said anything remotely like “vote for the Dem front runner in every upcoming election and then shut up”.
posted by pt68 at 10:16 AM on March 4 [9 favorites]
Part of the dilemma here is that we know that Trump 47 would be far, far, far worse with regards to the Middle East. He's already promised that Gaza refugees "have no place here and will be denied entry." He wants to reinstate Muslim travel bans, institute new ideology-based criteria by which anyone deemed even sympathetic to certain groups should be denied entry, and his followers don't care in the slightest about Palestinian persecution; they just want all foreign aid money given to them, instead.
But he's not in power now. Biden is. This is all happening under Biden's watch and by the time November arrives, the active Gaza question will be moot because everyone there will be either dead or nakba'ed.
In 2016, my late father justified his vote for Trump by claiming that while Hillary was a "known" criminal and bad actor, "you don't know what Trump is going to do once he's in there." No amount of "yes, I fucking do" on my part would convince him otherwise. And that is Biden's big problem at the moment; our voter base can't peer into a crystal ball and watch firsthand how Trump would've mismanaged this particular saga.
And we need to convince people who are furious that Biden is abetting genocide now that the theoretical of "it will be far worse under Trump" is also reality.
posted by delfin at 10:20 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
But he's not in power now. Biden is. This is all happening under Biden's watch and by the time November arrives, the active Gaza question will be moot because everyone there will be either dead or nakba'ed.
In 2016, my late father justified his vote for Trump by claiming that while Hillary was a "known" criminal and bad actor, "you don't know what Trump is going to do once he's in there." No amount of "yes, I fucking do" on my part would convince him otherwise. And that is Biden's big problem at the moment; our voter base can't peer into a crystal ball and watch firsthand how Trump would've mismanaged this particular saga.
And we need to convince people who are furious that Biden is abetting genocide now that the theoretical of "it will be far worse under Trump" is also reality.
posted by delfin at 10:20 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
And I actually do think that this administration has been worse for Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims than the Trump administration. Now, will the next Trump administration be even worse than this one? Very possibly. I just don't see how anybody with any moral sense can vote for Joe Biden if they sincerely believe that what is being done is immoral...
—Rashid Khalidi
This will probably be my last comment here, but I do want to say-- as a Muslim, this is dispiritingly nuts to me. I do not find Khalidi's 'reasoning' persuasive in the least. His argument seems to mainly consist of two points:
1. Joe Biden is 'blindly' dedicated to Israel, and willing to screw America over on Israel's behalf.
2. Donald Trump is only dedicated to himself and will put his own interests over those of Israel, so maybe he'll be more likely to do right by the Palestinians.
There is so much that is unbelievably flawed with both these premises. I'll start with a tangential point, and I hate to say this because it makes me sound callous towards Palestinians, but I'm going to because western media constantly conflates Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, and Middle Eastern as if they're all basically the same thing: Khalidi says Biden has been worse for Arabs and Muslims and then goes on to focus entirely on why Biden has been worse for Palestinians. I am a little tired of the implication that I should care about Palestinians because they're Muslims and I'm Muslim. I care about them because they're human and I'm human. And I'm very tired of the implication, which comes in different forms from Muslims, leftists, and white supremacists, that all Muslims are basically the same.
Point 1 is demonstrably false. If Biden were blindly dedicated to Israel, he would not be sanctioning Israeli settlers in the West Bank (the first time a US administration has taken such action against settlers). He would not be pressuring Israel to scale back its attacks and support humanitarian efforts. He would not have successfully pressured Israel to restore electricity and water access in Gaza. He would not be airdropping humanitarian supplies into Gaza to get around Israeli blockages. He would not be calling for a six-week ceasefire. He would not have arranged for a White House visit from arguably Netanyahu's chief political rival, over Netanyahu's strident opposition. Nobody can look me in the eye and tell me seriously that these are things Trump would be doing. If Khalidi wants to argue those are not enough, that's an argument worth having, but that's not what he's doing. He's insisting that Biden is unquestioningly doing anything and everything the Israeli government wants and that's demonstrably not true.
Point 2 is the kind of 5D chess I've seen people in this thread accuse Biden of. In part, it rests on Point 1's faulty assumptions, but the heart of it seems to be that Trump's overwhelming self-interest and lack of principles, which Khalidi acknowledges, makes him... more dependably pro-Muslim or pro-Palestinian? Like, maybe Donald Trump will engineer some complex mathematical equation that tells him that being zealously pro-Israel is not in his political favor, even though there is absolutely no math that produces that result in the Republican Party, none? This is the party of unconditional support for Netanyahu. They don't just love Israel-- they love Netanyahu. The Democratic Party is riven with division over support for the Netanyahu government; the Republican Party suffers no such schisms. Trump's/Republicans' anti-Semitism doesn't change this reality in the least. There is no political calculus that will make Republicans care about Palestinians. Their base thinks Palestinians are all Hamas. A lot of their base thinks Palestinians should be driven out of what little land they do currently hold onto and I sincerely believe many of them, deep down, don't care if 'driven out' functionally means exterminated.
Claiming Biden has been worse for Muslims is galling to me when the point of comparison is a guy who tried to ban people from a whole bunch of majority-Muslim countries from entering the US, constantly promulgates Islamophobic disinformation (remember how he saw Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11?), said Muslim-Americans should have to register themselves in a national database, and routinely threatens to deport Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims from the US. His political ascent was accompanied by a massive surge in hate crimes against Muslims, to levels unseen since 9/11, and he didn't say or do a damn thing to stop it. Anyone claiming Biden has been worse for Muslims than Trump has, I'm sorry, demonstrated a lack of perspective so profound as to be untethered from reality, and as a Muslim-American who would have to live with the consequences of a second Trump term, I am not going to just let it slide.
posted by Method Man at 10:21 AM on March 4 [57 favorites]
—Rashid Khalidi
This will probably be my last comment here, but I do want to say-- as a Muslim, this is dispiritingly nuts to me. I do not find Khalidi's 'reasoning' persuasive in the least. His argument seems to mainly consist of two points:
1. Joe Biden is 'blindly' dedicated to Israel, and willing to screw America over on Israel's behalf.
2. Donald Trump is only dedicated to himself and will put his own interests over those of Israel, so maybe he'll be more likely to do right by the Palestinians.
There is so much that is unbelievably flawed with both these premises. I'll start with a tangential point, and I hate to say this because it makes me sound callous towards Palestinians, but I'm going to because western media constantly conflates Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, and Middle Eastern as if they're all basically the same thing: Khalidi says Biden has been worse for Arabs and Muslims and then goes on to focus entirely on why Biden has been worse for Palestinians. I am a little tired of the implication that I should care about Palestinians because they're Muslims and I'm Muslim. I care about them because they're human and I'm human. And I'm very tired of the implication, which comes in different forms from Muslims, leftists, and white supremacists, that all Muslims are basically the same.
Point 1 is demonstrably false. If Biden were blindly dedicated to Israel, he would not be sanctioning Israeli settlers in the West Bank (the first time a US administration has taken such action against settlers). He would not be pressuring Israel to scale back its attacks and support humanitarian efforts. He would not have successfully pressured Israel to restore electricity and water access in Gaza. He would not be airdropping humanitarian supplies into Gaza to get around Israeli blockages. He would not be calling for a six-week ceasefire. He would not have arranged for a White House visit from arguably Netanyahu's chief political rival, over Netanyahu's strident opposition. Nobody can look me in the eye and tell me seriously that these are things Trump would be doing. If Khalidi wants to argue those are not enough, that's an argument worth having, but that's not what he's doing. He's insisting that Biden is unquestioningly doing anything and everything the Israeli government wants and that's demonstrably not true.
Point 2 is the kind of 5D chess I've seen people in this thread accuse Biden of. In part, it rests on Point 1's faulty assumptions, but the heart of it seems to be that Trump's overwhelming self-interest and lack of principles, which Khalidi acknowledges, makes him... more dependably pro-Muslim or pro-Palestinian? Like, maybe Donald Trump will engineer some complex mathematical equation that tells him that being zealously pro-Israel is not in his political favor, even though there is absolutely no math that produces that result in the Republican Party, none? This is the party of unconditional support for Netanyahu. They don't just love Israel-- they love Netanyahu. The Democratic Party is riven with division over support for the Netanyahu government; the Republican Party suffers no such schisms. Trump's/Republicans' anti-Semitism doesn't change this reality in the least. There is no political calculus that will make Republicans care about Palestinians. Their base thinks Palestinians are all Hamas. A lot of their base thinks Palestinians should be driven out of what little land they do currently hold onto and I sincerely believe many of them, deep down, don't care if 'driven out' functionally means exterminated.
Claiming Biden has been worse for Muslims is galling to me when the point of comparison is a guy who tried to ban people from a whole bunch of majority-Muslim countries from entering the US, constantly promulgates Islamophobic disinformation (remember how he saw Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11?), said Muslim-Americans should have to register themselves in a national database, and routinely threatens to deport Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims from the US. His political ascent was accompanied by a massive surge in hate crimes against Muslims, to levels unseen since 9/11, and he didn't say or do a damn thing to stop it. Anyone claiming Biden has been worse for Muslims than Trump has, I'm sorry, demonstrated a lack of perspective so profound as to be untethered from reality, and as a Muslim-American who would have to live with the consequences of a second Trump term, I am not going to just let it slide.
posted by Method Man at 10:21 AM on March 4 [57 favorites]
If “vote for the Dem front runner in every upcoming election and then shut up” is supposed to be good enough for Americans whose families are currently being murdered and starved to death in Gaza, then it should be good enough for hypothetical future you. If it doesn’t seem sufficient for your future speculative dire circumstances, then don’t expect it to be good enough for those in actual dire circumstances right now.
Leaving all else aside, I do feel in my heart that just by participating in this at all, by trying to re-elect Biden, what I'm saying is "people are going to die anyway, so at least let it not be me and mine", and that sits ill with me. I feel like a lot of problems come from that belief that you're justified in doing anything, no matter how horrible, to preserve yourself. Metaphorically, I think - and note the metaphorically - immolation is the only moral choice when you're faced with giving cover to a genocide. It seems to me to be a problem of meaning - the world has to have some organizing principle that isn't "the weak go to the wall, it's just bad luck and material circumstances, just carry on living without thinking about it too much since there's nothing you can do".
Anyway, I'm in Minnesota so I'm voting uncommitted tomorrow.
Man, I knew this was going to be a wretched year. I'm already planning to take November 3 off because I - basically a non-drinker - am going to have to drink to get through the night, no matter how it goes.
posted by Frowner at 10:33 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
Leaving all else aside, I do feel in my heart that just by participating in this at all, by trying to re-elect Biden, what I'm saying is "people are going to die anyway, so at least let it not be me and mine", and that sits ill with me. I feel like a lot of problems come from that belief that you're justified in doing anything, no matter how horrible, to preserve yourself. Metaphorically, I think - and note the metaphorically - immolation is the only moral choice when you're faced with giving cover to a genocide. It seems to me to be a problem of meaning - the world has to have some organizing principle that isn't "the weak go to the wall, it's just bad luck and material circumstances, just carry on living without thinking about it too much since there's nothing you can do".
Anyway, I'm in Minnesota so I'm voting uncommitted tomorrow.
Man, I knew this was going to be a wretched year. I'm already planning to take November 3 off because I - basically a non-drinker - am going to have to drink to get through the night, no matter how it goes.
posted by Frowner at 10:33 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
grog how?
I'm having a difficult time seeing what leverage exists OTHER than voting.
That's a good point, and I would agree that voting is the best way to apply direct leverage as a citizen. But I don't believe it's the only way to apply leverage as a citizen (I think protests can meaningfully apply leverage), and I don't believe voters are the only way politicians are leveraged into positions.
However, I am also realizing that I made a typo in my comment, and I shouldn't have said "four more years for me to keep him accountable" because my point was supposed to be about four more years of accountability in general. And when I phrase it that way, it's clear to me now my point of view is just another "lesser of two evils" perspective that has already been discussed upthread. So I apologize, my previous comment may not have added anything useful at this point.
posted by grog at 10:34 AM on March 4
I'm having a difficult time seeing what leverage exists OTHER than voting.
That's a good point, and I would agree that voting is the best way to apply direct leverage as a citizen. But I don't believe it's the only way to apply leverage as a citizen (I think protests can meaningfully apply leverage), and I don't believe voters are the only way politicians are leveraged into positions.
However, I am also realizing that I made a typo in my comment, and I shouldn't have said "four more years for me to keep him accountable" because my point was supposed to be about four more years of accountability in general. And when I phrase it that way, it's clear to me now my point of view is just another "lesser of two evils" perspective that has already been discussed upthread. So I apologize, my previous comment may not have added anything useful at this point.
posted by grog at 10:34 AM on March 4
Wow. WOW.
After nearly twenty years, I think I have to stop reading and participating in this website.
Just…holy shit. So little grace, so much anger, and it’s all sound and fury that will change nothing and no one’s mind, all directed at other commenters (i.e., people with no power and who aren’t responsible for any of what’s going on). Why am I allowing Metafilter’s current toxic state to infect my thoughts regularly? Habits die hard, I suppose, but I am only angrier and dumber for having read this post and thread.
To those still speaking to reason here, I wish you the best. To those who merely emote and spew hostility and fear at other commenters, you’ve thoroughly shit the bed and this site is clearly now dysfunctional because of it.
My real worry at this point is that the changed culture here is simply synecdoche for our changed culture generally, and there is no escaping the vitriolic, solipsistic nature of public discourse. I’m afraid we’re all like this now, and that’s just how it is.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:43 AM on March 4 [19 favorites]
After nearly twenty years, I think I have to stop reading and participating in this website.
Just…holy shit. So little grace, so much anger, and it’s all sound and fury that will change nothing and no one’s mind, all directed at other commenters (i.e., people with no power and who aren’t responsible for any of what’s going on). Why am I allowing Metafilter’s current toxic state to infect my thoughts regularly? Habits die hard, I suppose, but I am only angrier and dumber for having read this post and thread.
To those still speaking to reason here, I wish you the best. To those who merely emote and spew hostility and fear at other commenters, you’ve thoroughly shit the bed and this site is clearly now dysfunctional because of it.
My real worry at this point is that the changed culture here is simply synecdoche for our changed culture generally, and there is no escaping the vitriolic, solipsistic nature of public discourse. I’m afraid we’re all like this now, and that’s just how it is.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:43 AM on March 4 [19 favorites]
never have the words "be the change you want to see in the world" been more true
yes, there is more than enough vitriol to throw around in this thread. adding vitriol to the tank = not helping
perhaps the mods need to shut this thing down, I don't know
posted by elkevelvet at 10:54 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
yes, there is more than enough vitriol to throw around in this thread. adding vitriol to the tank = not helping
perhaps the mods need to shut this thing down, I don't know
posted by elkevelvet at 10:54 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
But apparently when they threaten to withhold their vote for Democrats, they really flip out and *need* them all the sudden - so it must mean something!
Not really. It's the occasional disillusionment expressed after seeing someone claiming to be on the left cheer or behave for the right in an obvious way. It is upsetting to some but shouldn't be a surprise. A radical is just a political fundamentalist taking ideals at face value, where most have learned to distrust ideals as a bluff. Most who experience democracy as liberating have learned to regard righteous central planning as corruption, so voting is never an act of moral indignation, but simply holding the advances in place where necessary. More like a version of the trolley problem.
posted by Brian B. at 10:54 AM on March 4
Not really. It's the occasional disillusionment expressed after seeing someone claiming to be on the left cheer or behave for the right in an obvious way. It is upsetting to some but shouldn't be a surprise. A radical is just a political fundamentalist taking ideals at face value, where most have learned to distrust ideals as a bluff. Most who experience democracy as liberating have learned to regard righteous central planning as corruption, so voting is never an act of moral indignation, but simply holding the advances in place where necessary. More like a version of the trolley problem.
posted by Brian B. at 10:54 AM on March 4
Metafilter’s current toxic state
Just popping into this (terrible) thread to say it is NOT Metafilter. It is SOME of Metafilter's members. Just don't read this thread (or, admittedly, a few others). I am here to tell you the non-politics threads are often delightful to this day!
posted by Glinn at 10:55 AM on March 4 [20 favorites]
Just popping into this (terrible) thread to say it is NOT Metafilter. It is SOME of Metafilter's members. Just don't read this thread (or, admittedly, a few others). I am here to tell you the non-politics threads are often delightful to this day!
posted by Glinn at 10:55 AM on March 4 [20 favorites]
I'd like to see some justification for the claim that Biden has been worse for Muslims than Trump. Especially given that under Trump
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:17 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
According to the FBI, during 2015, the year the presidential campaign season kicked off, hate crimes against Muslims soared nearly 67 percent — to the highest level since 9/11. A soon-to-be-published report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations is expected to show that 2016 was the worst year on record for incidents in which mosques were targets of bias. In the first three months of 2017, violence, vandalism, and aggression toward mosques doubled compared to the previous year.Source.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:17 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
While I understand and sympathize with the distress over the tone expressed by many in this thread, I think given the topic it's more or less inevitble.
One one side you have people saying "JFC look at all the bodies how can I go along with that?"
On the other you have people saying "yes, it's horrible but if we don't go along with it then there will be even worse to come"
Each sees the other as behaving in what could at its most charitable be called political neglegance, and at worst callous indifference to suffering.
As a person who feels the first, and in what I do consider to be a callous and revolting exercise of selfish logic will be doing the second, I can see the reason and passion behind both positions.
I don't think any group is going to sit around and dispassionately discuss the relative morality of balancing current kilodeaths vs hypothetical suffering of other sorts and possibly more deaths. I'd be kind of horrified, actually, if people didn't get upset about this.
You can make an argument that there are times when hard decisions are necessary. Do you give the last scraps of food to the orphanage or the hospital?
I do think that this is a somewhat false dellimma in that it exists only because the people in power have chosent o present us with this binary. We face a horrible decision not because it's inevitable, but because the most powerful people in America have chosen to thrust that horrible decision upon us. They could have chosen otherwise. They still could.
posted by sotonohito at 11:30 AM on March 4 [14 favorites]
One one side you have people saying "JFC look at all the bodies how can I go along with that?"
On the other you have people saying "yes, it's horrible but if we don't go along with it then there will be even worse to come"
Each sees the other as behaving in what could at its most charitable be called political neglegance, and at worst callous indifference to suffering.
As a person who feels the first, and in what I do consider to be a callous and revolting exercise of selfish logic will be doing the second, I can see the reason and passion behind both positions.
I don't think any group is going to sit around and dispassionately discuss the relative morality of balancing current kilodeaths vs hypothetical suffering of other sorts and possibly more deaths. I'd be kind of horrified, actually, if people didn't get upset about this.
You can make an argument that there are times when hard decisions are necessary. Do you give the last scraps of food to the orphanage or the hospital?
I do think that this is a somewhat false dellimma in that it exists only because the people in power have chosent o present us with this binary. We face a horrible decision not because it's inevitable, but because the most powerful people in America have chosen to thrust that horrible decision upon us. They could have chosen otherwise. They still could.
posted by sotonohito at 11:30 AM on March 4 [14 favorites]
Has any US president not supported Israel? Other than TFG. Did TFG support the Palestinians in Gaza? Don't remember that happening. But I do remember the Camp David accords. Who did that?
Oh yeah, that Terrible Democratic President, Jimmy Carter...
posted by Windopaene at 11:33 AM on March 4 [1 favorite]
Oh yeah, that Terrible Democratic President, Jimmy Carter...
posted by Windopaene at 11:33 AM on March 4 [1 favorite]
This thread began with the Klein article. It’s now a politics mega thread. Which we got rid of some years ago, and this is why. I often - even usually - learn things from Metafilter. New facts or new perspectives. I don’t see how anyone is learning anything here. I vote we close this thread.
posted by kerf at 11:34 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
posted by kerf at 11:34 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
Agreed. Every site I frequent that has an Israel-Hamas war thread always goes poorly...
posted by Windopaene at 11:37 AM on March 4 [1 favorite]
posted by Windopaene at 11:37 AM on March 4 [1 favorite]
lol these are such insanely funny comments to me..."ermmmmm ref?? manager?? people are disrupting my intellectual politics salon and talking about the actual horrors of the world, can we just shut it down??"
posted by windbox at 11:43 AM on March 4 [10 favorites]
posted by windbox at 11:43 AM on March 4 [10 favorites]
I for one would like to speak to MetaFilter's manager!!! lol.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:44 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:44 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
it's a community space, from what I can tell
when a percentage of your community expresses deep dissatisfaction, one way to respond might be to consider what they are communicating, agree or disagree
it's not a bad thing, to consider where other people are coming from
posted by elkevelvet at 12:00 PM on March 4 [6 favorites]
when a percentage of your community expresses deep dissatisfaction, one way to respond might be to consider what they are communicating, agree or disagree
it's not a bad thing, to consider where other people are coming from
posted by elkevelvet at 12:00 PM on March 4 [6 favorites]
No, imho, this is not just another "may I speak to the manager" bit of pearl-clutching. And it's not over-sensitivity concerning the actual state of the world.
There has been more open hostility towards other MeFites here than is, uhm, normal. This is a community, and one of the basic elements of a healthy community has got to be respect, even in the midst of deep, serious disagreement . . . Hell, especially then.
I do restorative justice work, and this kind of behavior would get our conferences shut down in a hot second, with good cause, and so asking that mods step in is not some petty response . . . it's out of respect for this place and this community
posted by pt68 at 12:37 PM on March 4 [22 favorites]
There has been more open hostility towards other MeFites here than is, uhm, normal. This is a community, and one of the basic elements of a healthy community has got to be respect, even in the midst of deep, serious disagreement . . . Hell, especially then.
I do restorative justice work, and this kind of behavior would get our conferences shut down in a hot second, with good cause, and so asking that mods step in is not some petty response . . . it's out of respect for this place and this community
posted by pt68 at 12:37 PM on March 4 [22 favorites]
I'll tell you one thing that's pretty depressing: Biden didn't win by a lot last time. If Metafilter is any kind of a barometer for how the election is going to go, then we're probably not going to get MORE people voting for him this time around. So then the only question is, will that difference be enough for him to lose the election?
posted by nushustu at 12:40 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
posted by nushustu at 12:40 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
It is understandable that people are angry and desperate regarding the situation in Gaza. Anyone who isn't seems heartless to me. But I don't entirely understand why Joe Biden is to blame.
Hamas is to blame for the initial attack and Benjamin Netanyahu is to blame for the entirely predictable response. I haven't participated in the Gaza threads because I knew right away what would happen and it happened. It makes my soul wilt.
Among the utterly, depressingly predictable aspects of this is the Western support for Israel and in particular the US support. Every single US government since WW2 has acted this way. It isn't about Biden, it is about the institutional understanding of the ME in the US State Department, but also about the unholy alliance in the electorate between the religious right and the coastal liberals*. The most radical (haha) presidents regarding this question have been Carter, Obama and Trump, each in their own unique way, but as you all know, not really. At the end of the day, they have complied with the received "wisdom".
It's not just about Israel. It's also the dogma that KSA is our friend and Iran is our enemy. That we should spend billions in upholding I don't even know wtf is going on in Pakistan (which proves it isn't just about oil). That it was just fine to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there is just so much more.
To be fair to the establishment, changing course is not easy, and the recent results haven't seemed great. But maybe that is because the negative results take up more media space and brain space in our individual heads. Latin America is doing a whole lot better now than 30 years ago. South Korea and Vietnam are doing great, with wildly different societal models. Most of the former Eastern Europe are doing good, with even the bad apples having much more freedom and wealth than before 1990.
*I thought about writing Jews, but that is simply wrong. I am not American and I do have a Jewish background but I did go to American schools for a while, and the mainstream way we learnt about Israel was absurd and self-contradictory: no-one lived in Palestine and the Israelis converted the desert into democratic orchards and at the same time there was a fight against some Arabs who didn't live there but on the other hand lived in squalor because they were ignorant and authoritarian.
That all said, I do sense an anti-semitic tone in some of the comments here, but it is just a whiff, hard to put ones finger on.
posted by mumimor at 12:42 PM on March 4 [9 favorites]
Hamas is to blame for the initial attack and Benjamin Netanyahu is to blame for the entirely predictable response. I haven't participated in the Gaza threads because I knew right away what would happen and it happened. It makes my soul wilt.
Among the utterly, depressingly predictable aspects of this is the Western support for Israel and in particular the US support. Every single US government since WW2 has acted this way. It isn't about Biden, it is about the institutional understanding of the ME in the US State Department, but also about the unholy alliance in the electorate between the religious right and the coastal liberals*. The most radical (haha) presidents regarding this question have been Carter, Obama and Trump, each in their own unique way, but as you all know, not really. At the end of the day, they have complied with the received "wisdom".
It's not just about Israel. It's also the dogma that KSA is our friend and Iran is our enemy. That we should spend billions in upholding I don't even know wtf is going on in Pakistan (which proves it isn't just about oil). That it was just fine to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there is just so much more.
To be fair to the establishment, changing course is not easy, and the recent results haven't seemed great. But maybe that is because the negative results take up more media space and brain space in our individual heads. Latin America is doing a whole lot better now than 30 years ago. South Korea and Vietnam are doing great, with wildly different societal models. Most of the former Eastern Europe are doing good, with even the bad apples having much more freedom and wealth than before 1990.
*I thought about writing Jews, but that is simply wrong. I am not American and I do have a Jewish background but I did go to American schools for a while, and the mainstream way we learnt about Israel was absurd and self-contradictory: no-one lived in Palestine and the Israelis converted the desert into democratic orchards and at the same time there was a fight against some Arabs who didn't live there but on the other hand lived in squalor because they were ignorant and authoritarian.
That all said, I do sense an anti-semitic tone in some of the comments here, but it is just a whiff, hard to put ones finger on.
posted by mumimor at 12:42 PM on March 4 [9 favorites]
I'm following this and the Gaza threads pretty closely, if anything I feel aligned with the angriest voices who cannot stomach genocide and don't accept the stark decision facing them in the upcoming US election
but something about Oct. 07th and everything that followed, it was like a veil getting lifted. Some of you can claim that the veil disappeared a long time ago, I can't speak to the veils we wear and it's probably quite personal. We cannot give up on hope, and if you are in N. America you probably have more 'room' for hope than a lot of other people in the world. But there is no room for delusion. It's very bad and it will get worse, and fighting amongst ourselves will do nothing.
I'm not sure how we move forward. Good luck to all, it's our turn to experience history.
posted by elkevelvet at 12:47 PM on March 4 [11 favorites]
but something about Oct. 07th and everything that followed, it was like a veil getting lifted. Some of you can claim that the veil disappeared a long time ago, I can't speak to the veils we wear and it's probably quite personal. We cannot give up on hope, and if you are in N. America you probably have more 'room' for hope than a lot of other people in the world. But there is no room for delusion. It's very bad and it will get worse, and fighting amongst ourselves will do nothing.
I'm not sure how we move forward. Good luck to all, it's our turn to experience history.
posted by elkevelvet at 12:47 PM on March 4 [11 favorites]
I'll tell you one thing that's pretty depressing: Biden didn't win by a lot last time. If Metafilter is any kind of a barometer for how the election is going to go, then we're probably not going to get MORE people voting for him this time around. So then the only question is, will that difference be enough for him to lose the election?
2020 was something of a perfect storm for turnout, with vastly increased mail-in voting coinciding with a strong "we HAVE to get this asshole out of office" vibe amongst the left and center.
IMHO, turnout on both sides will be decreased somewhat from that. The 2020 Michigan margin for Biden was ~150K.
Also IMHO, Michigan 2024 will hinge upon:
1) How many of those Uncommitted voters remain so in six months, and how many voted that way in the primary as a protest vote but recognize the danger of Trump in the fall.
2) How many women voters remain livid over Dobbs and similar Handmaid's-ing of America.
3) How the Biden campaign chooses to focus on Michigan -- whether there is further union reachout, whether there are attempts to extend olive branches to some of the Arab-American Dems, how hard their national messages of abortion and democracy and foreign influences resonate there.
4) How much crazy shit happens between now and then. And the bucket of potential crazy shit is endless, I promise you.
posted by delfin at 1:02 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
2020 was something of a perfect storm for turnout, with vastly increased mail-in voting coinciding with a strong "we HAVE to get this asshole out of office" vibe amongst the left and center.
IMHO, turnout on both sides will be decreased somewhat from that. The 2020 Michigan margin for Biden was ~150K.
Also IMHO, Michigan 2024 will hinge upon:
1) How many of those Uncommitted voters remain so in six months, and how many voted that way in the primary as a protest vote but recognize the danger of Trump in the fall.
2) How many women voters remain livid over Dobbs and similar Handmaid's-ing of America.
3) How the Biden campaign chooses to focus on Michigan -- whether there is further union reachout, whether there are attempts to extend olive branches to some of the Arab-American Dems, how hard their national messages of abortion and democracy and foreign influences resonate there.
4) How much crazy shit happens between now and then. And the bucket of potential crazy shit is endless, I promise you.
posted by delfin at 1:02 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
First, I don't think Trump's hate speech or immigration policies, as harmful as they are, can compare to what's happening right now in Gaza. Hopefully, that's uncontroversial. It's not something I'm going to spend my time debating.
Then the question becomes to what degree is the US accountable for what's happening in Palestine? The US has historically spoken out of both sides of its mouth, chiding Israel publicly while continuing to provide support. It has provided most of the money, arms, and crucial political support. It has sent $3-4 billion a year for decades, and in November approved $14 billion in support of the genocide. It sent $120 billion of military aid to Israel over the last 70 years. 92% of Israel's weapons imports from 2017-2021 came from the US. Of the 89 vetoes (as of December.. maybe it's 90 now) the US has exercised in the UN Security Council, over half have been in support of Israel.
Now, how much of that is Biden's fault? Very hard to say exactly how much of any US administration's actions is because of the president. But here's what we have to go off of: The $14 billion was proposed by him, or someone on his team. If you look at his speeches, the ways he talks about Israelis in such loving terms and Palestinians as barely worth consideration. He talks about "unconditional" support for Israel. He's said, "I don't believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist." And this outspoken support can be projected backwards to his famous statement in 1986 that "were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.”
posted by i like crows very much at 1:06 PM on March 4 [6 favorites]
Then the question becomes to what degree is the US accountable for what's happening in Palestine? The US has historically spoken out of both sides of its mouth, chiding Israel publicly while continuing to provide support. It has provided most of the money, arms, and crucial political support. It has sent $3-4 billion a year for decades, and in November approved $14 billion in support of the genocide. It sent $120 billion of military aid to Israel over the last 70 years. 92% of Israel's weapons imports from 2017-2021 came from the US. Of the 89 vetoes (as of December.. maybe it's 90 now) the US has exercised in the UN Security Council, over half have been in support of Israel.
Now, how much of that is Biden's fault? Very hard to say exactly how much of any US administration's actions is because of the president. But here's what we have to go off of: The $14 billion was proposed by him, or someone on his team. If you look at his speeches, the ways he talks about Israelis in such loving terms and Palestinians as barely worth consideration. He talks about "unconditional" support for Israel. He's said, "I don't believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist." And this outspoken support can be projected backwards to his famous statement in 1986 that "were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.”
posted by i like crows very much at 1:06 PM on March 4 [6 favorites]
In this case, Biden is again the institutionalist. It's good when he is upholding democracy in the US, but insanely bad when he is upholding terrible policies in the Middle East. They are two sides of the same coin.
I don't know how to change this, but voting for Trump isn't the solution.
posted by mumimor at 1:12 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
I don't know how to change this, but voting for Trump isn't the solution.
posted by mumimor at 1:12 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
IMHO, turnout on both sides will be decreased somewhat from that.
I dunno, I hope you're right, but it's less clear in terms of Trump. For sure, some of the Haley voters are people who will not vote for Trump - some of them didn't vote for him in 2020, and did vote for him in 2020 but decided after Jan 6 and the disappointment of 2022 that Trump isn't good for the party long-term, and will also not vote for him. But some voters (like that taxi driver I mentioned way up thread, actually) sat out the 2020 election but now, because they think the election was stolen from Trump, are going to vote for him. I'm expecting Trump's numbers to increase from 2020.
posted by coffeecat at 1:26 PM on March 4
I dunno, I hope you're right, but it's less clear in terms of Trump. For sure, some of the Haley voters are people who will not vote for Trump - some of them didn't vote for him in 2020, and did vote for him in 2020 but decided after Jan 6 and the disappointment of 2022 that Trump isn't good for the party long-term, and will also not vote for him. But some voters (like that taxi driver I mentioned way up thread, actually) sat out the 2020 election but now, because they think the election was stolen from Trump, are going to vote for him. I'm expecting Trump's numbers to increase from 2020.
posted by coffeecat at 1:26 PM on March 4
It's not just about institutionalism. There's plenty of reporting about how fervently and callously pro-Israel Biden has been throughout his career, including condoning the notion of Israel slaughtering civilians in the 80s in response to attacks by Lebanon.
(He used the same analogy, that of Canada attacking the US and the US then being justified in wiping Canada off the map, that Kathy Hochul used and subsequently had to apologize a few weeks ago.)
Coupled with Biden's absolute allergy to acknowledging Palestinian deaths or even saying the word Palestinian (see his remarks commemorating the 100th day of the conflict), there is every indication that he is a true believer to an extent that absolutely would not be true, and has not been true, of every Democratic president.
posted by Gadarene at 1:26 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
(He used the same analogy, that of Canada attacking the US and the US then being justified in wiping Canada off the map, that Kathy Hochul used and subsequently had to apologize a few weeks ago.)
Coupled with Biden's absolute allergy to acknowledging Palestinian deaths or even saying the word Palestinian (see his remarks commemorating the 100th day of the conflict), there is every indication that he is a true believer to an extent that absolutely would not be true, and has not been true, of every Democratic president.
posted by Gadarene at 1:26 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
There has been more open hostility towards other MeFites here than is, uhm, normal. This is a community, and one of the basic elements of a healthy community has got to be respect, even in the midst of deep, serious disagreement . . . Hell, especially then.
You're going to get serious disagreement when we are discussing an unfolding genocide. And ultimately, many people on this thread have said things that have made it impossible for me to have respect for them--and that show little respect for me and for people I hold dear. It seems strange to call out that disrespect and not the other kind, especially when the other kind has had such dire results.
Here's a nice little tidbit about a man who, in comments earlier in this thread, so many of you actively claimed to like!
In 1982, shortly before Reagan bluntly ordered Begin to cease his ‘holocaust’ in Lebanon, a young US senator who revered Elie Wiesel as his great teacher met the Israeli prime minister. In Begin’s own stunned account of the meeting, the senator commended the Israeli war effort and boasted that he would have gone further, even if it meant killing women and children. Begin himself was taken aback by the words of the future US president, Joe Biden. ‘No, sir,’ he insisted. ‘According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war ... This is a yardstick of human civilisation, not to hurt civilians.’
How can I have respect for people who openly admit to being excited to vote for a person like this?
At the end of the day, I have a real community that far supersedes some random folks on the Internet who, for the most part, have very little in common with me demographically and have said plenty of weird and racist things in this thread alone.
posted by lizard2590 at 1:29 PM on March 4 [13 favorites]
You're going to get serious disagreement when we are discussing an unfolding genocide. And ultimately, many people on this thread have said things that have made it impossible for me to have respect for them--and that show little respect for me and for people I hold dear. It seems strange to call out that disrespect and not the other kind, especially when the other kind has had such dire results.
Here's a nice little tidbit about a man who, in comments earlier in this thread, so many of you actively claimed to like!
In 1982, shortly before Reagan bluntly ordered Begin to cease his ‘holocaust’ in Lebanon, a young US senator who revered Elie Wiesel as his great teacher met the Israeli prime minister. In Begin’s own stunned account of the meeting, the senator commended the Israeli war effort and boasted that he would have gone further, even if it meant killing women and children. Begin himself was taken aback by the words of the future US president, Joe Biden. ‘No, sir,’ he insisted. ‘According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war ... This is a yardstick of human civilisation, not to hurt civilians.’
How can I have respect for people who openly admit to being excited to vote for a person like this?
At the end of the day, I have a real community that far supersedes some random folks on the Internet who, for the most part, have very little in common with me demographically and have said plenty of weird and racist things in this thread alone.
posted by lizard2590 at 1:29 PM on March 4 [13 favorites]
There's plenty of reporting about how fervently pro-Israel Biden has been throughout his career, including condoning the notion of Israel slaughtering civilians in the 80s in response to attacks by Lebanon.
I don't disagree with you, I just think Biden is the perfect blend of American Christianity and Liberalism. Which is exactly why he could compete against Trump in 2020. So the good is the bad.
I think I have to walk a bit about to explain exactly what I mean by this if it isn't obvious. But I did get at it in my first comment on this thread: the US is built on genocide, and Christian faith has been used as an excuse for that genocide through more than a hundred years. On top of that, being an American Christian is special, and the role Jerusalem and Israel plays in US Christianity is different from anything I have met here in Scandinavia or in the UK, Italy and Germany, other countries I have lived in. (Not all Christians, etc.)
And then also what I said above about how Israel is taught to Americans. Recently, I have looked at a few bits of Exodus on YouTube. I can't deal with the whole movie. Man... But that is the American Israel. Palestinians are shown as ignorant peasants or scheming crooks. Israel's founders are somehow blond? And obviously fierce and good, just like the original American settlers.
posted by mumimor at 1:42 PM on March 4 [1 favorite]
I don't disagree with you, I just think Biden is the perfect blend of American Christianity and Liberalism. Which is exactly why he could compete against Trump in 2020. So the good is the bad.
I think I have to walk a bit about to explain exactly what I mean by this if it isn't obvious. But I did get at it in my first comment on this thread: the US is built on genocide, and Christian faith has been used as an excuse for that genocide through more than a hundred years. On top of that, being an American Christian is special, and the role Jerusalem and Israel plays in US Christianity is different from anything I have met here in Scandinavia or in the UK, Italy and Germany, other countries I have lived in. (Not all Christians, etc.)
And then also what I said above about how Israel is taught to Americans. Recently, I have looked at a few bits of Exodus on YouTube. I can't deal with the whole movie. Man... But that is the American Israel. Palestinians are shown as ignorant peasants or scheming crooks. Israel's founders are somehow blond? And obviously fierce and good, just like the original American settlers.
posted by mumimor at 1:42 PM on March 4 [1 favorite]
Which is exactly why he could compete against Trump in 2020. So the good is the bad.
I strongly believe that there were a number of other Democratic candidates that could/would have beaten Trump in 2020, had they been the candidate, so I sort of reject the premise of this idea.
posted by Gadarene at 1:51 PM on March 4 [3 favorites]
I strongly believe that there were a number of other Democratic candidates that could/would have beaten Trump in 2020, had they been the candidate, so I sort of reject the premise of this idea.
posted by Gadarene at 1:51 PM on March 4 [3 favorites]
As for Klein, what is there to say? He's spinning fantasies about Biden dropping out. He might as well have written an article about how much he'd like a unicorn to stop by for a tea party, both are about equally likely.
Biden is clearly too damn old to be Prsident, as is Trump, neither of them will admit it, and due to our reality steadily slipping away and putting us in a situation that hasn't felt quite real since 2016 to me, somehow we wound up with a 2024 Presidential contest between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
I agree with Klein that this is utterly absurd, and I'd like to speak to the universe's manager about this. I feel like the guy in the Monty Python sketch interrupting it by saying "Stop it, stop it, this is silly!"
But the universse has no manager, I have no power to stop anything, so here we are sliding along this wierd unreal path towards a future that looks even less real and more absurd than the absurd and unreal present.
So yeah, I sympathize with Klein and his urge to write alternate universe fanfic about a place where things make more sense and aren't so incredibly fucking stupid. But I don't, and he shouldn't have wasted anyone's time doing it himself.
"Wouldn't it be nice if Biden and Trump dropped out because they finally admitted they were too old?"
Yes, Ezra. Yes, it would. Thanks for playing let's pretend on the national stage.
mumimor I don't think many people are blaming Biden for the ongoing genocide, they're just blaming him for refusing to condemn it.
I still don't understand why it's seemingly so difficult for him, and the US, to say: "What Israel is doing is wrong and must stop. I support an immediate ceasefire."
But for reasons are either so obvious they need not be stated or so secret they can't be stated, Biden has steadfastly refused to do so, and has in fact been encouraging the genocide by expiditing arms shipments.
No, he's not responsible for what Israel is doing.
But he IS responsible for what he is doing, and he's failing the basic human decency test of calling for a ceasefire. And it is that moral failing that makes me loathe him even more than I did before 10/6. Rather than growing on me as his Presidency has gone on I find myself despising him more with every day that passes. And things like this refusal to even consider taking the simple step of saying it's wrong to bomb Gaza until the rubble bounces is a big contributing factor in my personal hatred of Joe Biden.
I'll vote for him because I have no emotonal attachment to my vote. To me it's a tiny way to nudge a number towards the less awful of two awful options not some deep personal endorsement.
posted by sotonohito at 2:05 PM on March 4 [22 favorites]
Biden is clearly too damn old to be Prsident, as is Trump, neither of them will admit it, and due to our reality steadily slipping away and putting us in a situation that hasn't felt quite real since 2016 to me, somehow we wound up with a 2024 Presidential contest between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
I agree with Klein that this is utterly absurd, and I'd like to speak to the universe's manager about this. I feel like the guy in the Monty Python sketch interrupting it by saying "Stop it, stop it, this is silly!"
But the universse has no manager, I have no power to stop anything, so here we are sliding along this wierd unreal path towards a future that looks even less real and more absurd than the absurd and unreal present.
So yeah, I sympathize with Klein and his urge to write alternate universe fanfic about a place where things make more sense and aren't so incredibly fucking stupid. But I don't, and he shouldn't have wasted anyone's time doing it himself.
"Wouldn't it be nice if Biden and Trump dropped out because they finally admitted they were too old?"
Yes, Ezra. Yes, it would. Thanks for playing let's pretend on the national stage.
mumimor I don't think many people are blaming Biden for the ongoing genocide, they're just blaming him for refusing to condemn it.
I still don't understand why it's seemingly so difficult for him, and the US, to say: "What Israel is doing is wrong and must stop. I support an immediate ceasefire."
But for reasons are either so obvious they need not be stated or so secret they can't be stated, Biden has steadfastly refused to do so, and has in fact been encouraging the genocide by expiditing arms shipments.
No, he's not responsible for what Israel is doing.
But he IS responsible for what he is doing, and he's failing the basic human decency test of calling for a ceasefire. And it is that moral failing that makes me loathe him even more than I did before 10/6. Rather than growing on me as his Presidency has gone on I find myself despising him more with every day that passes. And things like this refusal to even consider taking the simple step of saying it's wrong to bomb Gaza until the rubble bounces is a big contributing factor in my personal hatred of Joe Biden.
I'll vote for him because I have no emotonal attachment to my vote. To me it's a tiny way to nudge a number towards the less awful of two awful options not some deep personal endorsement.
posted by sotonohito at 2:05 PM on March 4 [22 favorites]
At the end of the day, I have a real community that far supersedes some random folks on the Internet who, for the most part, have very little in common with me demographically and have said plenty of weird and racist things in this thread alone.
imagine yourself looking back after a year, or even several, and give it a chance. unless you have a separate account and you've been checking out MetaFilter for a while, it looks like you created an account at the end of February. I don't think this thread is a great representation of MeFi, it's maybe a great representation of a certain type of thread in MeFi, though (coming from a relative newcomer)
anyhow, hope you stick around
posted by elkevelvet at 2:27 PM on March 4 [3 favorites]
imagine yourself looking back after a year, or even several, and give it a chance. unless you have a separate account and you've been checking out MetaFilter for a while, it looks like you created an account at the end of February. I don't think this thread is a great representation of MeFi, it's maybe a great representation of a certain type of thread in MeFi, though (coming from a relative newcomer)
anyhow, hope you stick around
posted by elkevelvet at 2:27 PM on March 4 [3 favorites]
I strongly believe that there were a number of other Democratic candidates that could/would have beaten Trump in 2020
I mean, I'd go so far as to say that pretty much any of the candidates in the primary (with maybe one or two exceptions - i.e. Williamson) could have beaten Trump in 2020 - a critical mass of people were so revolted by Trump at that point they'd vote for anyone. Which is why Biden acting like is 2020 victory is proof he's the best person for the job and he doesn't need to worry is....well, worrying, to put it mildly. The New Yorker article...yikes (if folks don't want to read the whole thing, there is a TL:DR version up on their podcast feed).
Which is why I disagree with:
As for Klein, what is there to say? He's spinning fantasies about Biden dropping out. He might as well have written an article about how much he'd like a unicorn to stop by for a tea party,
Yes, I get it's not going to happen, but I hope anyone with Klein's level of influence with the DNC is doing all they can to sound the alarm bells - because there is still too much complacency in the DNC/Biden admin, and this was even more the case when Klein's first podcast episode on this came out.
posted by coffeecat at 2:31 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
I mean, I'd go so far as to say that pretty much any of the candidates in the primary (with maybe one or two exceptions - i.e. Williamson) could have beaten Trump in 2020 - a critical mass of people were so revolted by Trump at that point they'd vote for anyone. Which is why Biden acting like is 2020 victory is proof he's the best person for the job and he doesn't need to worry is....well, worrying, to put it mildly. The New Yorker article...yikes (if folks don't want to read the whole thing, there is a TL:DR version up on their podcast feed).
Which is why I disagree with:
As for Klein, what is there to say? He's spinning fantasies about Biden dropping out. He might as well have written an article about how much he'd like a unicorn to stop by for a tea party,
Yes, I get it's not going to happen, but I hope anyone with Klein's level of influence with the DNC is doing all they can to sound the alarm bells - because there is still too much complacency in the DNC/Biden admin, and this was even more the case when Klein's first podcast episode on this came out.
posted by coffeecat at 2:31 PM on March 4 [4 favorites]
he IS responsible for what he is doing, and he's failing the basic human decency test of calling for a ceasefire. And it is that moral failing that makes me loathe him even more than I did before 10/6.
I have a 14yo son who is pretty interested in politics. Being 14, one of the things he struggles with is the fact that the world is complex, and more often than not there is not simple fix-all solution to our problems. Most issues have shades of gray.
So it was really nice after 10/6 to say, "son, this is one of those rare times when the right thing to do is obvious. There is a right side and a wrong side on this issue, and the wrong side is the side who is wholesale slaughtering an ethnic group."
There are good guys in this thing and there are bad guys. And if you side with the bad guys, guess what. You are a bad guy.
Now most of us can't really do much about this situation, but POTUS sure can. He's the most powerful man on the planet. And he has chosen to continue to fund Israel, despite the fact that they are doing a genocide.
So the one thing that most of us CAN do, is vote. And if my options are "pick the guy who actively backs the genocide, or pick the guy who actively backs the genocide and other worse things" then either way I am fucked. I am complicit in backing a genocide.
Unless I don't pick at all. And honestly, looking at these two choices, if this is the best we can do, maybe the concept of the US as a democracy is a failure, and none of us deserve to choose anyway.
posted by nushustu at 2:37 PM on March 4 [7 favorites]
I have a 14yo son who is pretty interested in politics. Being 14, one of the things he struggles with is the fact that the world is complex, and more often than not there is not simple fix-all solution to our problems. Most issues have shades of gray.
So it was really nice after 10/6 to say, "son, this is one of those rare times when the right thing to do is obvious. There is a right side and a wrong side on this issue, and the wrong side is the side who is wholesale slaughtering an ethnic group."
There are good guys in this thing and there are bad guys. And if you side with the bad guys, guess what. You are a bad guy.
Now most of us can't really do much about this situation, but POTUS sure can. He's the most powerful man on the planet. And he has chosen to continue to fund Israel, despite the fact that they are doing a genocide.
So the one thing that most of us CAN do, is vote. And if my options are "pick the guy who actively backs the genocide, or pick the guy who actively backs the genocide and other worse things" then either way I am fucked. I am complicit in backing a genocide.
Unless I don't pick at all. And honestly, looking at these two choices, if this is the best we can do, maybe the concept of the US as a democracy is a failure, and none of us deserve to choose anyway.
posted by nushustu at 2:37 PM on March 4 [7 favorites]
lizard2590 I think your comments are good.
I also think that in a broader demographic kind of way this site skews Gen X-ish/elder millenial and I think that when someone Not Quite So Old shows up, the Olds would be well advised to pay attention, not for some abstract reason of "youth is best" but because this country is extremely age-segregated and it's really easy to feel like you're in touch when you're not in touch, you know? Like, I volunteer with some Youths and it is helpful to bump up against our various different assumptions and senses of time.
These are such godawful times and anyone younger than about 35 has known little but godawful times, and I think that's a real difference from those of us who were teens or young adults in the nineties. Godawful times with little prospect of improvement, for that matter - I remember the Cold War and looming nuclear annihilation pretty well from childhood and my early teens, and there really wasn't the same sense that we were out of runway.
Speaking for myself, I feel like metafilter has changed my mind on a number of topics, but seldom in-thread - I usually need to mull.
posted by Frowner at 2:41 PM on March 4 [22 favorites]
I also think that in a broader demographic kind of way this site skews Gen X-ish/elder millenial and I think that when someone Not Quite So Old shows up, the Olds would be well advised to pay attention, not for some abstract reason of "youth is best" but because this country is extremely age-segregated and it's really easy to feel like you're in touch when you're not in touch, you know? Like, I volunteer with some Youths and it is helpful to bump up against our various different assumptions and senses of time.
These are such godawful times and anyone younger than about 35 has known little but godawful times, and I think that's a real difference from those of us who were teens or young adults in the nineties. Godawful times with little prospect of improvement, for that matter - I remember the Cold War and looming nuclear annihilation pretty well from childhood and my early teens, and there really wasn't the same sense that we were out of runway.
Speaking for myself, I feel like metafilter has changed my mind on a number of topics, but seldom in-thread - I usually need to mull.
posted by Frowner at 2:41 PM on March 4 [22 favorites]
People are going to keep shitting on the democratic party no matter how much you think they should "grow up" or "don't understand the ramifications"
i am so sorry, windbox, but i am pretty sure i agree with you and the last comment i made, to which you were responding, was intended ironically, as was supposed to be clear from the other stuff i'd just said, but which i am afraid i did not make sufficiently clear.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:37 PM on March 4 [2 favorites]
i am so sorry, windbox, but i am pretty sure i agree with you and the last comment i made, to which you were responding, was intended ironically, as was supposed to be clear from the other stuff i'd just said, but which i am afraid i did not make sufficiently clear.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:37 PM on March 4 [2 favorites]
extend olive branches to some of the Arab-American Dems
nah the olive branches got stolen by the settlers, you'll find.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:52 PM on March 4 [6 favorites]
nah the olive branches got stolen by the settlers, you'll find.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:52 PM on March 4 [6 favorites]
Okay, I have read all of the ~65,000 words on this page. We generally agree that the most vocal, current non-voters are angry about Gaza, yes? Not Sudan, not layoffs in the US, not COVID. People are talking predominately about Gaza, and Biden's inaction to denounce what Israel is doing. Including people who previously voted for Biden in 2020 and Clinton in 2016. The most functional suggestions I've seen on what can be done regarding Gaza aren't about November, because people are constantly dying now, currently, as we type. That's what people are acting on. You can blame it on us being young (not all are) and shortsighted, but we blame it on people dying. How do we convince the current president to act differently now?
Biden is going to win the Dem primary, if he somehow doesn't then clearly there's something else wrong. Protest votes in the primary show Biden that there are large numbers of people already voting on the democratic ballot, who could/would vote for him in November. People who already go to the polls or mail in their votes, showing him that he doesn't need to convince people who would rather stay home or would rather vote for trump. That is what others are already doing to voice their discontent and if you feel the same, then joining in voting uncommitted in the primary makes that voice louder.
possible actions:
• go vote! this is an article detailing the options for a protest vote in the primary for each state, as not all states accept write-ins or un-/non-committed votes. (I'd recommend also ctrl+f with your state in the comments, there's additional information in there and I don't think the writer is updating the article)
• join your local political orgs to tell them directly whatever it is you want to happen. whether that's Biden voicing dissent or voting for the lesser evil. some dems organize to vote in the republican ballot to mix it up, see what's happening locally.
• donate money to directly help Palestinians/Gazans. either money to cross the border into Egypt or money to fund aid entering Gaza. if you don't already know where to find trustworthy resources to do this then we are living in totally different online worlds....
• look up protests that you can go to or support monetarily from afar
• offer to drive your friends to the polls. easily turn someone who might stay home into a Biden voter (!) or uncommitted vote. and please look at the rest of the ballot too!
• worry (/argue online) about the general once it's closer, or after the biggest primaries at least so we can base discussions off of how people actually did or didn't vote
posted by pfeffernusse at 5:02 PM on March 4 [7 favorites]
Biden is going to win the Dem primary, if he somehow doesn't then clearly there's something else wrong. Protest votes in the primary show Biden that there are large numbers of people already voting on the democratic ballot, who could/would vote for him in November. People who already go to the polls or mail in their votes, showing him that he doesn't need to convince people who would rather stay home or would rather vote for trump. That is what others are already doing to voice their discontent and if you feel the same, then joining in voting uncommitted in the primary makes that voice louder.
possible actions:
• go vote! this is an article detailing the options for a protest vote in the primary for each state, as not all states accept write-ins or un-/non-committed votes. (I'd recommend also ctrl+f with your state in the comments, there's additional information in there and I don't think the writer is updating the article)
• join your local political orgs to tell them directly whatever it is you want to happen. whether that's Biden voicing dissent or voting for the lesser evil. some dems organize to vote in the republican ballot to mix it up, see what's happening locally.
• donate money to directly help Palestinians/Gazans. either money to cross the border into Egypt or money to fund aid entering Gaza. if you don't already know where to find trustworthy resources to do this then we are living in totally different online worlds....
• look up protests that you can go to or support monetarily from afar
• offer to drive your friends to the polls. easily turn someone who might stay home into a Biden voter (!) or uncommitted vote. and please look at the rest of the ballot too!
• worry (/argue online) about the general once it's closer, or after the biggest primaries at least so we can base discussions off of how people actually did or didn't vote
posted by pfeffernusse at 5:02 PM on March 4 [7 favorites]
I've been feeling pessimistic, here in Europe, as Putin's Russia has maintained and even gained strength both economically and militarily in the last months. They just keep pushing and pushing, like some monstrous death cult, meter by meter, hour by hour.
I haven't spent much time thinking about Europe in a time with 'let Putin do what he wants with them' Trump. But:
For all his faults, I hope that age isn't what keeps people from voting for Biden.
I don't know what sort of dark age we'd be in with the US and EU both on the ropes, so to speak. Trumpism in the US, an all-out war against — or total capitulation to — Putinism in Europe. I realize there is a vocal minority who are essentially cheering that on, and they're not just on the right. It's madness.
posted by UN at 5:32 PM on March 4 [9 favorites]
I haven't spent much time thinking about Europe in a time with 'let Putin do what he wants with them' Trump. But:
For all his faults, I hope that age isn't what keeps people from voting for Biden.
I don't know what sort of dark age we'd be in with the US and EU both on the ropes, so to speak. Trumpism in the US, an all-out war against — or total capitulation to — Putinism in Europe. I realize there is a vocal minority who are essentially cheering that on, and they're not just on the right. It's madness.
posted by UN at 5:32 PM on March 4 [9 favorites]
This thread has shifted my perspective. I've been horrified for a couple months now at the campaign to withhold the general vote in order to teach the Democrats/Biden a lesson. I've been focused on the fate of Europe, my trans sibling, my nieces of color in public schools, my friends on birth control, and the planet. It has felt (and forgive me) like a hostage-taking (yes I agree with your principle please don't shoot the hostage; I know the hostage is on life support and not doing too well and this threat is just expediting the inevitable, just... please).
You know what though? The belief that a general election is an apt stage for such a protest demonstrates a love and faith in democracy that I haven't felt quite that intimately in some while. I vote with my pants on. I can't feel that hopeful about it. These people care deeply about things I care about and they believe in the power they possess to affect change. That's valuable.
BDS is terribly slow and patchy. The uncommitted campaign has done real work.
On the other hand, though, many people who are invested in maximizing non-fascist general election turnout are also expressing hope. (In the hostage life support analogy, hope in a timely remedy) Hope in bottom-up systems, communities and unions and coalitions negotiating workable structures locally and linking up with other organized populations and implementing working systems as an inevitable swell BEFORE/INSTEAD OF acquiescing to the fascists. (Joe Biden is an old guard imperialist dirtbag, but he is not a fascist)
Only thing I know for sure is we are going to have to take more than two seconds before deciding someone with shared ultimate goals deserves an attacking. That shit is taking us NOWHERE.
Now I think we have here hope vs. hope and I hope we all still have hope in us later.
posted by droomoord at 7:16 PM on March 4 [9 favorites]
You know what though? The belief that a general election is an apt stage for such a protest demonstrates a love and faith in democracy that I haven't felt quite that intimately in some while. I vote with my pants on. I can't feel that hopeful about it. These people care deeply about things I care about and they believe in the power they possess to affect change. That's valuable.
BDS is terribly slow and patchy. The uncommitted campaign has done real work.
On the other hand, though, many people who are invested in maximizing non-fascist general election turnout are also expressing hope. (In the hostage life support analogy, hope in a timely remedy) Hope in bottom-up systems, communities and unions and coalitions negotiating workable structures locally and linking up with other organized populations and implementing working systems as an inevitable swell BEFORE/INSTEAD OF acquiescing to the fascists. (Joe Biden is an old guard imperialist dirtbag, but he is not a fascist)
Only thing I know for sure is we are going to have to take more than two seconds before deciding someone with shared ultimate goals deserves an attacking. That shit is taking us NOWHERE.
Now I think we have here hope vs. hope and I hope we all still have hope in us later.
posted by droomoord at 7:16 PM on March 4 [9 favorites]
I don't think those who want Biden to win re-election should be against or worried about protest votes in the primary. The media is going to horse race the thing to death regardless of facts on the ground. I suspect that, the more likely a Biden loss seems in the general, the more people will show up to vote against a Trump presidency. I'd be more concerned about voter apathy leading to Trump were a Biden win to seem assured.
posted by otsebyatina at 7:30 PM on March 4 [5 favorites]
posted by otsebyatina at 7:30 PM on March 4 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I think that's exactly what happened in 2016 -- no one on the left wanted Trump to win, but we were all so sure that Clinton would win that I think a lot of people who were not enthused about voting for Clinton just...didn't.
For me, I was mostly recovered from a serious, months-long illness on Election Day 2016, and going to the polls represented a physical effort that I deeply resented, given that I had gone from a mild Clinton supporter to, over the course of her disastrous campaign, a pretty serious Hillary Clinton anti-fan. I thought she represented everything that was lame and stodgy and conservative about the democratic party, and I thought it fucking sucked that she would be president. But I also never doubted for a moment that she would be -- until some tiny doubt entered my mind and I realized I did in fact go need to vote, or I'd never forgive myself if something insane happened and I felt I'd in a small way made that bad thing happen.
When I got to the polling place, it was about one in the afternoon, a time when I expected to wait a minute to vote. When I'd voted in 2012, I spent half an hour in line. In 2016, there was not a single voter there. Just me. And right away, I knew.
I think if something like that happens this time, it won't be because mild Biden supporters will have presumed he will win without their vote. Like, I actually think that in 2016 a certain number of people said, "Fuck this asshole, she can be the president without my help," but they assumed she would be president. I think that if those people don't turn out this time, it will be because of a deep revulsion at the idea of voting for the democratic nominee. I do not think it will be because of ambivalence at the outcome -- no one wants Trump to win. I promise, whatever you may think, they really don't.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:55 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
For me, I was mostly recovered from a serious, months-long illness on Election Day 2016, and going to the polls represented a physical effort that I deeply resented, given that I had gone from a mild Clinton supporter to, over the course of her disastrous campaign, a pretty serious Hillary Clinton anti-fan. I thought she represented everything that was lame and stodgy and conservative about the democratic party, and I thought it fucking sucked that she would be president. But I also never doubted for a moment that she would be -- until some tiny doubt entered my mind and I realized I did in fact go need to vote, or I'd never forgive myself if something insane happened and I felt I'd in a small way made that bad thing happen.
When I got to the polling place, it was about one in the afternoon, a time when I expected to wait a minute to vote. When I'd voted in 2012, I spent half an hour in line. In 2016, there was not a single voter there. Just me. And right away, I knew.
I think if something like that happens this time, it won't be because mild Biden supporters will have presumed he will win without their vote. Like, I actually think that in 2016 a certain number of people said, "Fuck this asshole, she can be the president without my help," but they assumed she would be president. I think that if those people don't turn out this time, it will be because of a deep revulsion at the idea of voting for the democratic nominee. I do not think it will be because of ambivalence at the outcome -- no one wants Trump to win. I promise, whatever you may think, they really don't.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:55 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
The Palestinians didn't exist for American presidents and they don't exist for American presidents in my view. I would guess that there were a couple American presidents who were aware of the fact that they existed, but gave that existence very little consideration. As far as this president [Biden] is concerned, I think he may have won the title of the most pro-Israeli president ever, if that were ever in dispute. And that is for two reasons primarily.
Firstly, he seems to believe viscerally in the complete innocence and virtuosity of Israel. He believes every lie that is spun by their massive, brilliant propaganda machine. I don't think there's a single false utterance that Israel has canonized and has made sacred that the president wouldn't repeat with feeling and belief and tears in his eyes. I believe this is a man who is a true believer. That's the first part.
The second part is that he doesn't see Palestinians. For him, I believe they don't exist. It's perfectly clear in the way that he's talked about Palestinian casualties, for example. Publicly. It's perfectly clear in the way that he talks about an American-Israeli's death with deep, deep emotion and has never expressed the slightest emotion at about tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths. 22000, at this point that we're recording this interview. Of whom 7-9 thousand are children and 2-4 thousand are women, so clearly non-combatants. Many are old people, many others are civilians. Not once has the president expressed the slightest sympathy for the tens of thousands of killed and the 50-60 thousand people who have been maimed. Or the hundreds of thousands of people who are starving right now. His administration has talked about humanitarian this or humanitarian that, and has done almost literally nothing to force Israel to relieve the humanitarian catastrophe that Israel has caused with the support of the United States. So I would say that he's by far the most pro-Israeli president of any of the ones we've seen by far going right back to Woodrow Wilson or Harry Truman.
—Rashid Khalidi
In other interviews, he also goes into the first point, as to why Biden is so obsessed with Israel. Early in his career, Biden writes about being really into Golda Meir. And he was immediately charmed by Israel's charismatic leadership. Charismatic because they are effectively Europeans and Americans living in the middle east because they colonized it. Golda Meir spent significant time as a youth in Milwaukee and Netanyahu in Pennsylvania, so it's like Biden is speaking to another westerner. It makes sense he became a true believer.
posted by i like crows very much at 10:47 PM on March 4 [10 favorites]
Firstly, he seems to believe viscerally in the complete innocence and virtuosity of Israel. He believes every lie that is spun by their massive, brilliant propaganda machine. I don't think there's a single false utterance that Israel has canonized and has made sacred that the president wouldn't repeat with feeling and belief and tears in his eyes. I believe this is a man who is a true believer. That's the first part.
The second part is that he doesn't see Palestinians. For him, I believe they don't exist. It's perfectly clear in the way that he's talked about Palestinian casualties, for example. Publicly. It's perfectly clear in the way that he talks about an American-Israeli's death with deep, deep emotion and has never expressed the slightest emotion at about tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths. 22000, at this point that we're recording this interview. Of whom 7-9 thousand are children and 2-4 thousand are women, so clearly non-combatants. Many are old people, many others are civilians. Not once has the president expressed the slightest sympathy for the tens of thousands of killed and the 50-60 thousand people who have been maimed. Or the hundreds of thousands of people who are starving right now. His administration has talked about humanitarian this or humanitarian that, and has done almost literally nothing to force Israel to relieve the humanitarian catastrophe that Israel has caused with the support of the United States. So I would say that he's by far the most pro-Israeli president of any of the ones we've seen by far going right back to Woodrow Wilson or Harry Truman.
—Rashid Khalidi
In other interviews, he also goes into the first point, as to why Biden is so obsessed with Israel. Early in his career, Biden writes about being really into Golda Meir. And he was immediately charmed by Israel's charismatic leadership. Charismatic because they are effectively Europeans and Americans living in the middle east because they colonized it. Golda Meir spent significant time as a youth in Milwaukee and Netanyahu in Pennsylvania, so it's like Biden is speaking to another westerner. It makes sense he became a true believer.
posted by i like crows very much at 10:47 PM on March 4 [10 favorites]
He did not "expand the war to Yemen." Houthis in Yemen started shooting rockets at random ships in the Red Sea and launching drones with explosives... Painting efforts to stop indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian ships as 'expanding the war' is intellectually dishonest
What is intellectually dishonest is describing the Yemeni attacks on shipping as "random" or "indiscriminate". They were targeted specifically at Israeli shipping. The only precondition that the Yemenis made on ending the attacks was a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. It was a rare, bona fide act of humanitarian military intervention undertaken by Yemen, fully in accordance with liberal internationalist "responsibility to protect" doctrine.
Biden could have peacefully resolved the matter by arranging a ceasefire, and instead chose to expand the violence and bomb Yemen without congressional approval. Thereby making the Red Sea even more dangerous for shipping. And gifting us with possibly the most classic distillation of this man's hopeless leadership: "Is it working? No. Will it continue? Yes!"
posted by nikodym at 11:43 PM on March 4 [11 favorites]
What is intellectually dishonest is describing the Yemeni attacks on shipping as "random" or "indiscriminate". They were targeted specifically at Israeli shipping. The only precondition that the Yemenis made on ending the attacks was a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. It was a rare, bona fide act of humanitarian military intervention undertaken by Yemen, fully in accordance with liberal internationalist "responsibility to protect" doctrine.
Biden could have peacefully resolved the matter by arranging a ceasefire, and instead chose to expand the violence and bomb Yemen without congressional approval. Thereby making the Red Sea even more dangerous for shipping. And gifting us with possibly the most classic distillation of this man's hopeless leadership: "Is it working? No. Will it continue? Yes!"
posted by nikodym at 11:43 PM on March 4 [11 favorites]
What is intellectually dishonest is describing the Yemeni attacks on shipping as "random" or "indiscriminate". They were targeted specifically at Israeli shipping. The only precondition that the Yemenis made on ending the attacks was a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. It was a rare, bona fide act of humanitarian military intervention undertaken by Yemen, fully in accordance with liberal internationalist "responsibility to protect" doctrine.
Absolutely not. There are only two options here: either the Houthis are indiscriminately launching rockets at random ships, or their attempts to target Israeli shipping are so astonishingly and dangerously incompetent as to amount to the former. That Houthis have launched rockets at or attempted to hijack many, many clearly not Israeli ships is beyond dispute. It's factual, literally just look at the Wikipedia page detailing all the ships that have been targeted. And you know what? Even if the Houthis had only been attacking Israeli ships, targeting civilian shipping is a war crime. Hostage-taking-- something else the Houthis have done during this crisis-- is a war crime. Even HRW, an organization that has had no compunction against calling attention to Israeli war crimes, has made this point.
So the Houthis are, at best, attempting to commit war crimes, mostly against civilian ships with no relationship whatsoever to Israel, harming their Arab neighbors' economies more than Israel's, risking the lives of countless civilians-- oh, and just as a reminder, screwing up efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Sudan in the process. It's not noble. It's not responsible. It's not humanitarian. And it sure as hell isn't doing a damn thing to stop Israeli war crimes.
Biden could have peacefully resolved the matter by arranging a ceasefire, and instead chose to expand the violence and bomb Yemen without congressional approval. Thereby making the Red Sea even more dangerous for shipping.
This is such insane logic and to me is emblematic of the absurd extent to which one must be willing to distort reality in order to blame Joe Biden for everything about this crisis. Instead of blaming the Houthis for endangering civilians in the Red Sea by irresponsibly shooting rockets at everything they possibly can and attempting to hijack ships, you're blaming Joe Biden for... not magically conjuring up a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as if the Houthis had absolutely no agency and had no choice but to start committing war crimes in response. That's intellectually dishonest, man. Or indicative of some serious mental gymnastics. One or the other. What's making the Red Sea dangerous is Houthi attacks. The party responsible for Houthi attacks is the Houthis. The only party in a position to stop Houthi attacks and stop putting literally everyone in the Red Sea and the countries around it in danger is... the Houthis. Don't deny them of agency over their own irresponsible and pointless violence.
posted by Method Man at 12:23 AM on March 5 [19 favorites]
Absolutely not. There are only two options here: either the Houthis are indiscriminately launching rockets at random ships, or their attempts to target Israeli shipping are so astonishingly and dangerously incompetent as to amount to the former. That Houthis have launched rockets at or attempted to hijack many, many clearly not Israeli ships is beyond dispute. It's factual, literally just look at the Wikipedia page detailing all the ships that have been targeted. And you know what? Even if the Houthis had only been attacking Israeli ships, targeting civilian shipping is a war crime. Hostage-taking-- something else the Houthis have done during this crisis-- is a war crime. Even HRW, an organization that has had no compunction against calling attention to Israeli war crimes, has made this point.
So the Houthis are, at best, attempting to commit war crimes, mostly against civilian ships with no relationship whatsoever to Israel, harming their Arab neighbors' economies more than Israel's, risking the lives of countless civilians-- oh, and just as a reminder, screwing up efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Sudan in the process. It's not noble. It's not responsible. It's not humanitarian. And it sure as hell isn't doing a damn thing to stop Israeli war crimes.
Biden could have peacefully resolved the matter by arranging a ceasefire, and instead chose to expand the violence and bomb Yemen without congressional approval. Thereby making the Red Sea even more dangerous for shipping.
This is such insane logic and to me is emblematic of the absurd extent to which one must be willing to distort reality in order to blame Joe Biden for everything about this crisis. Instead of blaming the Houthis for endangering civilians in the Red Sea by irresponsibly shooting rockets at everything they possibly can and attempting to hijack ships, you're blaming Joe Biden for... not magically conjuring up a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as if the Houthis had absolutely no agency and had no choice but to start committing war crimes in response. That's intellectually dishonest, man. Or indicative of some serious mental gymnastics. One or the other. What's making the Red Sea dangerous is Houthi attacks. The party responsible for Houthi attacks is the Houthis. The only party in a position to stop Houthi attacks and stop putting literally everyone in the Red Sea and the countries around it in danger is... the Houthis. Don't deny them of agency over their own irresponsible and pointless violence.
posted by Method Man at 12:23 AM on March 5 [19 favorites]
I can excuse genocide, but I draw the line at delays to shipping!
For the love of god. I can hold two separate thoughts in my head. I can condemn Israeli war crimes and also point out that the Houthi attacks are stupid, dangerous, and utterly useless at achieving their purported aim. I'm not about to let you snidely attempt to paint me as a supporter of genocide for saying that shooting rockets at random civilian ships is not okay.
posted by Method Man at 12:41 AM on March 5 [10 favorites]
For the love of god. I can hold two separate thoughts in my head. I can condemn Israeli war crimes and also point out that the Houthi attacks are stupid, dangerous, and utterly useless at achieving their purported aim. I'm not about to let you snidely attempt to paint me as a supporter of genocide for saying that shooting rockets at random civilian ships is not okay.
posted by Method Man at 12:41 AM on March 5 [10 favorites]
>>I can excuse genocide, but I draw the line at delays to shipping!
What an embarrassingly stupid take.
posted by hototogisu at 12:43 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]
What an embarrassingly stupid take.
posted by hototogisu at 12:43 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]
That's literally Biden's position. Starving two million people to death and slaughtering people at a rate not seen since Rwanda? Time to send more weapons and veto ceasefire resolutions. Ships needing to detour around Africa for the duration of an active genocide? That's a war crime Jack!
posted by nikodym at 12:47 AM on March 5 [7 favorites]
posted by nikodym at 12:47 AM on March 5 [7 favorites]
It's factual, literally just look at the Wikipedia page detailing all the ships that have been targeted. And you know what? Even if the Houthis had only been attacking Israeli ships, targeting civilian shipping is a war crime. Hostage-taking-- something else the Houthis have done during this crisis-- is a war crime. Even HRW, an organization that has had no compunction against calling attention to Israeli war crimes, has made this point.Don't go off the flags of convenience that ships sail under, the majority of vessels the Houthis have targeted are actually owned by Israeli/British/American interests, which is consistent with their declared blockade.
This isn't surprising as Iranian intelligence has been providing them with targeting data, the same way the US has been providing Israel with targeting data.
posted by zymil at 12:55 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]
That's literally Biden's position. Starving two million people to death and slaughtering people at a rate not seen since Rwanda? Time to send more weapons and veto ceasefire resolutions. Ships needing to detour around Africa for the duration of an active genocide? That's a war crime Jack!
I'm sure the children dying of hunger and disease in Darfur don't mind the extra wait for aid while the Houthis continue with a tactic that has an absolutely zero percent chance of stopping or preventing a single Israeli war crime. Your concern about starvation and suffering doesn't seem to extend to them, though. Why bother being upset about something you can't blame on Joe Biden?
posted by Method Man at 12:57 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]
I'm sure the children dying of hunger and disease in Darfur don't mind the extra wait for aid while the Houthis continue with a tactic that has an absolutely zero percent chance of stopping or preventing a single Israeli war crime. Your concern about starvation and suffering doesn't seem to extend to them, though. Why bother being upset about something you can't blame on Joe Biden?
posted by Method Man at 12:57 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]
Oh I see. The Biden Administration bombed Yemen while sponsoring genocide in Gaza because they just Care So Much about children in Darfur dying of hunger and disease! Well now it all makes sense, what a great humanitarian President he is. Sorry but right now you can either pretend to care about starvation and suffering OR you can defend US policy, but you obviously cant do both.
posted by nikodym at 1:07 AM on March 5 [6 favorites]
posted by nikodym at 1:07 AM on March 5 [6 favorites]
Oh I see. The Biden Administration bombed Yemen while sponsoring genocide in Gaza because they just Care So Much about children in Darfur dying of hunger and disease! Well now it all makes sense, what a great humanitarian President he is. Sorry but right now you can either pretend to care about starvation and suffering OR you can defend US policy, but you obviously cant do both.
Okay, man. I'm not talking in the least about why the Biden administration "bombed Yemen." I'm talking about the obvious consequences of Houthi attacks on civilian ships and their utter failure at their ostensible purpose of stopping Israeli violence against Palestinians. I am not going to continue this discussion with someone who can't stop moving the goalposts or implying anyone who disagrees with them supports or excuses genocide. Bye.
posted by Method Man at 1:15 AM on March 5 [3 favorites]
Okay, man. I'm not talking in the least about why the Biden administration "bombed Yemen." I'm talking about the obvious consequences of Houthi attacks on civilian ships and their utter failure at their ostensible purpose of stopping Israeli violence against Palestinians. I am not going to continue this discussion with someone who can't stop moving the goalposts or implying anyone who disagrees with them supports or excuses genocide. Bye.
posted by Method Man at 1:15 AM on March 5 [3 favorites]
Specifically on this claim: I'm sure the children dying of hunger and disease in Darfur don't mind the extra wait for aid while the Houthis continue with a tactic that has an absolutely zero percent chance of stopping or preventing a single Israeli war crime.
It is true that IRC have now diverted their route to Port Sudan (announced last week) that's expected to cause an increase of 40% in shipping costs. But note, that happened last week after months at this point. And one that I've seen in specific public decisions, not just considerations of change. The escalation in security risk wasn't directly from Yemenis, but from the international coalition coming to launch counterstrikes to varying degrees of effectiveness - that's where the security risks are exponentially coming from. China-flagged ships in the meantime have just cooly reaped the economic advantage of this. I don't know what is the "zero percent chance" here, do you accept economic effect? The port of Eilat (while not the first-place port domestically) is down to 80%, even 85% in trade. Do you accept second or third-order effects? The publics of KSA, Jordan, Egypt, even Turkey are now politically activated on the issue - there's been protests from Jordanians when there's news a new land route was announced in Israeli media (which I'm still not really seeing any objectively validated results about in terms of trade recovery). The road to normalisation such as via the Abraham Accords are DOA at this point (even as KSA security will arrest any Muslims who fly the Palestinian flag in Mecca - ask me how I know). The Yemenis are definitely doing a blockade, enforcing their own sanctions - what feels unsporting is that they're doing it contra what the international order would prefer right now.
I'm more than happy to consider and discuss the level of efficacy and in which dimension but this particular point is as fanciful and wilfully tone-deaf as directly blaming Biden for the genocide (I blame him for enabling and in terms of direct action, for absolutely not taking care of Palestinian-Americans, of which there are now numerous accounts and I'm not even talking about those who had violence inflicted on them in the US).
Plenty of people don't understand politics for sure but what's the use of trying to replace that understanding by appealing to legitimacy/authority, which in this case is one's politicised and racialised identity? Now that is an aside that is applicable to many of us in this thread, including me, so I do try to keep that in mind.
posted by cendawanita at 2:01 AM on March 5 [9 favorites]
It is true that IRC have now diverted their route to Port Sudan (announced last week) that's expected to cause an increase of 40% in shipping costs. But note, that happened last week after months at this point. And one that I've seen in specific public decisions, not just considerations of change. The escalation in security risk wasn't directly from Yemenis, but from the international coalition coming to launch counterstrikes to varying degrees of effectiveness - that's where the security risks are exponentially coming from. China-flagged ships in the meantime have just cooly reaped the economic advantage of this. I don't know what is the "zero percent chance" here, do you accept economic effect? The port of Eilat (while not the first-place port domestically) is down to 80%, even 85% in trade. Do you accept second or third-order effects? The publics of KSA, Jordan, Egypt, even Turkey are now politically activated on the issue - there's been protests from Jordanians when there's news a new land route was announced in Israeli media (which I'm still not really seeing any objectively validated results about in terms of trade recovery). The road to normalisation such as via the Abraham Accords are DOA at this point (even as KSA security will arrest any Muslims who fly the Palestinian flag in Mecca - ask me how I know). The Yemenis are definitely doing a blockade, enforcing their own sanctions - what feels unsporting is that they're doing it contra what the international order would prefer right now.
I'm more than happy to consider and discuss the level of efficacy and in which dimension but this particular point is as fanciful and wilfully tone-deaf as directly blaming Biden for the genocide (I blame him for enabling and in terms of direct action, for absolutely not taking care of Palestinian-Americans, of which there are now numerous accounts and I'm not even talking about those who had violence inflicted on them in the US).
Plenty of people don't understand politics for sure but what's the use of trying to replace that understanding by appealing to legitimacy/authority, which in this case is one's politicised and racialised identity? Now that is an aside that is applicable to many of us in this thread, including me, so I do try to keep that in mind.
posted by cendawanita at 2:01 AM on March 5 [9 favorites]
Oh final interjection from me: "delay" in aid vs "blockage" in aid isn't just a matter of degrees, in the same way that "active prejudice and discrimination leading to loss of economic potential and quality of life," isn't the same as "being directly killed from that active prejudice at rates unimaginable except by administrative practice" imo. Bluntly this is my personal difference in how I've lived with the West in all these decades of Palestinians being occupied and killed almost daily, and now, in this season of genocide.
posted by cendawanita at 2:07 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 2:07 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]
Do the sailors on the ships being targeted as human beings? I'm seeing the attacks on the ships being portrayed as an abstract attack on shipping.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:54 AM on March 5 [2 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:54 AM on March 5 [2 favorites]
For most states around the world,they clearly count more than thousands of Palestinians.
posted by sagc at 4:15 AM on March 5 [3 favorites]
posted by sagc at 4:15 AM on March 5 [3 favorites]
escalation in security risk wasn't directly from Yemenis, but from the international coalition coming to launch counterstrikes
How is destroying missiles in Yemen aimed at civilian ships interpreted as increasing security risk?
The ships Yemen were targeting were always in danger regardless. The supposed China flagged ships you mention that were never in danger, apparently still aren't. So what exactly is this security risk?
Anyway, like all my discussion with anti-vaxxers... the only thing you can do is state the truth and let everyone else judge, you'll never convince them otherwise. In the end, like my job as an analyst / finance manager, you'll never manage to convince everyone. But if your analysis is good, you can make the right decisions and profit from it - you, your family, your organizations. Those that make the right decisions prosper, while the deluded ones don't.
posted by xdvesper at 4:23 AM on March 5
How is destroying missiles in Yemen aimed at civilian ships interpreted as increasing security risk?
The ships Yemen were targeting were always in danger regardless. The supposed China flagged ships you mention that were never in danger, apparently still aren't. So what exactly is this security risk?
Anyway, like all my discussion with anti-vaxxers... the only thing you can do is state the truth and let everyone else judge, you'll never convince them otherwise. In the end, like my job as an analyst / finance manager, you'll never manage to convince everyone. But if your analysis is good, you can make the right decisions and profit from it - you, your family, your organizations. Those that make the right decisions prosper, while the deluded ones don't.
posted by xdvesper at 4:23 AM on March 5
I'll be voting for Biden from up here in Canada. Do I want to? Eh, not really, but I would rather throw him a vote, despite my gut feeling that Trump is coming back. I've said that if Trump wins a second term, it will be time for me to consider renouncing my US citizenship, but I am not sure if I would. (For one thing, my strongest tie to the States is my mom and I need to be able to get to her with minimal difficulty.)
I am already concerned with Canada likely getting a Con majority in our next election, and indeed the party itself has been taking notes from the Republicans as they are now. Alberta's premier is waging a war on trans kids, the lead of the Conservative party agrees with her (our next possible PM), the Ontario premier is gutting public healthcare, and I don't know if Trudeau's charisma is gonna get him another term. If anyone is thinking this country is safer than the US, that may not be true for very much longer.
So yeah, I'll vote Biden.
posted by Kitteh at 4:42 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]
I am already concerned with Canada likely getting a Con majority in our next election, and indeed the party itself has been taking notes from the Republicans as they are now. Alberta's premier is waging a war on trans kids, the lead of the Conservative party agrees with her (our next possible PM), the Ontario premier is gutting public healthcare, and I don't know if Trudeau's charisma is gonna get him another term. If anyone is thinking this country is safer than the US, that may not be true for very much longer.
So yeah, I'll vote Biden.
posted by Kitteh at 4:42 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]
Do the sailors on the ships being targeted as human beings? I'm seeing the attacks on the ships being portrayed as an abstract attack on shipping.
I did a quick double-check on wiki to recollect because my daily scans didn't highlight any particular incidents I could vaguely recall, so barring additional info, outside of Yemeni fishermen being killed by (errant?) missile strikes from the western coalition, the Ansarallah have been sticking to standard warfare conduct with regards to what happens to sailors when they board those ships, which probably contributes to the bloodless coverage to date.
The latest one that's captured multiple news cycles is the MV Rubymar, which has now sunk, and impacting the environment, due to no action to tow the ship despite the presence of UK naval assets and advance notice provided by the enemy combatant - iirc in accordance to standard wartime conduct.
How is destroying missiles in Yemen aimed at civilian ships interpreted as increasing security risk?
The ships Yemen were targeting were always in danger regardless. The supposed China flagged ships you mention that were never in danger, apparently still aren't. So what exactly is this security risk?
My reply above hopefully addressed this crossed wires riposte as well. In addition, as you may know from your day job, objectively the security risk being higher has been reflected by the actuarial tables - it's the insurance spiking that's a critical factor for the additional costs and attendant knock-on effects. You may want to query the insurance firms for being so disagreeable.
posted by cendawanita at 5:45 AM on March 5 [3 favorites]
I did a quick double-check on wiki to recollect because my daily scans didn't highlight any particular incidents I could vaguely recall, so barring additional info, outside of Yemeni fishermen being killed by (errant?) missile strikes from the western coalition, the Ansarallah have been sticking to standard warfare conduct with regards to what happens to sailors when they board those ships, which probably contributes to the bloodless coverage to date.
The latest one that's captured multiple news cycles is the MV Rubymar, which has now sunk, and impacting the environment, due to no action to tow the ship despite the presence of UK naval assets and advance notice provided by the enemy combatant - iirc in accordance to standard wartime conduct.
How is destroying missiles in Yemen aimed at civilian ships interpreted as increasing security risk?
The ships Yemen were targeting were always in danger regardless. The supposed China flagged ships you mention that were never in danger, apparently still aren't. So what exactly is this security risk?
My reply above hopefully addressed this crossed wires riposte as well. In addition, as you may know from your day job, objectively the security risk being higher has been reflected by the actuarial tables - it's the insurance spiking that's a critical factor for the additional costs and attendant knock-on effects. You may want to query the insurance firms for being so disagreeable.
posted by cendawanita at 5:45 AM on March 5 [3 favorites]
I think it is worth noting the double standard at play with regards to Israel killing civilians vs any at least nominally pro-Palestinian power killing civilians.
When Israel kills civilians this is justified as regrettable but necessary and unavoidable collatoral damage in their war against Hamas.
Yet when Hamas or its allies kill civilians that is depicted as the most vile of actions and we are to believe that one single civilian death by Hamas is intolerable.
Now, as it happens, I agree that it is morally unjustifiable for any military force to kill even one civilian in pursuit of its military goals. But I note that standard is not universally applied by the apologists for Israel or America's support of Israel.
If it is morally justified for Israel to murder 30,000 civilians then how is it NOT morally justified for Hamas to have murderd 1,000? It's war right? Civilian casualties are inevitable in war and only stupid DFH's think we should care about those dead people, right?
From the "war break things, deal with it hippie" viewpoint, Hamas' actions on 10/7 are morally superior to Israel's response. In 2022 around 172 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israel. In 2023 Hamas killed 5ish Israelis for every Palestinian death the prior year.
Israel has now killed 30ish Palestinians for every Israeli death on 10/7.
By the moral calculus that Biden and his allies want us to follow, Hamas is the morally superior force.
This, of course, is an utterly absurd argument. It is rooted in the idea that ANY civilian deaths are acceptable in pursuit of a military goal.
But that's my point.
The defenders of Biden and Israel are engagin in Marvel Superhero Morality. Why is it OK for Israel to murder all those ciivlians? Because they're the GOOD GUYS so what they do is, by definiiton, good. Because they're good. And what good people do is good, duh.
While a single sailor killed by a pro-Palestinian militant is an atrocity. Bcause they're the BAD GUYS and wha they do is, by definition, bad. And what bad people do is bad. Duh.
When we are dealing with a system of moral judgement that depends on knowing who took an action before we can determine the morality of that action, we are dealing with a system that is not moral in the slightest and is interested only in justifying the actions of its favored group.
posted by sotonohito at 6:42 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]
When Israel kills civilians this is justified as regrettable but necessary and unavoidable collatoral damage in their war against Hamas.
Yet when Hamas or its allies kill civilians that is depicted as the most vile of actions and we are to believe that one single civilian death by Hamas is intolerable.
Now, as it happens, I agree that it is morally unjustifiable for any military force to kill even one civilian in pursuit of its military goals. But I note that standard is not universally applied by the apologists for Israel or America's support of Israel.
If it is morally justified for Israel to murder 30,000 civilians then how is it NOT morally justified for Hamas to have murderd 1,000? It's war right? Civilian casualties are inevitable in war and only stupid DFH's think we should care about those dead people, right?
From the "war break things, deal with it hippie" viewpoint, Hamas' actions on 10/7 are morally superior to Israel's response. In 2022 around 172 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israel. In 2023 Hamas killed 5ish Israelis for every Palestinian death the prior year.
Israel has now killed 30ish Palestinians for every Israeli death on 10/7.
By the moral calculus that Biden and his allies want us to follow, Hamas is the morally superior force.
This, of course, is an utterly absurd argument. It is rooted in the idea that ANY civilian deaths are acceptable in pursuit of a military goal.
But that's my point.
The defenders of Biden and Israel are engagin in Marvel Superhero Morality. Why is it OK for Israel to murder all those ciivlians? Because they're the GOOD GUYS so what they do is, by definiiton, good. Because they're good. And what good people do is good, duh.
While a single sailor killed by a pro-Palestinian militant is an atrocity. Bcause they're the BAD GUYS and wha they do is, by definition, bad. And what bad people do is bad. Duh.
When we are dealing with a system of moral judgement that depends on knowing who took an action before we can determine the morality of that action, we are dealing with a system that is not moral in the slightest and is interested only in justifying the actions of its favored group.
posted by sotonohito at 6:42 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]
In the meantime, some sausage-making news: Before Vice President Kamala Harris delivered pointed remarks Sunday about the need for an immediate six-week cease-fire between Israel and Hamas as part of a deal to release hostages, officials at the National Security Council toned down parts of her speech, three current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official familiar with the speech told NBC News.
The original draft of Harris’ speech, when it was sent to the National Security Council for review, was harsher on Israel about the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the need for more aid than were the remarks she ultimately delivered, according to one of the current officials and the former official.
One of the U.S. officials said the initial draft specifically called out Israel more directly about the need to immediately allow additional aid trucks in. The official described Harris’ original language as strong but not controversial.
(...)The person said Harris had gone to great lengths to show up as a more empathetic voice in her outreach to Muslim and Arab Americans, as well as other Democrats, who are disturbed by the worsening situation after months of bombardments.
“Her hands are tied,” the person said. “People are not attacking her because they know that this is not her policy. This is Biden’s war. This is Biden’s failure.”
“I think she would have asked for a cease-fire a long time ago,” the person added.
posted by cendawanita at 6:46 AM on March 5 [6 favorites]
The original draft of Harris’ speech, when it was sent to the National Security Council for review, was harsher on Israel about the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the need for more aid than were the remarks she ultimately delivered, according to one of the current officials and the former official.
One of the U.S. officials said the initial draft specifically called out Israel more directly about the need to immediately allow additional aid trucks in. The official described Harris’ original language as strong but not controversial.
(...)The person said Harris had gone to great lengths to show up as a more empathetic voice in her outreach to Muslim and Arab Americans, as well as other Democrats, who are disturbed by the worsening situation after months of bombardments.
“Her hands are tied,” the person said. “People are not attacking her because they know that this is not her policy. This is Biden’s war. This is Biden’s failure.”
“I think she would have asked for a cease-fire a long time ago,” the person added.
posted by cendawanita at 6:46 AM on March 5 [6 favorites]
Six weeks. Well done Michigan, they want to press pause on the genocide for the rest of primary season. Before resuming.
posted by nikodym at 7:45 AM on March 5 [7 favorites]
posted by nikodym at 7:45 AM on March 5 [7 favorites]
Mod note: One comment removed. Be sensitive to context, specifically, Engage with what people are really saying. Respond appropriately to people's mood and investment in a topic. Refrain from making light jokes in a serious discussion.
posted by loup (staff) at 10:08 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]
posted by loup (staff) at 10:08 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]
Thread from Mark Weisbrot: Just this morning we released results from a poll I worked on in conjunction with @YouGov, and wow. A solid majority of Americans support ending arms shipments to Israel until it stops its attacks on #Gaza
We specifically asked about stopping arms shipments to Israel, not a ceasefire, because “ceasefire” means so many different things to different people. “Stopping arms shipment” is specific and unambiguous
We saw a big partisan divide in responses. Fully 62% of President Biden’s 2020 voters support halting arms shipments to Israel. Only 14% of Biden voters do not. This is his electoral base.
Even a sizable minority (30%) of Republicans favor stopping arms shipments. But there is another result that the Biden campaign should be worried about: Of those who did not vote in the 2020 presidential election, fully 60% agreed that the U.S. should block weapons shipments. These are the voters Biden needs to turn out to expand his base.
Poll: Majority of Americans Say Biden Should Halt Weapons Shipments to Israel
posted by cendawanita at 10:12 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]
We specifically asked about stopping arms shipments to Israel, not a ceasefire, because “ceasefire” means so many different things to different people. “Stopping arms shipment” is specific and unambiguous
We saw a big partisan divide in responses. Fully 62% of President Biden’s 2020 voters support halting arms shipments to Israel. Only 14% of Biden voters do not. This is his electoral base.
Even a sizable minority (30%) of Republicans favor stopping arms shipments. But there is another result that the Biden campaign should be worried about: Of those who did not vote in the 2020 presidential election, fully 60% agreed that the U.S. should block weapons shipments. These are the voters Biden needs to turn out to expand his base.
Poll: Majority of Americans Say Biden Should Halt Weapons Shipments to Israel
posted by cendawanita at 10:12 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]
Meanwhile, the pro-Israel forces in certain media are responding with quiet dignity and grace to the increasing pushback. (Twitter, link to Atlantic cover)
posted by delfin at 10:17 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]
posted by delfin at 10:17 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]
responding with quiet dignity and grace
In the UK they refer to that as "chucking one's toys out of the pram".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:04 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]
In the UK they refer to that as "chucking one's toys out of the pram".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:04 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]
The defenders of Biden and Israel are engagin in Marvel Superhero Morality. Why is it OK for Israel to murder all those ciivlians? Because they're the GOOD GUYS so what they do is, by definiiton, good. Because they're good. And what good people do is good, duh.
While a single sailor killed by a pro-Palestinian militant is an atrocity. Bcause they're the BAD GUYS and wha they do is, by definition, bad. And what bad people do is bad. Duh.
I never once justified Israeli murder of civilians, or called them the 'good guys', or implied anything other than condemnation of Israel's crimes. I said shooting rockets at civilian shipping is bad and somehow that has metastasized into "Oh, so that's bad but GENOCIDE is okay, huh?" Time and time again throughout this thread people have argued against points that were never made, twisted and distorted the arguments they were responding to, and thrown around accusations of supporting genocide with stunning frivolity. This despite the fact that, frankly, most people in this thread seem to agree: what Israel is doing is, if not, genocide, then at least ethnic cleansing (and if you're quibbling over the distinction, does it even matter at that point?); the astonishing scale of human suffering experienced by the Palestinians in Gaza is unacceptable; and the Biden administration should be taking a much, much harder stance on Netanyahu and the Israeli government. The main point of difference seems to be that some people have decided the Biden administration's policies make any further support for Biden morally unacceptable (and that's their right) while others have decided the alternative's policies would be so abhorrent that they must to varying extents hold their noses and vote for Biden (and that's their right). That's a pretty big point of difference. Does it merit the former implying the latter are Hitler supporters? I would think the answer is of course not, but at this point, given the amount of miscommunication and misunderstanding, I'm not sure how clear a sense anyone in this thread has of anyone else's perspective.
posted by Method Man at 11:11 AM on March 5 [20 favorites]
While a single sailor killed by a pro-Palestinian militant is an atrocity. Bcause they're the BAD GUYS and wha they do is, by definition, bad. And what bad people do is bad. Duh.
I never once justified Israeli murder of civilians, or called them the 'good guys', or implied anything other than condemnation of Israel's crimes. I said shooting rockets at civilian shipping is bad and somehow that has metastasized into "Oh, so that's bad but GENOCIDE is okay, huh?" Time and time again throughout this thread people have argued against points that were never made, twisted and distorted the arguments they were responding to, and thrown around accusations of supporting genocide with stunning frivolity. This despite the fact that, frankly, most people in this thread seem to agree: what Israel is doing is, if not, genocide, then at least ethnic cleansing (and if you're quibbling over the distinction, does it even matter at that point?); the astonishing scale of human suffering experienced by the Palestinians in Gaza is unacceptable; and the Biden administration should be taking a much, much harder stance on Netanyahu and the Israeli government. The main point of difference seems to be that some people have decided the Biden administration's policies make any further support for Biden morally unacceptable (and that's their right) while others have decided the alternative's policies would be so abhorrent that they must to varying extents hold their noses and vote for Biden (and that's their right). That's a pretty big point of difference. Does it merit the former implying the latter are Hitler supporters? I would think the answer is of course not, but at this point, given the amount of miscommunication and misunderstanding, I'm not sure how clear a sense anyone in this thread has of anyone else's perspective.
posted by Method Man at 11:11 AM on March 5 [20 favorites]
Trump on Israel/Gaza: “You have to finish the problem,” the former president said.
How in earth is this better?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:49 AM on March 5 [6 favorites]
How in earth is this better?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:49 AM on March 5 [6 favorites]
How in earth is this better?
Better than Biden giving Bibi time to finish starving everyone in Gaza? It's the same result expressed in different words. And no-one here has said "I'm voting for Trump".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:01 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
Better than Biden giving Bibi time to finish starving everyone in Gaza? It's the same result expressed in different words. And no-one here has said "I'm voting for Trump".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:01 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
"It'd be a better world if there was always at least one right answer instead of a basket of fucked."
-Chrisjen Avasarala, Persepolis Rising.
The idea to shuffle the LOS, to have Whitmer or Harris or anyone is interesting, it's shifty legal AFAISI. But Whitmer is already exploring the option in '28'. She is writing a book. yesterday, "the governor announced the opening of the Michigan Taiwan Office and focused on securing investments in key industries like automotive, semiconductors, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing to create good-paying jobs and bring critical supply chains back home to Michigan." IMO, the bold move economic with cultural and political ramifications. The Michigan Green is more realistic than not.
"Coalition of Prominent Michigan Republicans Endorses Gov. Gretchen Whitmer." 🤔
"in presenting her budget for the 2024 fiscal year, whitmer is in a position with no modern precedent. the state has a record surplus, estimated at just over $9 billion in january, and her democratic party holds majorities, albeit slim ones, in both chambers of the legislature."
there's more but why should she even think of a shuffle that effectively makes her president which, in the United States history, would make two presidents, from Michigan who are not elected.
I don't think she wants to be Jerry Ford.
well for some reason Biden did decide to step down for health reasons, I might see that.
The latest one that's captured multiple news cycles is the MV Rubymar, which has now sunk, and impacting the environment, due to no action to tow the ship despite the presence of UK naval assets and advance notice provided by the enemy combatant - iirc in accordance to standard wartime conduct.
huh.
"Salvage and towing operations were stymied by political barriers in the weeks following the attack. While the United States Navy offered to help tow Rubymar,[10] the nearest port of Djibouti refused to accept the ship because of the risk of explosion from its cargo of fertilizer.[12] Houthi leader Mohammed al-Houthi stated that the group would only allow the ship to be towed if humanitarian aid was supplied to Gaza.[13] By 28 February, the ship was still adrift and waiting to be towed into port, possibly in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.[14]
not the greatest citations but they are citations.
posted by clavdivs at 12:03 PM on March 5
-Chrisjen Avasarala, Persepolis Rising.
The idea to shuffle the LOS, to have Whitmer or Harris or anyone is interesting, it's shifty legal AFAISI. But Whitmer is already exploring the option in '28'. She is writing a book. yesterday, "the governor announced the opening of the Michigan Taiwan Office and focused on securing investments in key industries like automotive, semiconductors, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing to create good-paying jobs and bring critical supply chains back home to Michigan." IMO, the bold move economic with cultural and political ramifications. The Michigan Green is more realistic than not.
"Coalition of Prominent Michigan Republicans Endorses Gov. Gretchen Whitmer." 🤔
"in presenting her budget for the 2024 fiscal year, whitmer is in a position with no modern precedent. the state has a record surplus, estimated at just over $9 billion in january, and her democratic party holds majorities, albeit slim ones, in both chambers of the legislature."
there's more but why should she even think of a shuffle that effectively makes her president which, in the United States history, would make two presidents, from Michigan who are not elected.
I don't think she wants to be Jerry Ford.
well for some reason Biden did decide to step down for health reasons, I might see that.
The latest one that's captured multiple news cycles is the MV Rubymar, which has now sunk, and impacting the environment, due to no action to tow the ship despite the presence of UK naval assets and advance notice provided by the enemy combatant - iirc in accordance to standard wartime conduct.
huh.
"Salvage and towing operations were stymied by political barriers in the weeks following the attack. While the United States Navy offered to help tow Rubymar,[10] the nearest port of Djibouti refused to accept the ship because of the risk of explosion from its cargo of fertilizer.[12] Houthi leader Mohammed al-Houthi stated that the group would only allow the ship to be towed if humanitarian aid was supplied to Gaza.[13] By 28 February, the ship was still adrift and waiting to be towed into port, possibly in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.[14]
not the greatest citations but they are citations.
posted by clavdivs at 12:03 PM on March 5
Trump on Israel/Gaza: “You have to finish the problem,” the former president said.
How in earth is this better
How in earth is it different? "I believe, without Israel as a freestanding state, not a Jew in the world is safe — not a Jew in the world is safe. It’s up to what happens at the moment.
And so, we got a lot of work to do, but we’re not going to — in the meantime, none of it is going to walk away from providing Israel what they need to defend themselves and to finish the job against — against Hamas".
So the President of the USA is saying that Jews in the USA are only safe because of Israel. And that the USA will continue arming Israel to "finish the job".
This also explains why support for Biden's Yemen policy is easily construed as support for genocide. Because when Biden sees a genocide he responds by supporting it unconditionally to the tune of billions of dollars and unlimited diplomatic cover.
But when he sees attacks on shipping, attacks that didn't kill a single person (until the US intervened), which are being undertaken in order to STOP the genocide (and you can argue the efficacy, but it's literally some of the poorest people on Earth stepping up to inflict an economic cost on the perpetrators when nobody else is doing jack shit) - that's when Biden decides to act. By killing even more people.
What an actual monster. And nothing is more absurd than pretending that the bombing of Yemen is being done out of concern for human life or international law, when it is being done by the sponsor of the 21st century's worst crime against humanity literally to ensure that this crime can continue.
If Biden cared about international law or human rights, he wouldn't be bombing Yemen, he'd be bombing Israel to stop their genocide. Except because none of it could happen with US support, he wouldn't need to do that. All he'd need is to make a single phone call, and the entire world knows it.
posted by nikodym at 1:20 PM on March 5 [7 favorites]
How in earth is this better
How in earth is it different? "I believe, without Israel as a freestanding state, not a Jew in the world is safe — not a Jew in the world is safe. It’s up to what happens at the moment.
And so, we got a lot of work to do, but we’re not going to — in the meantime, none of it is going to walk away from providing Israel what they need to defend themselves and to finish the job against — against Hamas".
So the President of the USA is saying that Jews in the USA are only safe because of Israel. And that the USA will continue arming Israel to "finish the job".
This also explains why support for Biden's Yemen policy is easily construed as support for genocide. Because when Biden sees a genocide he responds by supporting it unconditionally to the tune of billions of dollars and unlimited diplomatic cover.
But when he sees attacks on shipping, attacks that didn't kill a single person (until the US intervened), which are being undertaken in order to STOP the genocide (and you can argue the efficacy, but it's literally some of the poorest people on Earth stepping up to inflict an economic cost on the perpetrators when nobody else is doing jack shit) - that's when Biden decides to act. By killing even more people.
What an actual monster. And nothing is more absurd than pretending that the bombing of Yemen is being done out of concern for human life or international law, when it is being done by the sponsor of the 21st century's worst crime against humanity literally to ensure that this crime can continue.
If Biden cared about international law or human rights, he wouldn't be bombing Yemen, he'd be bombing Israel to stop their genocide. Except because none of it could happen with US support, he wouldn't need to do that. All he'd need is to make a single phone call, and the entire world knows it.
posted by nikodym at 1:20 PM on March 5 [7 favorites]
And no-one here has said "I'm voting for Trump"
If someone was trying to stealthily harm Biden's chances it would be unexpected for them to announce their intentions. What is evident though is the lack of critical neutrality combined with black and white thinking about complex historical issues. It's not good for mental health, and is the most common TV trope for kids.
posted by Brian B. at 1:23 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
If someone was trying to stealthily harm Biden's chances it would be unexpected for them to announce their intentions. What is evident though is the lack of critical neutrality combined with black and white thinking about complex historical issues. It's not good for mental health, and is the most common TV trope for kids.
posted by Brian B. at 1:23 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
Method Man My apologies, I was not directing that "and his supporters" at anyone here and I should have been much more explicit in that given the history of this thread in particular and the sensitivity of this in general.
I do think that a great many people do have a very simple Good Guys/Bad Guys line of thinking going on. As evidenced by the breathless reporting and tone of universal and unqeuivical condemnation in the news reporting on more or less everything bad that pro-Palestinian forces do.
I'm not advocating for the pro-Palestinian side not to be condemned for their bad actions. It's wrong to kill people, it's even more wrong to kill civilians who didn't sign up to fight.
But note that not one single news report talks about "collatoral damage" when pro-Palestinian forces kill a bunch of people in pursuit of their goal?
Israel blows up a hospital, hundreds dead are "collatoral damage" and we must be realitic and acknowledge that in war sometimes civilians will be hurt.
Yemen blows up a ship, everyone there is a "victim of a terrorist attack" and we must be outraged because those evil terrorists killed those innocent people.
It would seem that President Biden thinks that way.
posted by sotonohito at 1:25 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]
I do think that a great many people do have a very simple Good Guys/Bad Guys line of thinking going on. As evidenced by the breathless reporting and tone of universal and unqeuivical condemnation in the news reporting on more or less everything bad that pro-Palestinian forces do.
I'm not advocating for the pro-Palestinian side not to be condemned for their bad actions. It's wrong to kill people, it's even more wrong to kill civilians who didn't sign up to fight.
But note that not one single news report talks about "collatoral damage" when pro-Palestinian forces kill a bunch of people in pursuit of their goal?
Israel blows up a hospital, hundreds dead are "collatoral damage" and we must be realitic and acknowledge that in war sometimes civilians will be hurt.
Yemen blows up a ship, everyone there is a "victim of a terrorist attack" and we must be outraged because those evil terrorists killed those innocent people.
It would seem that President Biden thinks that way.
posted by sotonohito at 1:25 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]
If someone was trying to stealthily harm Biden's chances it would be unexpected for them to announce their intentions. What is evident though is the lack of neutrality combined with black and white thinking about complex historical issues.
I think this thread has reached hundreds of comments precisely because some people utterly reject a tone of neutrality under the circumstances. Some people view genocide as something completely apart from "complex historical issues." Quite a few people here are anything but stealthy in expressing their disbelief that, with Trump looming, this is the best we can do?
I am not sure what you're insinuating, but in addition to any number of deceitful actors working nefarious angles to keep people from voting for Joseph Biden, there are people who are tired of pretending it's not that bad and this is just one more less-than-ideal situation to stomach to ensure the end of the world doesn't happen.
posted by elkevelvet at 1:32 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
I think this thread has reached hundreds of comments precisely because some people utterly reject a tone of neutrality under the circumstances. Some people view genocide as something completely apart from "complex historical issues." Quite a few people here are anything but stealthy in expressing their disbelief that, with Trump looming, this is the best we can do?
I am not sure what you're insinuating, but in addition to any number of deceitful actors working nefarious angles to keep people from voting for Joseph Biden, there are people who are tired of pretending it's not that bad and this is just one more less-than-ideal situation to stomach to ensure the end of the world doesn't happen.
posted by elkevelvet at 1:32 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
lack of critical neutrality
If you think "critical neutrality" is the appropriate response to ongoing genocide then I am not particularly interested in your opinions, thanks.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:39 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]
If you think "critical neutrality" is the appropriate response to ongoing genocide then I am not particularly interested in your opinions, thanks.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:39 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]
Despite all the heated rhetoric in this thread, I get the impression most people here think it is that bad, and yet could be even worse.
I personally think Biden could be encouraged to thoughtfully improve, whereas Trump could only possibly be counted on to thoughtlessly fuck up at doing worse.
posted by otsebyatina at 1:49 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
I personally think Biden could be encouraged to thoughtfully improve, whereas Trump could only possibly be counted on to thoughtlessly fuck up at doing worse.
posted by otsebyatina at 1:49 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
Anyone claiming Biden has been worse for Muslims than Trump has, I'm sorry, demonstrated a lack of perspective so profound as to be untethered from reality, and as a Muslim-American who would have to live with the consequences of a second Trump term, I am not going to just let it slide.
With all due respect, Method Man, it's hard to take your arguments seriously when you accuse Khalidi of lacking perspective. Let's set aside the fact that he's Palestinian-American, one of the most respected historians on the topic, has been involved in peace negotiations, has lived in Lebanon during Israeli bombings, has friends and family in Palestine, some of whom have very likely been killed in the ongoing genocide. His family has been involved in Palestinian politics for generations. His father worked for the UN. His great-great-great uncle exchanged letters with Herzl when he was first planning to colonize Palestine, telling him that Palestine was already inhabited. You can accuse Rashid Khalidi of many things, but lacking perspective is not one of them.
Let's set all of that aside.
His main point is that Biden has been worse for Muslims. This is a historical claim. From where I'm sitting, this is obviously true. Trump has said horrible things and pushed through awful legislation— nobody's defending any of that— but he did not increase funding, give military and political support, and repeat the propaganda of a foreign apartheid state committing what is likely to be recorded as the worst genocide the world has seen in modern history.
You can argue about what Trump would have done in his shoes or what Biden claims to want to do or what either of them might do in a potential second term, but that isn't very relevant to a historical claim about what has already happened.
posted by i like crows very much at 1:50 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
With all due respect, Method Man, it's hard to take your arguments seriously when you accuse Khalidi of lacking perspective. Let's set aside the fact that he's Palestinian-American, one of the most respected historians on the topic, has been involved in peace negotiations, has lived in Lebanon during Israeli bombings, has friends and family in Palestine, some of whom have very likely been killed in the ongoing genocide. His family has been involved in Palestinian politics for generations. His father worked for the UN. His great-great-great uncle exchanged letters with Herzl when he was first planning to colonize Palestine, telling him that Palestine was already inhabited. You can accuse Rashid Khalidi of many things, but lacking perspective is not one of them.
Let's set all of that aside.
His main point is that Biden has been worse for Muslims. This is a historical claim. From where I'm sitting, this is obviously true. Trump has said horrible things and pushed through awful legislation— nobody's defending any of that— but he did not increase funding, give military and political support, and repeat the propaganda of a foreign apartheid state committing what is likely to be recorded as the worst genocide the world has seen in modern history.
You can argue about what Trump would have done in his shoes or what Biden claims to want to do or what either of them might do in a potential second term, but that isn't very relevant to a historical claim about what has already happened.
posted by i like crows very much at 1:50 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
Two months ago, Biden spoke at a political event in South Carolina held at Mother Emanuel AME Church ("...a poison that’s for too long haunted this nation. What is that poison? White supremacy"). When audience members called for a ceasefire, he responded, "I’ve been quietly working with the Israeli government to get them to reduce and significantly get out of Gaza. I’ve been using all that I can to do that." (Four years ago, I made a comment about Biden's ties to this community.) "Remarks by President Biden at a Political Event, Charleston, SC" Transcript (whitehouse.gov, 1/8/24).
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:53 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:53 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
I personally think Biden could be encouraged to thoughtfully improve, whereas Trump could only possibly be counted on to thoughtlessly fuck up at doing worse.
I'd like to believe this. I am not in a position to vote for anyone in the US, but everything that happens in the US is writ large on the place I call home. I couldn't ignore this election if I tried to.
posted by elkevelvet at 2:02 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
I'd like to believe this. I am not in a position to vote for anyone in the US, but everything that happens in the US is writ large on the place I call home. I couldn't ignore this election if I tried to.
posted by elkevelvet at 2:02 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
about complex historical issues.
Well yeah. for example:"This also explains why support for Biden's Yemen policy is easily construed as support for genocide. Because when Biden sees a genocide"
all deduced from a press release from January 12rd 2023. the houthis had already been begun attack in shipping and the allied response hadn't begun until January. I noticed in the same press release how Biden is denouncing and warning about the Ascension of Donald Trump as president.
nonetheless, what makes it complex is addressing comments that are based on moral conflation, based erroneous timeline and on the fact that Biden somehow has a magical phone that will stop Istael tomorrow which is a fallacy.
and I ask again there are over 100 Republicans holding up aid to Israel i and Ukraine here is a question can the president of the United States stop that aid from going to Israel authorized by Congress but yet to be approved by the Senate.
posted by clavdivs at 2:10 PM on March 5 [1 favorite]
Well yeah. for example:"This also explains why support for Biden's Yemen policy is easily construed as support for genocide. Because when Biden sees a genocide"
all deduced from a press release from January 12rd 2023. the houthis had already been begun attack in shipping and the allied response hadn't begun until January. I noticed in the same press release how Biden is denouncing and warning about the Ascension of Donald Trump as president.
nonetheless, what makes it complex is addressing comments that are based on moral conflation, based erroneous timeline and on the fact that Biden somehow has a magical phone that will stop Istael tomorrow which is a fallacy.
and I ask again there are over 100 Republicans holding up aid to Israel i and Ukraine here is a question can the president of the United States stop that aid from going to Israel authorized by Congress but yet to be approved by the Senate.
posted by clavdivs at 2:10 PM on March 5 [1 favorite]
His main point is that Biden has been worse for Muslims. This is a historical claim. From where I'm sitting, this is obviously true. Trump has said horrible things and pushed through awful legislation— nobody's defending any of that— but he did not increase funding, give military and political support, and repeat the propaganda of a foreign apartheid state committing what is likely to be recorded as the worst genocide the world has seen in modern history.
Yes he did. Trump's budget requests routinely included increases in the amount of military assistance to Israel. The sole premise of your argument here is that support for Israel is singlehandedly worse for all Muslims than banning Muslims from entering the country, spreading disinformation that led to a massive increase in hate crimes against Muslims, and endorsing the idea of forcing Muslims in America to register themselves in a national database... all while also continuing to supply Israel militarily, endorsing the annexation of land in the West Bank by Israeli settlers, and pointlessly antagonizing virtually the entire region with his move of the US embassy to Israel.
Let's set aside the fact that he's Palestinian-American, one of the most respected historians on the topic, has been involved in peace negotiations, has lived in Lebanon during Israeli bombings, has friends and family in Palestine, some of whom have very likely been killed in the ongoing genocide
And I will not in a million years tell him he has no perspective on Palestinians, whether in Palestine or in America, but he very explicitly stated he was talking about all Muslims. And I am tired of the insistence that literally all Muslim issues-- whether you're an Iranian, Iraqi, Georgian, Bosnian, Algerian, Lebanese, Chechen, Indonesian, or yes, Palestinian Muslim-- boil down to Israel and Palestine and nothing else. I am tired of the expectation that as a Muslim the only thing I will or should care about is Gaza when there is a real risk of the election of a guy whose proposals about how to treat Muslims in America drew comparisons to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews. I am tired of the expectation, oftentimes the demand, that as a Muslim-- not as a voter, or as a human, but as a Muslim-- I should set aside any other political concern, including ones that are very personal to my heritage and my ethnic background. I'm not playing into it anymore. I will not for a second criticize Rashid Khalidi for blasting Biden's approach to Palestine and Palestinians. But if he wants to insist that Biden has been more dangerous, more destructive, more threatening to Muslims in general than Trump, I have no compunction saying that yes, he has demonstrated a disastrous lack of perspective.
You can argue about what Trump would have done in his shoes
I don't have to argue, we know what he would be doing. He has told us. Republicans have told us. We don't have to sit around and speculate.
posted by Method Man at 2:12 PM on March 5 [14 favorites]
Yes he did. Trump's budget requests routinely included increases in the amount of military assistance to Israel. The sole premise of your argument here is that support for Israel is singlehandedly worse for all Muslims than banning Muslims from entering the country, spreading disinformation that led to a massive increase in hate crimes against Muslims, and endorsing the idea of forcing Muslims in America to register themselves in a national database... all while also continuing to supply Israel militarily, endorsing the annexation of land in the West Bank by Israeli settlers, and pointlessly antagonizing virtually the entire region with his move of the US embassy to Israel.
Let's set aside the fact that he's Palestinian-American, one of the most respected historians on the topic, has been involved in peace negotiations, has lived in Lebanon during Israeli bombings, has friends and family in Palestine, some of whom have very likely been killed in the ongoing genocide
And I will not in a million years tell him he has no perspective on Palestinians, whether in Palestine or in America, but he very explicitly stated he was talking about all Muslims. And I am tired of the insistence that literally all Muslim issues-- whether you're an Iranian, Iraqi, Georgian, Bosnian, Algerian, Lebanese, Chechen, Indonesian, or yes, Palestinian Muslim-- boil down to Israel and Palestine and nothing else. I am tired of the expectation that as a Muslim the only thing I will or should care about is Gaza when there is a real risk of the election of a guy whose proposals about how to treat Muslims in America drew comparisons to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews. I am tired of the expectation, oftentimes the demand, that as a Muslim-- not as a voter, or as a human, but as a Muslim-- I should set aside any other political concern, including ones that are very personal to my heritage and my ethnic background. I'm not playing into it anymore. I will not for a second criticize Rashid Khalidi for blasting Biden's approach to Palestine and Palestinians. But if he wants to insist that Biden has been more dangerous, more destructive, more threatening to Muslims in general than Trump, I have no compunction saying that yes, he has demonstrated a disastrous lack of perspective.
You can argue about what Trump would have done in his shoes
I don't have to argue, we know what he would be doing. He has told us. Republicans have told us. We don't have to sit around and speculate.
posted by Method Man at 2:12 PM on March 5 [14 favorites]
So Trump would never force Israel to accept a ceasefire or a Palestinian state. Moot point since the White House doesn't have a "magical phone" for this sort of thing anyway.
posted by nikodym at 2:21 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
posted by nikodym at 2:21 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
I feel confident Trump would have done pretty much what Biden has done vis a vis Israel, but he would have said something insanely racist, and in the next breath possibly something wildly anti-Semitic, quite possibly while speaking directly to Netanyahu. One has a small measure of tact (or at least handlers who know to keep him off-camera), the other's a feral asshole (and has handlers who know to keep him on-camera), but I'm not sure that on this issue there is a significant amount of light between them.
I'm sure that someone will leap in to posit that Trump would have killed millions by now, declared open war on Palestine, etc., but that's a hypothetical; and if the idea is that Trump would have done the same thing, but way worse, why is that a condemnation of Trump and not one of Biden, who is in real life supporting Israel with rhetoric and resources?
It's not a fact of the universe that the president must empower Israel to massacre its enemies any more than it's a fact of the universe that Joe Biden must be president. These are choices people made. The party steered the nomination to Joe Biden with great deliberation. This is who they wanted, and then they demanded that we vote for him or end up in camps or whatever. None of this happened by accident, and it doesn't have to be this way.
Listen, I am not a young person. I am 51 years old. Do you know, I looked it up, and Joe Biden became a senator three days before I was even born? Throughout the entire course of my life, minus a little stretch very recently, Joe Biden's ass was parked in a chair scooched right up to some official desk. At damn near any point I can think of in my, frankly, really long life, Joe Biden was somewhere out there being an elected official, mangling syntax, sticking up for Clarence Thomas, whatever. I'm rambling, this has been a long thread, but I don't know why America needed this guy to hold office half a century.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:50 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
I'm sure that someone will leap in to posit that Trump would have killed millions by now, declared open war on Palestine, etc., but that's a hypothetical; and if the idea is that Trump would have done the same thing, but way worse, why is that a condemnation of Trump and not one of Biden, who is in real life supporting Israel with rhetoric and resources?
It's not a fact of the universe that the president must empower Israel to massacre its enemies any more than it's a fact of the universe that Joe Biden must be president. These are choices people made. The party steered the nomination to Joe Biden with great deliberation. This is who they wanted, and then they demanded that we vote for him or end up in camps or whatever. None of this happened by accident, and it doesn't have to be this way.
Listen, I am not a young person. I am 51 years old. Do you know, I looked it up, and Joe Biden became a senator three days before I was even born? Throughout the entire course of my life, minus a little stretch very recently, Joe Biden's ass was parked in a chair scooched right up to some official desk. At damn near any point I can think of in my, frankly, really long life, Joe Biden was somewhere out there being an elected official, mangling syntax, sticking up for Clarence Thomas, whatever. I'm rambling, this has been a long thread, but I don't know why America needed this guy to hold office half a century.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:50 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
...fucking Ezra Klein... someone should force him to read this whole thread... The issue will never be answered in this thread and, worse, few to no minds will be changed in the course of all the back and forth'ing. Neither Biden nor Trump will automagically 'solve' the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, nor will either radically alter the US' foreign policy stance towards Israel. I believe it marginally more likely Biden will do something, but expect nothing. It is a horror.
To swing vertiginously back to the original point of this thread (is Ezra right when he applies his genius to the problem of what do you do with a problem like Amtrak Joe) on "The Bulwark" Podcast fellow genius Bill Kristol has some pertinent opinions about the Biden issue (strictly national-focused.)
posted by From Bklyn at 2:53 PM on March 5 [1 favorite]
To swing vertiginously back to the original point of this thread (is Ezra right when he applies his genius to the problem of what do you do with a problem like Amtrak Joe) on "The Bulwark" Podcast fellow genius Bill Kristol has some pertinent opinions about the Biden issue (strictly national-focused.)
posted by From Bklyn at 2:53 PM on March 5 [1 favorite]
It seems absolutely and trivially true that had Trump been in office for the past six months and taken every single action that the Biden administration has taken, to the letter, you'd be seeing a hell of a lot more pushback from the Democratic establishment about American support for the ongoing genocide.
More talk about conditioning aid on adherence to human rights and the law of war, for one, and less mindless parroting about Israel's right to self-defense when a journalist asks a question about the IDF bombing a hospital into rubble and starving children.
posted by Gadarene at 2:57 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]
More talk about conditioning aid on adherence to human rights and the law of war, for one, and less mindless parroting about Israel's right to self-defense when a journalist asks a question about the IDF bombing a hospital into rubble and starving children.
posted by Gadarene at 2:57 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]
I find it hard to imagine that even a liar as bad as Trump would claim to have personally seen non-existent footage of beheaded babies. Biden is really something else.
posted by nikodym at 3:08 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
posted by nikodym at 3:08 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
If you think "critical neutrality" is the appropriate response to ongoing genocide then I am not particularly interested in your opinions, thanks.
You claimed that nobody here said they are voting for Trump, which misses the point. The appropriate response is "I am NOT voting Trump" in order to establish objectivity and bona fides, or critical neutrality, because Netanyahu and Trump are political allies and mutual supporters, not Biden.
posted by Brian B. at 3:19 PM on March 5
You claimed that nobody here said they are voting for Trump, which misses the point. The appropriate response is "I am NOT voting Trump" in order to establish objectivity and bona fides, or critical neutrality, because Netanyahu and Trump are political allies and mutual supporters, not Biden.
posted by Brian B. at 3:19 PM on March 5
Netanyahu and Trump are political allies and mutual supporters, not Biden
No, Biden is a political ally (on the issue of Palestine and Israel's "right to defend itself" through mass slaughter, anyway) and one-sided supporter of Netanyahu who is doing things like expediting shipment of weapons to Israel as it commits genocide.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:23 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
No, Biden is a political ally (on the issue of Palestine and Israel's "right to defend itself" through mass slaughter, anyway) and one-sided supporter of Netanyahu who is doing things like expediting shipment of weapons to Israel as it commits genocide.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:23 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]
The sole premise of your argument here is that support for Israel is singlehandedly worse for all Muslims than [...]
Trump did not ban all Muslims from entering the country and did not force all Muslims to register in a national database. He talks about it because he's a politician, but it did not happen. (Meanwhile, I can't help but note the parallels to Israel's database of Palestinians and Palestinians' lack of freedom of movement.)
But fundamentally, yes, I think that moving the embassy to Jerusalem, hate speech, and Islamophobic immigration policy are absolutely deplorable, but on a different scale than directly enabling the ongoing genocide by funding it $14 billion in November (for comparison, the US has sent 3-4 billion annually for the past couple decades), preventing a ceasefire in the UNSC, and repeating Israeli propaganda in the middle of the genocide. I think a lot of us feel this way. I think a lot of us who could be affected by a second Trump term feel this way.
But if he wants to insist that Biden has been more dangerous, more destructive, more threatening to Muslims in general than Trump, I have no compunction saying that yes, he has demonstrated a disastrous lack of perspective.
The category of Muslims includes Palestinian Muslims, whether you like it or not. Because Muslim is a large and diverse category of people, we can talk about things that happen to Muslims without the implication that it applies to all groups of Muslims equally.
That said, the genocide and the US-Israel-Palestine relationship affects many groups of people beyond Palestinian Muslims. Just one tiny example: The largest purchaser of weapons from Israel is... India's right-wing Islamophobic government who are using them against Muslims in Kashmir.
And to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you to identify with Palestinians, Method Man, you've made your feelings very clear.
___
Since it came up, Rashid Khalidi on Biden's relationship to Zionism:
What motivates Joseph Biden? I mean, I don't know, I don't know that. I know what I read. I'm a trained historian, I read texts. I can watch the body language and I can read statements. That's the best I can do.
From that evidence, I would say several things. The first is that this is a man who still lives in the 60s. As far as he's concerned, this idealized vision of Israel is Israel. The second thing I can say is he's someone who has been clearly brainwashed by the Israeli politicians and the lobbyists who have focused on him for this entire life, starting with Golda Meir.
[...]
He has described her impact on him. So we can go on what he said. I believe what he said. He was taken by Golda Meir. And I think he was similarly taken by a number of other Israeli politicians who, many of them, are particularly adept at speaking to westerners. Now look, this is a project created by Europeans and Americans. There are many eastern Mizrahi Jews who are Israelis from all over the Arab world, from Turkey and so on. But the people who founded it, the people who ran it, the signatories on the declaration of independence are Europeans and Americans by origin, by birth, by education, by training, by politicization, by integration into those societies before they decided that they couldn't live there anymore and they went to Palestine.
So for them, for Herzl to speak to a German or Austrian audience or for a Weizman to speak to a British audience, for a Golda Meir to speak to an American audience is to talk to an audience that is her or his audience. They're not talking to foreigners and they're not talking to a foreign culture. It's their culture. Even as they become Israelis, they're still... I mean, Netanyahu he speaks with this perfect flat American accent. He grew up in Cornell and Philly. He lived in Israel before and after but he's an American as far as his acculturation is concerned.
So one can see how Biden will have been affected by it. And I think he has a casual contempt for the Palestinians. Many, many of the things he's said are insulting and dehumanizing to the Palestinians. What he said about Palestinian casualties.
[cuts to Biden speech]
Biden: I have no notion if the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed. I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war. I think we should be incredibly careful. I think Israel should be incredible careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel. And it's against their interest when that doesn't happen. But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using.
[cuts back to Khalidi]
So I think he's a man who decided that support of Israel was an important part of his political persona. Early on, I think. And there were many, many, many statements by him— 'If Israel didn't exist, we would have to create it,' 'I am a Zionist,' and so on. This is not a casual part of his political orientation or his ideology. And I think he's surrounded himself with people like Blinken, like Sullivan, his chief of staff, all the people around him, a Praetorian Guard of people who think just like he does. Who have a contempt for and an ignorance of the Arab world and of the Palestinians. Who know and are concerned with Israeli desiderata [?] and who see the middle east essentially through an Israeli lens. I sometimes would feel listening to him or Admiral Kirby, his main spokesperson at the National Security Council [...] and Sullivan and Blinken that they're reading off an Israeli teleprompter. They're saying things exactly as the Israeli government says. Exactly as the Israeli government says. Now they're beginning to diverge slightly from that script, probably for callous, cold, political reasons. i.e. you're going to lose Michigan, i.e. the youth vote, i.e. the Black church, i.e., i.e., i.e. not because they've suddenly seen Palestinians as human or they understand anything more than they did before.
posted by i like crows very much at 3:24 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]
Trump did not ban all Muslims from entering the country and did not force all Muslims to register in a national database. He talks about it because he's a politician, but it did not happen. (Meanwhile, I can't help but note the parallels to Israel's database of Palestinians and Palestinians' lack of freedom of movement.)
But fundamentally, yes, I think that moving the embassy to Jerusalem, hate speech, and Islamophobic immigration policy are absolutely deplorable, but on a different scale than directly enabling the ongoing genocide by funding it $14 billion in November (for comparison, the US has sent 3-4 billion annually for the past couple decades), preventing a ceasefire in the UNSC, and repeating Israeli propaganda in the middle of the genocide. I think a lot of us feel this way. I think a lot of us who could be affected by a second Trump term feel this way.
But if he wants to insist that Biden has been more dangerous, more destructive, more threatening to Muslims in general than Trump, I have no compunction saying that yes, he has demonstrated a disastrous lack of perspective.
The category of Muslims includes Palestinian Muslims, whether you like it or not. Because Muslim is a large and diverse category of people, we can talk about things that happen to Muslims without the implication that it applies to all groups of Muslims equally.
That said, the genocide and the US-Israel-Palestine relationship affects many groups of people beyond Palestinian Muslims. Just one tiny example: The largest purchaser of weapons from Israel is... India's right-wing Islamophobic government who are using them against Muslims in Kashmir.
And to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you to identify with Palestinians, Method Man, you've made your feelings very clear.
___
Since it came up, Rashid Khalidi on Biden's relationship to Zionism:
What motivates Joseph Biden? I mean, I don't know, I don't know that. I know what I read. I'm a trained historian, I read texts. I can watch the body language and I can read statements. That's the best I can do.
From that evidence, I would say several things. The first is that this is a man who still lives in the 60s. As far as he's concerned, this idealized vision of Israel is Israel. The second thing I can say is he's someone who has been clearly brainwashed by the Israeli politicians and the lobbyists who have focused on him for this entire life, starting with Golda Meir.
[...]
He has described her impact on him. So we can go on what he said. I believe what he said. He was taken by Golda Meir. And I think he was similarly taken by a number of other Israeli politicians who, many of them, are particularly adept at speaking to westerners. Now look, this is a project created by Europeans and Americans. There are many eastern Mizrahi Jews who are Israelis from all over the Arab world, from Turkey and so on. But the people who founded it, the people who ran it, the signatories on the declaration of independence are Europeans and Americans by origin, by birth, by education, by training, by politicization, by integration into those societies before they decided that they couldn't live there anymore and they went to Palestine.
So for them, for Herzl to speak to a German or Austrian audience or for a Weizman to speak to a British audience, for a Golda Meir to speak to an American audience is to talk to an audience that is her or his audience. They're not talking to foreigners and they're not talking to a foreign culture. It's their culture. Even as they become Israelis, they're still... I mean, Netanyahu he speaks with this perfect flat American accent. He grew up in Cornell and Philly. He lived in Israel before and after but he's an American as far as his acculturation is concerned.
So one can see how Biden will have been affected by it. And I think he has a casual contempt for the Palestinians. Many, many of the things he's said are insulting and dehumanizing to the Palestinians. What he said about Palestinian casualties.
[cuts to Biden speech]
Biden: I have no notion if the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed. I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war. I think we should be incredibly careful. I think Israel should be incredible careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel. And it's against their interest when that doesn't happen. But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using.
[cuts back to Khalidi]
So I think he's a man who decided that support of Israel was an important part of his political persona. Early on, I think. And there were many, many, many statements by him— 'If Israel didn't exist, we would have to create it,' 'I am a Zionist,' and so on. This is not a casual part of his political orientation or his ideology. And I think he's surrounded himself with people like Blinken, like Sullivan, his chief of staff, all the people around him, a Praetorian Guard of people who think just like he does. Who have a contempt for and an ignorance of the Arab world and of the Palestinians. Who know and are concerned with Israeli desiderata [?] and who see the middle east essentially through an Israeli lens. I sometimes would feel listening to him or Admiral Kirby, his main spokesperson at the National Security Council [...] and Sullivan and Blinken that they're reading off an Israeli teleprompter. They're saying things exactly as the Israeli government says. Exactly as the Israeli government says. Now they're beginning to diverge slightly from that script, probably for callous, cold, political reasons. i.e. you're going to lose Michigan, i.e. the youth vote, i.e. the Black church, i.e., i.e., i.e. not because they've suddenly seen Palestinians as human or they understand anything more than they did before.
posted by i like crows very much at 3:24 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]
And again, "objectivity" when we are talking about genocide through mass starvation and aerial bombardment is utterly morally repugnant.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:27 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:27 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
While the United States Navy offered to help tow Rubymar,[10] the nearest port of Djibouti refused to accept the ship because of the risk of explosion from its cargo of fertilizer.[12] Houthi leader Mohammed al-Houthi stated that the group would only allow the ship to be towed if humanitarian aid was supplied to Gaza.[13] By 28 February, the ship was still adrift and waiting to be towed into port, possibly in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.[14]
not the greatest citations but they are citations.
Yep - the strategic state of play is unchanged.
In any case, Red Sea data cables have been cut - Yemeni mouthpieces I've seen casted doubt on who's done it, and I'm just tangentially noting the Nordstream explosion investigations over at the Russian war theatre has been quietly closed with no official public conclusions - tangential but possibly related if I'm looking at likely culprits.
I'm only sharing the news in this thread simply to say, the downtime on FB and IG has been attributed to this, so if anything, that's possibly the best news for American democracy.
posted by cendawanita at 3:29 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
not the greatest citations but they are citations.
Yep - the strategic state of play is unchanged.
In any case, Red Sea data cables have been cut - Yemeni mouthpieces I've seen casted doubt on who's done it, and I'm just tangentially noting the Nordstream explosion investigations over at the Russian war theatre has been quietly closed with no official public conclusions - tangential but possibly related if I'm looking at likely culprits.
I'm only sharing the news in this thread simply to say, the downtime on FB and IG has been attributed to this, so if anything, that's possibly the best news for American democracy.
posted by cendawanita at 3:29 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
The category of Muslims includes Palestinian Muslims, whether you like it or not. Because Muslim is a large and diverse category of people, we can talk about things that happen to Muslims without the implication that it applies to all groups of Muslims equally.
I'm not taking lessons from you on what it means to be Muslim or how to talk about "things that happen to Muslims."
And to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you to identify with Palestinians, Method Man, you've made your feelings very clear.
You don't know a damn thing about me.
posted by Method Man at 3:32 PM on March 5 [15 favorites]
I'm not taking lessons from you on what it means to be Muslim or how to talk about "things that happen to Muslims."
And to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you to identify with Palestinians, Method Man, you've made your feelings very clear.
You don't know a damn thing about me.
posted by Method Man at 3:32 PM on March 5 [15 favorites]
Okay so I tallied up the votes from the thread:
00 for Trump
17 for Biden
01 for 'literal Hitler'
Snark aside, I wanted to thank Sotonohito and Cendawanita in particular for your voices in the above; among others you guys have been an oasis of thoughtfulness that this American leftist voter definitely appreciated hearing.
posted by Jarcat at 3:40 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
00 for Trump
17 for Biden
01 for 'literal Hitler'
Snark aside, I wanted to thank Sotonohito and Cendawanita in particular for your voices in the above; among others you guys have been an oasis of thoughtfulness that this American leftist voter definitely appreciated hearing.
posted by Jarcat at 3:40 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
01 for 'literal Hitler'
That was "none of the above, thanks" (Not voting for A does not carry an implication of voting for B).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:45 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
That was "none of the above, thanks" (Not voting for A does not carry an implication of voting for B).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:45 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
> don't know why America needed this guy to hold office half a century.
I do! I'll give you one guess, too!
posted by torokunai at 3:47 PM on March 5
I do! I'll give you one guess, too!
posted by torokunai at 3:47 PM on March 5
I'm sure that someone will leap in to posit that Trump would have killed millions by now, declared open war on Palestine, etc., but that's a hypothetical; and if the idea is that Trump would have done the same thing, but way worse, why is that a condemnation of Trump and not one of Biden, who is in real life supporting Israel with rhetoric and resources?
90% of this thread has been a condemnation of Biden for his choices regarding Gaza.
It's not a fact of the universe that the president must empower Israel to massacre its enemies any more than it's a fact of the universe that Joe Biden must be president. These are choices people made.
To put it VERY bluntly: This is an election year, and Joe Biden is vulnerable. Not doomed, not hopeless, not decrepit and unsalvageable, but vulnerable. To paraphrase dril, he and his campaign advisors are standing in front of a dial marked ISRAEL/GAZA and are turning it slowly like a Price is Right contestant, listening to the audience and trying to fine-tune the specific setting that will maximize his approval rating.
Listen to the traditional base that loathed October 7th's brutality and stand firmly -- for quite some time, anyway -- behind Israel's exacting of revenge? Pacify a community in a critical swing state screaming that their kin are being murdered, and risk alienating others? Try to split the difference and pretend exponentially increasing atrocities aren't as bad as they appear for as long as you can? Turn, turn, turn, listen, listen, turn, turn.
When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law in '64, he worried aloud about losing the South in the process. Biden is weighing doing whatever he considers the right thing to do, day by day, shaking his head at Bibi's growing excesses, against the idea that if he ends up losing to Trump, far more is lost than a simple Presidential term.
Turn, turn, listen, listen, turn.
posted by delfin at 3:49 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]
90% of this thread has been a condemnation of Biden for his choices regarding Gaza.
It's not a fact of the universe that the president must empower Israel to massacre its enemies any more than it's a fact of the universe that Joe Biden must be president. These are choices people made.
To put it VERY bluntly: This is an election year, and Joe Biden is vulnerable. Not doomed, not hopeless, not decrepit and unsalvageable, but vulnerable. To paraphrase dril, he and his campaign advisors are standing in front of a dial marked ISRAEL/GAZA and are turning it slowly like a Price is Right contestant, listening to the audience and trying to fine-tune the specific setting that will maximize his approval rating.
Listen to the traditional base that loathed October 7th's brutality and stand firmly -- for quite some time, anyway -- behind Israel's exacting of revenge? Pacify a community in a critical swing state screaming that their kin are being murdered, and risk alienating others? Try to split the difference and pretend exponentially increasing atrocities aren't as bad as they appear for as long as you can? Turn, turn, turn, listen, listen, turn, turn.
When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law in '64, he worried aloud about losing the South in the process. Biden is weighing doing whatever he considers the right thing to do, day by day, shaking his head at Bibi's growing excesses, against the idea that if he ends up losing to Trump, far more is lost than a simple Presidential term.
Turn, turn, listen, listen, turn.
posted by delfin at 3:49 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]
And again, "objectivity" when we are talking about genocide through mass starvation and aerial bombardment is utterly morally repugnant.
You might need to look it up instead of dodging opportunities to deny your apparent Trump support. It is bad enough if one lacks objectivity, worse if one denounces it.
posted by Brian B. at 3:49 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
You might need to look it up instead of dodging opportunities to deny your apparent Trump support. It is bad enough if one lacks objectivity, worse if one denounces it.
posted by Brian B. at 3:49 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
Trump Says Israel Has To ‘Finish The Problem’ In Gaza After Months Of Silence
Just so we're clear on what Trump views as the solution to the palestinian question.
posted by Justinian at 4:03 PM on March 5 [11 favorites]
Just so we're clear on what Trump views as the solution to the palestinian question.
posted by Justinian at 4:03 PM on March 5 [11 favorites]
I try to live my life in such a way that I don’t have to clarify my stance on voting for Hitler at any point (it’s not ranked choice, it’s abstaining from civic responsibility!) it really helps me sleep at night.
posted by Jarcat at 4:07 PM on March 5 [4 favorites]
posted by Jarcat at 4:07 PM on March 5 [4 favorites]
Just so we're clear on what Trump views as the solution to the palestinian question.
Not that I view the two individuals as equivalent, but Biden had a speech with similar phrasing earlier in the year, and of course our UN representative gave a speech calling for a "final solution" as well.
posted by Gadarene at 4:07 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
Not that I view the two individuals as equivalent, but Biden had a speech with similar phrasing earlier in the year, and of course our UN representative gave a speech calling for a "final solution" as well.
posted by Gadarene at 4:07 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
Should clarify that I don't believe that Linda Thomas-Greenfield was actually calling for an extermination of the Palestinian people (or their wholesale eradication from Palestine) in those prepared remarks; it was just an extremely inartful and tone deaf turn of phrase that somehow made it into the final draft, possibly because the administration genuinely isn't attuned to that sort of thing vis a vis the horrors currently occurring in Gaza.
posted by Gadarene at 4:23 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
posted by Gadarene at 4:23 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]
If someone was trying to stealthily harm Biden's chances it would be unexpected for them to announce their intentions
If someone were trying to stealthily harm Biden's chances it would be unexpected of them to do it on a dying blog from the 90s.
posted by MrBadExample at 7:23 PM on March 5 [11 favorites]
If someone were trying to stealthily harm Biden's chances it would be unexpected of them to do it on a dying blog from the 90s.
posted by MrBadExample at 7:23 PM on March 5 [11 favorites]
metafilter still has enough juice to attract russian disinformation operations!
posted by logicpunk at 7:52 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
posted by logicpunk at 7:52 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
Considering that Biden seems to be working overtime to harm his own chances of reelection, I don't think flinging blame around here is all that reasonable.
I mean, this is the guy who went out of his way to explicitly say he hated the idea of "my body my choice" just a few days ago. Cuz, you know, nothing fires up Democratic voters and especially Democratic women, to vote for Biden like him reminding everyone that he's not really all that pro-choice.
Way to go Joe!
With him running his mouth 24/7 to piss off all his constituents there doesn't need to be a Russian disinformation campaign...
posted by sotonohito at 8:04 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
I mean, this is the guy who went out of his way to explicitly say he hated the idea of "my body my choice" just a few days ago. Cuz, you know, nothing fires up Democratic voters and especially Democratic women, to vote for Biden like him reminding everyone that he's not really all that pro-choice.
Way to go Joe!
With him running his mouth 24/7 to piss off all his constituents there doesn't need to be a Russian disinformation campaign...
posted by sotonohito at 8:04 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
If someone were trying to stealthily harm Biden's chances it would be unexpected of them to do it on a dying blog from the 90s.
Why assume their competence? Nothing discourages the hard bitten from trying to convert anyone to their beliefs.
posted by Brian B. at 8:11 PM on March 5
Why assume their competence? Nothing discourages the hard bitten from trying to convert anyone to their beliefs.
posted by Brian B. at 8:11 PM on March 5
Biden's Catholic, he's never been a fan of abortion, and earlier in his legislative career he had trouble separating church and state. Nowadays:
2022: Biden’s political and personal evolution on abortion on display after publication of draft Supreme Court opinion (CNN) ... after a staffer called him in the presidential limousine to say Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the draft was real, Biden walked to cameras to reiterate his fears. “If this decision holds, it’s really quite a radical decision,” he said on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews. He recited a litany of “basic rights” he said could now be undercut should the draft ruling be ordered: “Who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion” were all now at stake, he warned. [...] As president, Biden has taken some steps to reverse restrictive abortion rules from the Trump era, including the “Mexico City Policy” banning US funding of international organizations that perform abortions. He’s also removed anti-abortion restrictions on federal funding going toward health services for low-income Americans.
2022: Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services. President Biden has made clear that the only way to secure a woman’s right to choose is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe as federal law. Until then, he has committed to doing everything in his power to defend reproductive rights and protect access to safe and legal abortion.
2023: Biden says he's "not big on abortion" because of Catholic faith, but Roe "got it right" (CBS)
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:27 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
2022: Biden’s political and personal evolution on abortion on display after publication of draft Supreme Court opinion (CNN) ... after a staffer called him in the presidential limousine to say Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the draft was real, Biden walked to cameras to reiterate his fears. “If this decision holds, it’s really quite a radical decision,” he said on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews. He recited a litany of “basic rights” he said could now be undercut should the draft ruling be ordered: “Who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion” were all now at stake, he warned. [...] As president, Biden has taken some steps to reverse restrictive abortion rules from the Trump era, including the “Mexico City Policy” banning US funding of international organizations that perform abortions. He’s also removed anti-abortion restrictions on federal funding going toward health services for low-income Americans.
2022: Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services. President Biden has made clear that the only way to secure a woman’s right to choose is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe as federal law. Until then, he has committed to doing everything in his power to defend reproductive rights and protect access to safe and legal abortion.
2023: Biden says he's "not big on abortion" because of Catholic faith, but Roe "got it right" (CBS)
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:27 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
Nothing discourages the hard bitten from trying to convert anyone to their beliefs.
Certainly seems like what you're doing here, anyway, calling for "neutrality" in the face of genocide and appealing to "historical complexity" (which is nothing more or less than genocide apologia; "to remain neutral in the face of oppression is to take the side of the oppressor"). It's also frankly insulting and absurd that you want to pretend the only possible reason anyone could care that Biden is complicit in genocide is that they're secretly pro-Trump (my opinion of Trump can be found in many posts going back nearly a decade, if you care to look).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 8:37 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
Certainly seems like what you're doing here, anyway, calling for "neutrality" in the face of genocide and appealing to "historical complexity" (which is nothing more or less than genocide apologia; "to remain neutral in the face of oppression is to take the side of the oppressor"). It's also frankly insulting and absurd that you want to pretend the only possible reason anyone could care that Biden is complicit in genocide is that they're secretly pro-Trump (my opinion of Trump can be found in many posts going back nearly a decade, if you care to look).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 8:37 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]
"to remain neutral in the face of oppression is to take the side of the oppressor")
This is rich, coming from the dude who wouldn't oppose Hitler.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:48 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
This is rich, coming from the dude who wouldn't oppose Hitler.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:48 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]
This is rich, coming from the dude who wouldn't oppose Hitler.
Not sure what part of "no votes for genocide regardless of who's doing it" is not really getting through to you.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 8:53 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
Not sure what part of "no votes for genocide regardless of who's doing it" is not really getting through to you.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 8:53 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]
But not everyone agrees with you that voting for Biden in this election constitutes an affirmative vote for genocide. That might be why the Hitler stuff isn't going over as well as perhaps you thought it might.
posted by otsebyatina at 9:03 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
posted by otsebyatina at 9:03 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]
Certainly seems like what you're doing here, anyway, calling for "neutrality"
That would be neutrality for Biden versus Trump in order to lend credibility, an idea that exposes your bias enough that it didn't register with you several times now. It's the hidden agenda that matters when selling your moral superiority, because of the hypocrisy.
posted by Brian B. at 9:22 PM on March 5
That would be neutrality for Biden versus Trump in order to lend credibility, an idea that exposes your bias enough that it didn't register with you several times now. It's the hidden agenda that matters when selling your moral superiority, because of the hypocrisy.
posted by Brian B. at 9:22 PM on March 5
Mod note: One comment and a few follow-ups removed: let's not do the whole "we're all gonna die and we deserve it" thing in here, folks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 1:38 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 1:38 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. Pseudonymous Cognomen, we've explicitly asked you to stop commenting so much here, and you seem to have ignored us. Please simply give this thread a rest or we'll have to give you a day off.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 2:30 AM on March 6 [8 favorites]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 2:30 AM on March 6 [8 favorites]
I will point out that a vote for any Presidential candidate ever has been a vote for genocide. It's what US Presidents do.
I'm not quite sure WHY we're in a timeline where the leaders of the most powerful nation on the planet are universally in agreement that right wing genocide is super cool and they should do all they can to encourage it at every opportunity, but that's the world we have.
Again, remember that Jimmy Carter should be in the Hague standing trial for crimes against humanity. JIMMY fucking CARTER! A man so otherwise nice that he's practically viewed as a secular saint by many people, and a strong candidate for most decent person we've ever had as President. He also helped Pol Pot commit his genocide as part of America's revenge for losing Vietnam.
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump: all are united by their support of genocide.
The only reason this particular genocide is getting so much attention is because it's so open, and televised.
So yes. I'm voting for a genocidal maniac for President. Because apparently that's part of the unspoken job requirements. You must be over 35, a "natural born citizen", and eager to help out with right wing genocides to be President.
Neither party has ever run a non-genocidal candidate in my life. Why should this year be any different?
posted by sotonohito at 4:26 AM on March 6 [18 favorites]
I'm not quite sure WHY we're in a timeline where the leaders of the most powerful nation on the planet are universally in agreement that right wing genocide is super cool and they should do all they can to encourage it at every opportunity, but that's the world we have.
Again, remember that Jimmy Carter should be in the Hague standing trial for crimes against humanity. JIMMY fucking CARTER! A man so otherwise nice that he's practically viewed as a secular saint by many people, and a strong candidate for most decent person we've ever had as President. He also helped Pol Pot commit his genocide as part of America's revenge for losing Vietnam.
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump: all are united by their support of genocide.
The only reason this particular genocide is getting so much attention is because it's so open, and televised.
So yes. I'm voting for a genocidal maniac for President. Because apparently that's part of the unspoken job requirements. You must be over 35, a "natural born citizen", and eager to help out with right wing genocides to be President.
Neither party has ever run a non-genocidal candidate in my life. Why should this year be any different?
posted by sotonohito at 4:26 AM on March 6 [18 favorites]
Thank you for that perspective, sotonohito.
posted by mittens at 4:45 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]
posted by mittens at 4:45 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]
Although I will say that those types of comments do wonders to expose the extreme depth of liberal bigotry we have to deal with. One has to be pretty far gone to refuse to see principled opposition to genocide as anything but a Russian plot.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 5:18 AM on March 6 [8 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 5:18 AM on March 6 [8 favorites]
i'm just glad i got to cast a vote for harnessing love to defeat fear on the psychic battleground of america's soul. well, and also for reparations.
huh, i just realized that now that mitch mcconnell has retired there is only one political figure in america who you can unambiguously describe using only one emoji.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:03 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]
huh, i just realized that now that mitch mcconnell has retired there is only one political figure in america who you can unambiguously describe using only one emoji.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:03 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]
There are many who are perfectly represented by an asterisk, but yes, none have a monopoly on that.
posted by delfin at 7:21 AM on March 6
posted by delfin at 7:21 AM on March 6
Neither party has ever run a non-genocidal candidate in my life. Why should this year be any different?
You maybe don't remember when underdog candidates in red states had to fend off accusations of genocide in debates from true believers (who oddly asserted "parent rights" as their social platform, which was code for de-funding education and other child abuses).
posted by Brian B. at 7:44 AM on March 6
You maybe don't remember when underdog candidates in red states had to fend off accusations of genocide in debates from true believers (who oddly asserted "parent rights" as their social platform, which was code for de-funding education and other child abuses).
posted by Brian B. at 7:44 AM on March 6
Mod note: Comment and response removed. If you have a complaint about the mods, please use the Contact Us form at the bottom of every page or submit a MetaTalk post, thank you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:02 AM on March 6
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:02 AM on March 6
Brian B. Clearly I meant real genocide, not forced birther BS.
And of course it is telling that the forced birthers don't really care more about real genocides than the general population. "Pro-life" my ass.
posted by sotonohito at 9:21 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]
And of course it is telling that the forced birthers don't really care more about real genocides than the general population. "Pro-life" my ass.
posted by sotonohito at 9:21 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]
Welp, the inevitable has happened and Haley is officially out of the race.
Sorry Ezra, we're getting the Trump/Biden rematch none of us wanted.
posted by sotonohito at 9:28 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]
Sorry Ezra, we're getting the Trump/Biden rematch none of us wanted.
posted by sotonohito at 9:28 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]
Neither party has ever run a non-genocidal candidate in my life.
I was remarking to my Dad the other day that I'm pretty sure there has never been a US President who didn't commit/allow warcrimes. I'm no historian but I haven't been able to exonerate any of them, especially not the ones in my lifetime (Reagan Bush, Clinton, Bush Deux, Obama, Biden).
posted by Jarcat at 10:24 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
I was remarking to my Dad the other day that I'm pretty sure there has never been a US President who didn't commit/allow warcrimes. I'm no historian but I haven't been able to exonerate any of them, especially not the ones in my lifetime (Reagan Bush, Clinton, Bush Deux, Obama, Biden).
posted by Jarcat at 10:24 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
You interestingly left one out there Jarcat...
But I'm older, so I remember JBJ and Nixon and Kissenger and Ford and all that nonsense and war-criming.
EDIT: I had Walter Cronkite giving me death counts on the news every night.
posted by Windopaene at 11:01 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
But I'm older, so I remember JBJ and Nixon and Kissenger and Ford and all that nonsense and war-criming.
EDIT: I had Walter Cronkite giving me death counts on the news every night.
posted by Windopaene at 11:01 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
Oh my god I didn't even type out Trump, that wasn't intentional and he belongs on my list for sure.
I wasn't alive for all of those classic war criminals, but having met Daniel Ellsberg and read his work, I've done my best to stay educated
posted by Jarcat at 11:06 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]
I wasn't alive for all of those classic war criminals, but having met Daniel Ellsberg and read his work, I've done my best to stay educated
posted by Jarcat at 11:06 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure Calvin Coolidge did not commit any war crimes.
posted by clavdivs at 11:08 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 11:08 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]
I'm pretty sure Calvin Coolidge did not commit any war crimes.
well his Wikipedia entry does leave Coolidge looking pretty clean on the things we associate with run-of-the-mill imperial blood on the hands, etc.
posted by elkevelvet at 11:22 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]
well his Wikipedia entry does leave Coolidge looking pretty clean on the things we associate with run-of-the-mill imperial blood on the hands, etc.
posted by elkevelvet at 11:22 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]
I think you should probably take lessons from *some* Muslims though! Like maybe talk to one or if you can't find one who wants to speak to you, maybe read some talking points from a Muslim-American advocacy org (I suggest CAIR), learn what they're saying about the issues or what they're thinking electorally or what their strategy is? I think you'll learn a lot about what Muslims are worried about because I don't think you're quite correct about their concerns. And I think you'll be able to make more informed statements about the mainstream of Muslim public opinion about this election, if that's something you're interested in doing.
Lizard2590, Method Man is of Muslim faith and has made that clear in his posts here. It's condescending to talk to him that way.
posted by Jarcat at 11:27 AM on March 6 [13 favorites]
Lizard2590, Method Man is of Muslim faith and has made that clear in his posts here. It's condescending to talk to him that way.
posted by Jarcat at 11:27 AM on March 6 [13 favorites]
I think you should probably take lessons from *some* Muslims though! Like maybe talk to one or if you can't find one who wants to speak to you, maybe read some talking points from a Muslim-American advocacy org (I suggest CAIR), learn what they're saying about the issues or what they're thinking electorally or what their strategy is? I think you'll learn a lot about what Muslims are worried about because I don't think you're quite correct about their concerns. And I think you'll be able to make more informed statements about the mainstream of Muslim public opinion about this election, if that's something you're interested in doing.
Thanks, I always appreciate having random people on the internet imply I'm a fake Muslim or that other members of my community don't want to talk to me. Usually I catch that for being pro-LGBT or any number of other opinions that get the internet Salafis up in arms, but I guess I can add "not caring solely about Palestine to the exclusion of literally all other issues that might inform my vote" to the list of things that justify getting takfir'd on the internet.
posted by Method Man at 11:31 AM on March 6 [25 favorites]
Thanks, I always appreciate having random people on the internet imply I'm a fake Muslim or that other members of my community don't want to talk to me. Usually I catch that for being pro-LGBT or any number of other opinions that get the internet Salafis up in arms, but I guess I can add "not caring solely about Palestine to the exclusion of literally all other issues that might inform my vote" to the list of things that justify getting takfir'd on the internet.
posted by Method Man at 11:31 AM on March 6 [25 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Please refer to the guidelines: Speak for yourself, not others
posted by loup (staff) at 12:33 PM on March 6
posted by loup (staff) at 12:33 PM on March 6
Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924, dooming millions of people.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:15 PM on March 6 [5 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:15 PM on March 6 [5 favorites]
He also set up and ran United Fruit, so there's your genocide.
posted by sotonohito at 1:18 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 1:18 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
"Coolidge, what an asshole"
Never stop being awesome Metafilter
(Seriously, I know nothing about Calvin Coolidge)
posted by Windopaene at 1:21 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
Never stop being awesome Metafilter
(Seriously, I know nothing about Calvin Coolidge)
posted by Windopaene at 1:21 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
Now having read the wikipedia, seems like a decent Republican.
Anti-Union, of course, but did some decent things. I'd take that over TFG
posted by Windopaene at 1:30 PM on March 6
Anti-Union, of course, but did some decent things. I'd take that over TFG
posted by Windopaene at 1:30 PM on March 6
OK Iris Gambol, that's pretty messed up...
posted by Windopaene at 1:33 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
posted by Windopaene at 1:33 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
The President and Mrs. Coolidge were being shown around an experimental government farm. When she came to the chicken yard she noticed that a rooster was mating very frequently. She asked the attendant how often that happened and was told, “Dozens of times each day.” Mrs. Coolidge said, “Tell that to the President when he comes by.” Upon being told, Coolidge asked, “Same hen every time?” The reply was, “Oh no, Mr. President, a different hen every time.” Coolidge: “Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge!”This might not be factual, but it led to the Coolidge effect. Science!
posted by kirkaracha at 1:41 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
He also set up and ran United Fruit, so there's your genocide.
Your thinking of T. Jefferson Coolidge.
The immigration act. oh, that eugenics driven bi-parisan nightmare that even Gompers endorsed. Coolidge wanted compromise so both houses passed it with veto overriding majorities.
posted by clavdivs at 2:08 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]
Your thinking of T. Jefferson Coolidge.
The immigration act. oh, that eugenics driven bi-parisan nightmare that even Gompers endorsed. Coolidge wanted compromise so both houses passed it with veto overriding majorities.
posted by clavdivs at 2:08 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]
it's too late clavdivs
the chum is in the water. it's too late
posted by elkevelvet at 2:12 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
the chum is in the water. it's too late
posted by elkevelvet at 2:12 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
The US propped up United Fruit, but the company itself was set up by a different branch of the Coolidge family.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:12 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:12 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
Meanwhile for the people who think Biden is playing 11-dimensional chess and secretly pushing for a ceasefire, WaPo reports that
The United States has quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began Oct. 7, amounting to thousands of precision-guided munitions, small diameter bombs, bunker busters, small arms and other lethal aid, U.S. officials told members of Congress in a recent classified briefing..
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:23 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
The United States has quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began Oct. 7, amounting to thousands of precision-guided munitions, small diameter bombs, bunker busters, small arms and other lethal aid, U.S. officials told members of Congress in a recent classified briefing..
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:23 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
The United States has quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began Oct. 7,
So, in appx 150 days, we have delivered 100 different orders of weapons. That averages to two orders every three days.
I'm speechless.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 2:39 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]
So, in appx 150 days, we have delivered 100 different orders of weapons. That averages to two orders every three days.
I'm speechless.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 2:39 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]
"Biden administration bypasses Congress on weapons sales to Israel.'
December, 30, 2023
posted by clavdivs at 3:08 PM on March 6
December, 30, 2023
posted by clavdivs at 3:08 PM on March 6
)sorry, didn't want to paste in the edit window)
So, in appx 150 days
that's the question, the what and when as the who and why is what it is.
posted by clavdivs at 3:12 PM on March 6
So, in appx 150 days
that's the question, the what and when as the who and why is what it is.
posted by clavdivs at 3:12 PM on March 6
Via exec order; today's article is about "the 100 other transactions, known in government-speak as Foreign Military Sales or FMS, the weapons transfers were processed without any public debate because each fell under a specific dollar amount that requires the executive branch to individually notify Congress" since October.
And the people willing to go on-record with WaPo's John Hudson (the paper's national-security reporter), the day after Super Tuesday, are Democrats -- including the guy who resigned in protest in October, Josh Paul.
Paul was the director of congressional and public affairs at the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which handles arms transfers. He announced his resignation on LinkedIn.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:17 PM on March 6 [5 favorites]
And the people willing to go on-record with WaPo's John Hudson (the paper's national-security reporter), the day after Super Tuesday, are Democrats -- including the guy who resigned in protest in October, Josh Paul.
Paul was the director of congressional and public affairs at the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which handles arms transfers. He announced his resignation on LinkedIn.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:17 PM on March 6 [5 favorites]
It's funny you mention United Fruit Company. I only recently learned about their US-sponsored coup d'état in Guatemala that led to their civil war. I was going on a walk with my Guatemalan friend a couple weeks ago and we were casually talking about a UN vote wherein Guatemala was on the side of Israel. We just said, "Huh, that's interesting. I wonder what that's about," and kept walking.
Well, I went home and researched it...
Since the CIA-sponsored coup in 1954, Guatemala has been ruled by a succession of right-wing regimes determined to suppress an indigenous revolutionary movement that traces its lineage back to the American intervention. [1]
Right. This led to the Guatemalan civil war. But wait ...what's that over there?
Israel played a critical role in the Guatemalan civil war, notably during the especially brutal period from the mid-70s to mid-80s in which the Mayan genocide was carried out. Israeli military officials provided training to the Guatemalan army, sharing the counterinsurgency and interrogation techniques that had allowed them to eradicate Palestinian villages and torture Palestinian prisoners.
So close was this relationship that Guatemalan military officials spoke openly of the “Palestinisation” of the country’s Mayan population. Efrain Rios Montt, the most brutal of Guatemala’s wartime dictators who stood trial for Genocide in 2017, openly thanked “our friends the Israelis” for facilitating his rise to power in 1982 and acknowledged that it had gone well “because many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” At the time, Israeli press reported that over 300 Israeli military advisors had assisted in his takeover.[2]
...and we're back on topic!
Random fact:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recalled that he had grown up in Jerusalem near a street named after [Guatemalan ambassador to the UN] Morales’s country. “In just about every town in Israel there is a Guatemala Street because we remember Guatemala’s friendship and the friendship and leadership of your UN ambassador at the time of the decision on the Partition Resolution, and so Guatemala was etched into our hearts then,” he said.
Sources:
[1] https://merip.org/1986/05/israel-and-guatemala
[2] https://shado-mag.com/all/you-can-kill-the-flowers-but-you-cannot-stop-the-spring-israels-role-in-the-mayan-genocide
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/israel-s-role-in-war-crimes-committed-during-the-guatemalan-civil-war-44285
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/6/5/israels-latin-american-trail-of-terror
posted by i like crows very much at 3:17 PM on March 6 [14 favorites]
Well, I went home and researched it...
Since the CIA-sponsored coup in 1954, Guatemala has been ruled by a succession of right-wing regimes determined to suppress an indigenous revolutionary movement that traces its lineage back to the American intervention. [1]
Right. This led to the Guatemalan civil war. But wait ...what's that over there?
Israel played a critical role in the Guatemalan civil war, notably during the especially brutal period from the mid-70s to mid-80s in which the Mayan genocide was carried out. Israeli military officials provided training to the Guatemalan army, sharing the counterinsurgency and interrogation techniques that had allowed them to eradicate Palestinian villages and torture Palestinian prisoners.
So close was this relationship that Guatemalan military officials spoke openly of the “Palestinisation” of the country’s Mayan population. Efrain Rios Montt, the most brutal of Guatemala’s wartime dictators who stood trial for Genocide in 2017, openly thanked “our friends the Israelis” for facilitating his rise to power in 1982 and acknowledged that it had gone well “because many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” At the time, Israeli press reported that over 300 Israeli military advisors had assisted in his takeover.[2]
...and we're back on topic!
Random fact:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recalled that he had grown up in Jerusalem near a street named after [Guatemalan ambassador to the UN] Morales’s country. “In just about every town in Israel there is a Guatemala Street because we remember Guatemala’s friendship and the friendship and leadership of your UN ambassador at the time of the decision on the Partition Resolution, and so Guatemala was etched into our hearts then,” he said.
Sources:
[1] https://merip.org/1986/05/israel-and-guatemala
[2] https://shado-mag.com/all/you-can-kill-the-flowers-but-you-cannot-stop-the-spring-israels-role-in-the-mayan-genocide
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/israel-s-role-in-war-crimes-committed-during-the-guatemalan-civil-war-44285
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/6/5/israels-latin-american-trail-of-terror
posted by i like crows very much at 3:17 PM on March 6 [14 favorites]
^The USA's long involvement ("Papers Show U.S. Role in Guatemalan Abuses" WaPo, March 11, 1999, archived link): Some of the documents were made available to an independent commission formed to investigate human rights abuses during Guatemala's 36-year civil war, which killed an estimated 200,000 people. The report by the Historical Clarification Commission, which grew out of the U.N.-brokered peace agreement that ended the conflict in 1996, was released last month in Guatemala and blamed government forces for the overwhelming majority of human rights violations during the conflict. [...] "The commission asked for documents from Argentina, Israel and Taiwan," [Kate] Doyle [Guatemala project director at the archives,] said. "Only the United States responded."
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:30 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:30 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
^it's hard to overstate the extent to which USA's blank check(cheque) to this country in particular at the international arena has been a net negative to the global south - which has been something worth ignoring to be sure because for a long time it's true enough, we're talking about countries with no clout. That is changing - a fact that was affirmed to me yesterday when talking about the other theatre of war - Russia - with Victoria Nuland's departure, per this claim by Darryl Cooper:
(...) has run point on our Russia-Europe policy ever since we helped engineer the Maidan coup d’etat. The results, after 10 years are in:
-Ukraine is destroyed, and has permanently lost Crimea and its main industrial region
-Europe is deindustrializing
-Russia is permanently alienated, and tighter than ever with China, India, and Iran
-much of the world refused to isolate Russia, and suffered no consequences
-institutions central to U.S. dollar hegemony no longer viewed as neutral
-NordStream broke the seal on sabotaging international infrastructure
-Russian military capabilities significantly increased, not decreased
-countries like Iran, North Korea, etc have seen that, short of total war, NATO conventional capabilities are quite limited
As you can see, that comes from a specific point of view, that I'm not looking to quarrel about. The analytical conclusions however has some grounds ime/imo esp on the recalibration of international alliances and the dollar hegemony - where I'll disagree is if the assumption here for reducing hegemony is dedollarization as understood in the West - what I'm seeing more of is substantive changes in how global south central banks have been pursuing digital payments and crossborder transactions in their respective currencies.
The US foreign policy is so oversized unlike so many countries it's also a domestic policy in so many ways in how it eventually make its consequences known (off the top of my head eg: immigration, banking/finance, labour market.... The fact timesheets became an international evil.... I'm only minimally sarcastic on that last). Even if I'm not talking about Israel, a lot of how US talks and thinks about itself is premised on several post-war conditions of primacy that is fast becoming untrue or at the very least changing in substantive ways.
I don't know if this makes any useful feedback to your voting or civic life, I'm only saying the outsized outside attention isn't just because we have nothing to watch on TV.
posted by cendawanita at 5:24 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
(...) has run point on our Russia-Europe policy ever since we helped engineer the Maidan coup d’etat. The results, after 10 years are in:
-Ukraine is destroyed, and has permanently lost Crimea and its main industrial region
-Europe is deindustrializing
-Russia is permanently alienated, and tighter than ever with China, India, and Iran
-much of the world refused to isolate Russia, and suffered no consequences
-institutions central to U.S. dollar hegemony no longer viewed as neutral
-NordStream broke the seal on sabotaging international infrastructure
-Russian military capabilities significantly increased, not decreased
-countries like Iran, North Korea, etc have seen that, short of total war, NATO conventional capabilities are quite limited
As you can see, that comes from a specific point of view, that I'm not looking to quarrel about. The analytical conclusions however has some grounds ime/imo esp on the recalibration of international alliances and the dollar hegemony - where I'll disagree is if the assumption here for reducing hegemony is dedollarization as understood in the West - what I'm seeing more of is substantive changes in how global south central banks have been pursuing digital payments and crossborder transactions in their respective currencies.
The US foreign policy is so oversized unlike so many countries it's also a domestic policy in so many ways in how it eventually make its consequences known (off the top of my head eg: immigration, banking/finance, labour market.... The fact timesheets became an international evil.... I'm only minimally sarcastic on that last). Even if I'm not talking about Israel, a lot of how US talks and thinks about itself is premised on several post-war conditions of primacy that is fast becoming untrue or at the very least changing in substantive ways.
I don't know if this makes any useful feedback to your voting or civic life, I'm only saying the outsized outside attention isn't just because we have nothing to watch on TV.
posted by cendawanita at 5:24 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
I think NATO, if mobilized, would kick the shit out of Russia. But, things we aren't supposed to talk about, so that is unlikely to happen. And we got Finland! Not wanting to fight them.
When the rubles aren't there, things may alter.
posted by Windopaene at 6:38 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
When the rubles aren't there, things may alter.
posted by Windopaene at 6:38 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
per this claim by Darryl Cooper:
You're choosing to amplify someone who's very next post says "I know it doesn’t feel that way now, but Russia winning in Ukraine was the best thing for the world, and even for the US" and goes on to have plenty of other posts repeating Russian propaganda, like this one: Pathetic that US Senators, general officers, and foreign policy officials are still insisting on the absurd lie that Putin wanted, but failed, to take all of Ukraine.
This is not a credible source in terms of analysis or facts and should not be posted here.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:51 PM on March 6 [15 favorites]
You're choosing to amplify someone who's very next post says "I know it doesn’t feel that way now, but Russia winning in Ukraine was the best thing for the world, and even for the US" and goes on to have plenty of other posts repeating Russian propaganda, like this one: Pathetic that US Senators, general officers, and foreign policy officials are still insisting on the absurd lie that Putin wanted, but failed, to take all of Ukraine.
This is not a credible source in terms of analysis or facts and should not be posted here.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:51 PM on March 6 [15 favorites]
Like I said, I don't want to quarrel on the pov - further, I've disagreed with the points as stated and am using it as a jumping off point. Fwiw I got it via Ryan Grim of The Intercept.
I just want to note that mefites lately have gone straight to the brass tacks when it comes to invalidating a source rather than sift the useful stuff out.
posted by cendawanita at 6:55 PM on March 6 [9 favorites]
I just want to note that mefites lately have gone straight to the brass tacks when it comes to invalidating a source rather than sift the useful stuff out.
posted by cendawanita at 6:55 PM on March 6 [9 favorites]
And if I can impart a useful global south custom: please let's get good about parsing the variety of sources.
posted by cendawanita at 6:57 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 6:57 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
Cooper's mendacious take on the universe as he sees it is not great for the supporting thesis: "about countries with no clout. That is changing - a fact that was affirmed to me yesterday when talking about the other theatre of war - Russia - with Victoria Nuland's departure, per this claim by Darryl Cooper:"
you state that as an affirming fact and then add the caveat that you don't want to quarrel about it. I don't think anybody's going to quarrell with you, I think questioning the reliability of the sources is enough.
posted by clavdivs at 7:27 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
you state that as an affirming fact and then add the caveat that you don't want to quarrel about it. I don't think anybody's going to quarrell with you, I think questioning the reliability of the sources is enough.
posted by clavdivs at 7:27 PM on March 6 [1 favorite]
And if I can impart a useful global south custom: please let's get good about parsing the variety of sources.
That source is easily parsed as a repeater of Russian propaganda. There are plenty of great global sources and you post a lot of them. It adds a lot to the site and I and others have frequently given you thanks for that. This particular one is a dud and should have been skipped.
Over and above that this is a nonsense "source," the "analysis" is also nonsense. To pick one example:
-countries like Iran, North Korea, etc have seen that, short of total war, NATO conventional capabilities are quite limited
Old, previous-generation NATO-spec weapons plus drones have turned out to work incredibly effectively against modern Russian weaponry, and without either a navy or much of an airforce. Aside from the nuclear threat, the Russian military has shown itself to be a total joke and as a result Russia is far, far more vulnerable than when they started this war. And that's all from NATO providing outdated armaments, training, and (obviously but mostly unstated) advisors; the result if NATO forces were for-real involved is pretty obvious to predict.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:35 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]
That source is easily parsed as a repeater of Russian propaganda. There are plenty of great global sources and you post a lot of them. It adds a lot to the site and I and others have frequently given you thanks for that. This particular one is a dud and should have been skipped.
Over and above that this is a nonsense "source," the "analysis" is also nonsense. To pick one example:
-countries like Iran, North Korea, etc have seen that, short of total war, NATO conventional capabilities are quite limited
Old, previous-generation NATO-spec weapons plus drones have turned out to work incredibly effectively against modern Russian weaponry, and without either a navy or much of an airforce. Aside from the nuclear threat, the Russian military has shown itself to be a total joke and as a result Russia is far, far more vulnerable than when they started this war. And that's all from NATO providing outdated armaments, training, and (obviously but mostly unstated) advisors; the result if NATO forces were for-real involved is pretty obvious to predict.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:35 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]
you state that as an affirming fact
Fair, this is on me for not explaining my thinking (in part because I don't want to derail but regardless on me nonetheless)
Aside from the nuclear threat, the Russian military has shown itself to be a total joke and as a result Russia is far, far more vulnerable than when they started this war. And that's all from NATO providing outdated armaments, training, and (obviously but mostly unstated) advisors; the result if NATO forces were for-real involved is pretty obvious to predict.
This I agree with.
I have to get back to driving but I'm really not being dishonest if just careless in explaining. I'll get back on what I mean by clout, I promise.
posted by cendawanita at 7:38 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
Fair, this is on me for not explaining my thinking (in part because I don't want to derail but regardless on me nonetheless)
Aside from the nuclear threat, the Russian military has shown itself to be a total joke and as a result Russia is far, far more vulnerable than when they started this war. And that's all from NATO providing outdated armaments, training, and (obviously but mostly unstated) advisors; the result if NATO forces were for-real involved is pretty obvious to predict.
This I agree with.
I have to get back to driving but I'm really not being dishonest if just careless in explaining. I'll get back on what I mean by clout, I promise.
posted by cendawanita at 7:38 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]
A poem relevant to the issue by Wendell Berry
Questionnaire
1. How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the free
market and global trade? Please
name your preferred poisons.
2. For the sake of goodness, how much
evil are you willing to do?
Fill in the following blanks
with the names of your favorite
evils and acts of hatred.
3. What sacrifices are you prepared
to make for culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments, shrines,
and works of art you would
most willingly destroy.
4. In the name of patriotism and
the flag, how much of our beloved
land are you willing to desecrate?
List in the following spaces
the mountains, rivers, towns, farms
you could most readily do without.
5. State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security,
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.
posted by sotonohito at 8:50 PM on March 6 [19 favorites]
Questionnaire
1. How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the free
market and global trade? Please
name your preferred poisons.
2. For the sake of goodness, how much
evil are you willing to do?
Fill in the following blanks
with the names of your favorite
evils and acts of hatred.
3. What sacrifices are you prepared
to make for culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments, shrines,
and works of art you would
most willingly destroy.
4. In the name of patriotism and
the flag, how much of our beloved
land are you willing to desecrate?
List in the following spaces
the mountains, rivers, towns, farms
you could most readily do without.
5. State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security,
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.
posted by sotonohito at 8:50 PM on March 6 [19 favorites]
Also, just in case anyone wants to make hay out of the fact that the over-100 weapons transfers since October 7 were sales rather than gifts (because i've seen this talking point a lot, "we're not giving them weapons, we're only selling them weapons", i'd like to point out that Israel has received at least $3B/year in direct monetary aid from the US every year since 1976, and a bill has already passed in the Senate to give them an extra $14B in 2024.
So sure, we're selling them weapons, but we're also giving them the money they use to buy the weapons.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:51 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]
So sure, we're selling them weapons, but we're also giving them the money they use to buy the weapons.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:51 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]
All right, begging indulgence for interrupting the flow, let's get into it, by what I mean by parsing sources and where I've been careless. I'd like to start by saying, if it hasn't been clear already (... My post edit history...), I am not really the best at writing out my thoughts and I do depend on quoting other people's words instead (ala Bumblebee and their radio/songs). In this particular case, let me reach for this tweet: I’m so tired of having to double check platforming and re sharing those who deny our death and genocide in Syria but are rightfully so in good stance on the genocide in Palestine, why is it so “complicated” to recognize our dead at the hands of criminals?
---
So for me, as a non-westie, I have never had the luxury of knowing any source is objectively "good" - but knowing they all have an angle doesn't mean they're all not trustworthy just that they all have something worth looking into and validating elsewhere. So in this case, when you reach for examples of Darryl Cooper being an outright tankie when it comes to Russia, I don't particularly feel the need to defend him - I have to grow up finding some alliances with local pro-democracy activists who have links to the NRA or at least supported by both IRI and NDI (for analogy, the ever-present boogeyman of being funded by OSI in Central and Eastern Europe) as well as hearing valid critiques from those funded by the Confucius Institute or just coming straight from the Saudi playbooks. My habit of mind is developed against this, and one of my personal cautionary tales is that I don't become a John Pilger.
I also see keeping my statements general didn't strike a sufficient note of caution. I did say after all the analytical points have "some grounds". I really do take statements not at face-value, then why did I pick that tweet specifically? Most of where his arguments I anticipate going should be treated with skepticism, but to see the opening bullet points all in one list was rare. More to the point, I see there's some kind of angle there that felt worth noting for here, and what did that affirm when it comes to what I mean by other countries now having more clout?
My jumping off point was the share about Guatemala, and it could happen in the context of the Cold War and the relative economic prosperity and soft power leadership the West had. Cooper might want to see the (revolutionary) end of the West, but regardless like I said, each bullet point has some merit to be there even if I don't find his conclusions sound. As it relates to this thread, I do think many Americans, while being like everyone else in every other country in the world in not finding much use of foreign policy talk in their domestic policy concern, don't actually reside in a typical country where this is true enough. For one example, I see again, such talk about moving to another country, early on in the super Tuesday thread. But I ask you seriously, moving where? And how is this behaviour not unlike other economic migrants even refugees? The only difference being I think those migrants couldn't actually leverage on anything before they got to that point (as a collective; to head off any individual examples demonstrating a supposed contrary). How do I tie this example back to my clout claim? Do you guys really think borders of other countries are not tightening even for an American passport?
posted by cendawanita at 10:01 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
---
So for me, as a non-westie, I have never had the luxury of knowing any source is objectively "good" - but knowing they all have an angle doesn't mean they're all not trustworthy just that they all have something worth looking into and validating elsewhere. So in this case, when you reach for examples of Darryl Cooper being an outright tankie when it comes to Russia, I don't particularly feel the need to defend him - I have to grow up finding some alliances with local pro-democracy activists who have links to the NRA or at least supported by both IRI and NDI (for analogy, the ever-present boogeyman of being funded by OSI in Central and Eastern Europe) as well as hearing valid critiques from those funded by the Confucius Institute or just coming straight from the Saudi playbooks. My habit of mind is developed against this, and one of my personal cautionary tales is that I don't become a John Pilger.
I also see keeping my statements general didn't strike a sufficient note of caution. I did say after all the analytical points have "some grounds". I really do take statements not at face-value, then why did I pick that tweet specifically? Most of where his arguments I anticipate going should be treated with skepticism, but to see the opening bullet points all in one list was rare. More to the point, I see there's some kind of angle there that felt worth noting for here, and what did that affirm when it comes to what I mean by other countries now having more clout?
My jumping off point was the share about Guatemala, and it could happen in the context of the Cold War and the relative economic prosperity and soft power leadership the West had. Cooper might want to see the (revolutionary) end of the West, but regardless like I said, each bullet point has some merit to be there even if I don't find his conclusions sound. As it relates to this thread, I do think many Americans, while being like everyone else in every other country in the world in not finding much use of foreign policy talk in their domestic policy concern, don't actually reside in a typical country where this is true enough. For one example, I see again, such talk about moving to another country, early on in the super Tuesday thread. But I ask you seriously, moving where? And how is this behaviour not unlike other economic migrants even refugees? The only difference being I think those migrants couldn't actually leverage on anything before they got to that point (as a collective; to head off any individual examples demonstrating a supposed contrary). How do I tie this example back to my clout claim? Do you guys really think borders of other countries are not tightening even for an American passport?
posted by cendawanita at 10:01 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
"hating your aggression
you aligned yourself with the worst of my kind
exiled my George Washington––
Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq
helped Saddam bomb my birthplace
destroy the school of my childhood
his soldiers swarming the hills of Charzebar
where as a child I hunted with my grandfather
sold arms to warmongers
who waged battles on grounds
that my great-grandfather made fifteen pilgrimages
on foot to Karbala
now I lay claim to your Bill of Rights
and Declaration of Independence.
I came to you
not a prince who had lost his future throne
not a thief
finding a cover in the multitude of your metropolis
hiding behind your volumes of law
not a merchant
dreaming of exploiting your open markets
not a smuggler seeking riches overnight
but a green-horn seventeen year-old
with four hundred dollars
after dad sold his prized Breda
and mom some of her wedding jewelry
with a suitcase of clothes and books..."
-Ali Zarrin
posted by clavdivs at 12:00 AM on March 7 [8 favorites]
you aligned yourself with the worst of my kind
exiled my George Washington––
Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq
helped Saddam bomb my birthplace
destroy the school of my childhood
his soldiers swarming the hills of Charzebar
where as a child I hunted with my grandfather
sold arms to warmongers
who waged battles on grounds
that my great-grandfather made fifteen pilgrimages
on foot to Karbala
now I lay claim to your Bill of Rights
and Declaration of Independence.
I came to you
not a prince who had lost his future throne
not a thief
finding a cover in the multitude of your metropolis
hiding behind your volumes of law
not a merchant
dreaming of exploiting your open markets
not a smuggler seeking riches overnight
but a green-horn seventeen year-old
with four hundred dollars
after dad sold his prized Breda
and mom some of her wedding jewelry
with a suitcase of clothes and books..."
-Ali Zarrin
posted by clavdivs at 12:00 AM on March 7 [8 favorites]
The White House tries to steer Israel back onto a two way street. David Ignatius, opinion, Washington Post, gift link, 2/7/24.
posted by newdaddy at 2:13 AM on March 7
posted by newdaddy at 2:13 AM on March 7
Anyway, I guess my nose and I should've waited for this Foreign Affairs piece, for a more respectable take of what I've observed: The Power Vacuum in the Middle East - A Region Where No One’s in Charge. The writer has a thread (no threadreader yet):
(...) The Palestinian cause is back on the agenda. Gulf states are vulnerable entrepots, not "little Spartas": they want no part of regional war. Amid the Middle East's biggest crisis in decades Russia and China, two supposed rising powers, are nowhere to be found.
Even if those ideas were myths, though, the region is still changing. The multipolar moment hasn't arrived, but American power is undeniably on the wane: it has little to show for five months of playing whack-a-mole with Iranian proxies and pleading in vain with Israel.
Gulf states aren't siding with Israel against Iran, but they aren't lining up against Israel either—and Iran's own regional alliance is showing strain, because an "axis of resistance" meant to keep conflicts away from Iran's borders now risks bringing them home.
The region is at an interregnum. America is an uninterested, ineffective hegemon; its great-power rivals, even more so. Fragile Gulf states cannot fill the gap. Nor can Israel. Iran can only play spoiler. Everyone else is a spectator, beset by economic crises and illegitimacy.
Arguably the conclusion helps to provide some buffer to the idea of then what's the point of demanding the US to do anything, but I've been taking the situation to read that this is a consequence of inertia.
posted by cendawanita at 4:01 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
(...) The Palestinian cause is back on the agenda. Gulf states are vulnerable entrepots, not "little Spartas": they want no part of regional war. Amid the Middle East's biggest crisis in decades Russia and China, two supposed rising powers, are nowhere to be found.
Even if those ideas were myths, though, the region is still changing. The multipolar moment hasn't arrived, but American power is undeniably on the wane: it has little to show for five months of playing whack-a-mole with Iranian proxies and pleading in vain with Israel.
Gulf states aren't siding with Israel against Iran, but they aren't lining up against Israel either—and Iran's own regional alliance is showing strain, because an "axis of resistance" meant to keep conflicts away from Iran's borders now risks bringing them home.
The region is at an interregnum. America is an uninterested, ineffective hegemon; its great-power rivals, even more so. Fragile Gulf states cannot fill the gap. Nor can Israel. Iran can only play spoiler. Everyone else is a spectator, beset by economic crises and illegitimacy.
Arguably the conclusion helps to provide some buffer to the idea of then what's the point of demanding the US to do anything, but I've been taking the situation to read that this is a consequence of inertia.
posted by cendawanita at 4:01 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
Tonight I guess will be a big test of the thesis that Biden's age matters. How will the SOTU go? Will he have the energy to make the kind of speech the nation needs to hear? It's kind of terrifying, actually.
posted by mittens at 4:48 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
posted by mittens at 4:48 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
So sure, we're selling them weapons, but we're also giving them the money they use to buy the weapons.
So much "military aid" is a boondoggle to subsidize - ie. transfer billons of taxpayer dollars every year directly to - the US's private arms industry.
This is assuming you think that the "arms industry" and "government" are separable entities since, oooh, the 1950s.
posted by lalochezia at 4:49 AM on March 7 [9 favorites]
So much "military aid" is a boondoggle to subsidize - ie. transfer billons of taxpayer dollars every year directly to - the US's private arms industry.
This is assuming you think that the "arms industry" and "government" are separable entities since, oooh, the 1950s.
posted by lalochezia at 4:49 AM on March 7 [9 favorites]
For one example, I see again, such talk about moving to another country, early on in the super Tuesday thread. But I ask you seriously, moving where? And how is this behaviour not unlike other economic migrants even refugees? The only difference being I think those migrants couldn't actually leverage on anything before they got to that point (as a collective; to head off any individual examples demonstrating a supposed contrary). How do I tie this example back to my clout claim? Do you guys really think borders of other countries are not tightening even for an American passport?
I agree, but I don't think it's being driven by the recent issues. The tightening of options has been true for at least the last 20 years, and is continuing to slowly tighten. If you have enough assets to be self-sustaining, borders everywhere are pretty open for coming and staying long-term in some sort of visitor status; if you have even more money, you can buy an immigration visa in a lot of places. But pretty much universally, the highly-developed countries (like in the EU, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia) are only interested in immigrants (as in, with rights to work, access to health care systems, and a path to citizenship) who are younger (usually under 40 or 45) and who neither have health issues themselves nor a family member who would need expensive health or social services. A lot of the people idly saying "if Trump wins, I'm emigrating!" don't actually have a realistic option of emigrating to a rich country.
What is fully open to a US passport holder, regardless of age or health status, is almost every poorer country. As long as you have some level of assets or income, most of the global south is accessible. And quite a few people take advantage of this, particularly for their early retirement years (c.f. places like San Miguel de Allende, for example). But that's still a very small percentage of people who do so and again, it's just not realistic for a lot of people who have family obligations, financial concerns, or who simply aren't interested in the challenges of living in another culture. If the trickle of (in relative terms) wealthy-ish retirees turned into a flood of people emigrating for real and competing for jobs and needing social services, many of those borders would snap shut in an instant.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:02 AM on March 7 [5 favorites]
I agree, but I don't think it's being driven by the recent issues. The tightening of options has been true for at least the last 20 years, and is continuing to slowly tighten. If you have enough assets to be self-sustaining, borders everywhere are pretty open for coming and staying long-term in some sort of visitor status; if you have even more money, you can buy an immigration visa in a lot of places. But pretty much universally, the highly-developed countries (like in the EU, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia) are only interested in immigrants (as in, with rights to work, access to health care systems, and a path to citizenship) who are younger (usually under 40 or 45) and who neither have health issues themselves nor a family member who would need expensive health or social services. A lot of the people idly saying "if Trump wins, I'm emigrating!" don't actually have a realistic option of emigrating to a rich country.
What is fully open to a US passport holder, regardless of age or health status, is almost every poorer country. As long as you have some level of assets or income, most of the global south is accessible. And quite a few people take advantage of this, particularly for their early retirement years (c.f. places like San Miguel de Allende, for example). But that's still a very small percentage of people who do so and again, it's just not realistic for a lot of people who have family obligations, financial concerns, or who simply aren't interested in the challenges of living in another culture. If the trickle of (in relative terms) wealthy-ish retirees turned into a flood of people emigrating for real and competing for jobs and needing social services, many of those borders would snap shut in an instant.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:02 AM on March 7 [5 favorites]
Yes indeed, it's a slow rolling closing of that escape route, the recent events have just clarified it imo, fwiw.
posted by cendawanita at 6:32 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 6:32 AM on March 7 [4 favorites]
Biden will announce plans to build a temporary port in Gaza to deliver aid directly tonight in the State of the Union. The admisntration is also leading hte efforts to broker a Ramadan ceasefire. The latest round of talks just ended with Hamas leaving Cairo for additional consultations with their leadership.
posted by interogative mood at 11:01 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 11:01 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
Smol brain: Israel should stop colonizing Gaza
Normal brain: Gaza should stop bombing Israel
Bright brain: US should stop funding Israel
Galaxy brain: US should start colonizing Gaza
posted by pwnguin at 11:26 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
Normal brain: Gaza should stop bombing Israel
Bright brain: US should stop funding Israel
Galaxy brain: US should start colonizing Gaza
posted by pwnguin at 11:26 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
US should start colonizing Gaza
The 51-state solution.
posted by mittens at 12:22 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
The 51-state solution.
posted by mittens at 12:22 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
There is literally no way anyone actually thinks Biden is going to put American troops in Gaza in an election year. Not even for as long as it takes to build a "temporary port" -- which Israel will turn right around and destroy as soon as those troops leave, in addition to sinking any ships that try to put into it.
And even if it does magically happen, the IDF will wait right outside the distribution points and massacre the Palestinians trying to get food; there are now Flour Bag Massacres happening every day, just with fewer casualties. You think American troops are going to be authorized to shoot back? LMAO.
This is entirely empty words and theater, again, for the purpose of duping potential voters.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:45 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
And even if it does magically happen, the IDF will wait right outside the distribution points and massacre the Palestinians trying to get food; there are now Flour Bag Massacres happening every day, just with fewer casualties. You think American troops are going to be authorized to shoot back? LMAO.
This is entirely empty words and theater, again, for the purpose of duping potential voters.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:45 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
Also, interogative_mood: By all honest accounts, "The latest round of talks just ended with Hamas leaving Cairo" not for additional consultations but because Israel didn't even bother to show up.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:46 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:46 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
You're saying you're certain no temporary port will be established? I would take that bet. He wouldn't put it out in the SotU if it was empty bullshit. Or at least if he knew it was empty bullshit. the Israelis or Hamas could always torpedo it later.
But I'd still take the bet.
posted by Justinian at 2:17 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
But I'd still take the bet.
posted by Justinian at 2:17 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
I earnestly hope i'm wrong, certainly, but i genuinely do not believe it will happen, no.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:21 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:21 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
I don't think anyone is suggesting US troops in gaza. we don't know the details of who is going to build the port or when. I'd farm it out to the British or Bechtel with as much Palestinian participation as possible.
posted by clavdivs at 2:23 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 2:23 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
but i genuinely do not believe it will happen, no.
Fair enough, I guess we'll find out soonish.
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on March 7
Fair enough, I guess we'll find out soonish.
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on March 7
clavdivs: How do you think any non-military organization is going to actually get supplies in to build anything? Because Israel isn't going to lift the blockade, and construction supplies & equipment are something that they explicitly disallow.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:30 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:30 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
The executive branch could just actually enforce the goddamn Leahy Law and the Foreign Assistance act and this would be over next fucking week. But we all know they're not going to do that.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:31 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:31 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
It'll be the US military building the port but it's an offshore pier port. There won't as far as I am aware be troops actually on the ground in Gaza to any real extent.
posted by Justinian at 2:54 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:54 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
Again, how does the US plan for it to not be destroyed instantly after building by Israel if there aren't going to be military personnel involved? And for that matter, how do they plan to get the humanitarian aid from offshore to ON shore when Israel is well known to shoot at anything that moves in Gaza's waters including fishing boats and swimming children?
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:50 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:50 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
Many Palestinians (this is just one example, from Twitter) are also understandably and reasonably convinced that this port "for humanitarian aid" is also going to be used for mass removal of Palestinians and exploitation of Gaza's offshore natural resources.
Yet again something is being done TO Palestine without any input FROM Palestinians.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:53 PM on March 7 [9 favorites]
Yet again something is being done TO Palestine without any input FROM Palestinians.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:53 PM on March 7 [9 favorites]
That's what it is. It's going to be used to remove Palestinians to wherever will take them. The IDF is going to move in and literally drive them into the sea until they're desperate enough to get transported to...wherever, not the Sinai apparently. That's the only way this makes sense, because otherwise what a fucking dumb idea. Presumably refugee camps somewhere close, because there will be so many people.
posted by Frowner at 5:08 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 5:08 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
Or... hear me out... Biden wanted more aid to reach Gaza and this is a way to get more aid there.
But sure, let's jump straight to "Biden can't wait to get directly and personally involved in the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza" less than a day after the policy is announced.
posted by Justinian at 7:47 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
But sure, let's jump straight to "Biden can't wait to get directly and personally involved in the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza" less than a day after the policy is announced.
posted by Justinian at 7:47 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
There already is aid, in quantity, mobile and ready to go, organized by people who know the area and are willing to re-up virtually indefinitely. This aid is being blocked by proxies of the Israeli state. The Israeli state is enormously dependent on US aid and good will. Even if we're not willing to halt the arms shipments or put the arm on the Israelis to stop the bombing, we have more than enough leverage to get that aid into Gaza.
If we're willing "not to wait" for the Israelis and to make them mad mad mad by building this pier, why aren't we willing to make them mad by forcing them to let the aid trucks in? Like, either they're our buds and we support the bombing and the pier is some weird op or they're not our buds and we want to provide aid in which case why are we providing so many bombs?
If Joe Biden is so captive to the fundies, the arms dealers and AIPAC that he is forced against his will to support the bombing, how come he is able to build this pier? If he can stand up to them and doesn't want to keep supporting a genocide, why doesn't he stop supporting the genocide?
There has to be some advantage to the US in doing this - either it's going to be merely a boondoggle that we know in advance won't make a meaningful difference, it's a base for some kind of US operation or it's early stages of what will probably be spun as a humanitarian "rescue" of Palestinians from their own country.
posted by Frowner at 8:37 PM on March 7 [11 favorites]
If we're willing "not to wait" for the Israelis and to make them mad mad mad by building this pier, why aren't we willing to make them mad by forcing them to let the aid trucks in? Like, either they're our buds and we support the bombing and the pier is some weird op or they're not our buds and we want to provide aid in which case why are we providing so many bombs?
If Joe Biden is so captive to the fundies, the arms dealers and AIPAC that he is forced against his will to support the bombing, how come he is able to build this pier? If he can stand up to them and doesn't want to keep supporting a genocide, why doesn't he stop supporting the genocide?
There has to be some advantage to the US in doing this - either it's going to be merely a boondoggle that we know in advance won't make a meaningful difference, it's a base for some kind of US operation or it's early stages of what will probably be spun as a humanitarian "rescue" of Palestinians from their own country.
posted by Frowner at 8:37 PM on March 7 [11 favorites]
And if we're so anxious to provide aid, why haven't we restarted UNWRA funding?
posted by Frowner at 8:38 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 8:38 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
Seeing SOTU commentary--
HuffPo's Christopher Matthias: maybe shows how far to the right our politics have shifted - or how hollow his progressive overtures were - that Biden launched his campaign citing Charlottesville, & now holds up a gift from MTG, a featured speaker at a white supremacist conference, while saying “an illegal”
He's QT-ing Justin Baragona who posted a clip: Welp!
Biden holds up the Laken Riley pin that MTG gave him, then mispronounces her name.
"Lincoln Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That’s right! But how many of the thousands of people are being killed by illegals!"
For me, he's your best bet against a republican incumbent but I don't doubt the lack of feeling for Palestinians, immigrants, people who are not "his ", it's all of a piece. Palestine is just an urgent example or demonstration that's all, but it doesn't seem to be out of character. Even the unions (his other supposed base) calling for ceasefire didn't budge him much.
posted by cendawanita at 9:12 PM on March 7 [9 favorites]
HuffPo's Christopher Matthias: maybe shows how far to the right our politics have shifted - or how hollow his progressive overtures were - that Biden launched his campaign citing Charlottesville, & now holds up a gift from MTG, a featured speaker at a white supremacist conference, while saying “an illegal”
He's QT-ing Justin Baragona who posted a clip: Welp!
Biden holds up the Laken Riley pin that MTG gave him, then mispronounces her name.
"Lincoln Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That’s right! But how many of the thousands of people are being killed by illegals!"
For me, he's your best bet against a republican incumbent but I don't doubt the lack of feeling for Palestinians, immigrants, people who are not "his ", it's all of a piece. Palestine is just an urgent example or demonstration that's all, but it doesn't seem to be out of character. Even the unions (his other supposed base) calling for ceasefire didn't budge him much.
posted by cendawanita at 9:12 PM on March 7 [9 favorites]
How do you think any non-military organization is going to actually get supplies in to build anything? Because Israel isn't going to lift the blockade, and construction supplies & equipment are something that they explicitly disallow.
United States military could probably put a port in Gaza in a week if we had those supplies in the region which I assume we do.
"In 2024, in response to concerns over the risk of famine as a result of the Israel-Hamas War, President Joe Biden has been reported to be planning for the U.S. Military to construct a temporary port on the Gaza Coast, in order to allow for increased humanitarian aid. Official sources stated that the plan would involve a maritime corridor connecting Gaza with Cyprus, and that the military was not planning for "an operation that would require U.S. boots on the ground."[15]" most likely a new entry.
The British have bases on Cyprus. the recent airdrops between Jordan and the United kingdom would suggest this would be some of the supplies that frowner alluded to that are waiting to be delivered. United States military right now would be the most effective at building a temporary port, private contractor could easily follow up with a more permanent structure. the capacity of some private construction companies far distance the US military's capabilities for construction.
you have to see the larger strategic move here and that is we're going to inform Israel of the port and it will take measures to ensure that that port remains safe. this can address the larger issue of the supplies once they reach into Gaza outside of the United States operational jurisdiction.
it is what it is. in my opinion it's a little too late. more importantly it shows the outdated diplomacy that a lot of money is going to Israel in the form of lethal and some non-lethal aid whilst we're building a port for the people that they're trying to destroy. if the United States was truly just from this point on it would take every penny that 14 billion dollars plus and turn it into reconstruction and aid for Gaza.
posted by clavdivs at 11:15 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
United States military could probably put a port in Gaza in a week if we had those supplies in the region which I assume we do.
"In 2024, in response to concerns over the risk of famine as a result of the Israel-Hamas War, President Joe Biden has been reported to be planning for the U.S. Military to construct a temporary port on the Gaza Coast, in order to allow for increased humanitarian aid. Official sources stated that the plan would involve a maritime corridor connecting Gaza with Cyprus, and that the military was not planning for "an operation that would require U.S. boots on the ground."[15]" most likely a new entry.
The British have bases on Cyprus. the recent airdrops between Jordan and the United kingdom would suggest this would be some of the supplies that frowner alluded to that are waiting to be delivered. United States military right now would be the most effective at building a temporary port, private contractor could easily follow up with a more permanent structure. the capacity of some private construction companies far distance the US military's capabilities for construction.
you have to see the larger strategic move here and that is we're going to inform Israel of the port and it will take measures to ensure that that port remains safe. this can address the larger issue of the supplies once they reach into Gaza outside of the United States operational jurisdiction.
it is what it is. in my opinion it's a little too late. more importantly it shows the outdated diplomacy that a lot of money is going to Israel in the form of lethal and some non-lethal aid whilst we're building a port for the people that they're trying to destroy. if the United States was truly just from this point on it would take every penny that 14 billion dollars plus and turn it into reconstruction and aid for Gaza.
posted by clavdivs at 11:15 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
He's QT-ing Justin Baragona who posted a clip: Welp!
Biden holds up the Laken Riley pin that MTG gave him, then mispronounces her name.
"Lincoln Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That’s right! But how many of the thousands of people are being killed by illegals!"
I mean... the guy has a medical stutter and he's had it his whole life. I'm guessing that's why 'Laken' became 'Lincoln'. Also, this isn't what he said. He asked how many thousands of people are killed by 'legals'-- ie, pointing to how right wing media loses its minds when an undocumented immigrant commits a crime but doesn't try to deport the exponentially greater number of native-born Americans who commit crimes. It's not the most eloquent phrasing (and I definitely don't like him using the term 'illegal') but... again, medical speech disorder.
posted by Method Man at 12:56 AM on March 8 [5 favorites]
Biden holds up the Laken Riley pin that MTG gave him, then mispronounces her name.
"Lincoln Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That’s right! But how many of the thousands of people are being killed by illegals!"
I mean... the guy has a medical stutter and he's had it his whole life. I'm guessing that's why 'Laken' became 'Lincoln'. Also, this isn't what he said. He asked how many thousands of people are killed by 'legals'-- ie, pointing to how right wing media loses its minds when an undocumented immigrant commits a crime but doesn't try to deport the exponentially greater number of native-born Americans who commit crimes. It's not the most eloquent phrasing (and I definitely don't like him using the term 'illegal') but... again, medical speech disorder.
posted by Method Man at 12:56 AM on March 8 [5 favorites]
The US military has spent decades building this capability. It is called Joint Logistics over the Shore (JLOTS).
Because Biden said the US military will be staying offshore, I assume this will be a joint operation with an allied government providing on shore elements (for example perimeter security and managing the distribution point).
Obviously there are a lot of risks in an operation like this and hopefully Biden and military commanders remember the fiasco of the US intervention in Lebanon.
posted by interogative mood at 9:58 AM on March 8
Because Biden said the US military will be staying offshore, I assume this will be a joint operation with an allied government providing on shore elements (for example perimeter security and managing the distribution point).
Obviously there are a lot of risks in an operation like this and hopefully Biden and military commanders remember the fiasco of the US intervention in Lebanon.
posted by interogative mood at 9:58 AM on March 8
The US military has spent decades building this capability. It is called Joint Logistics over the Shore (JLOTS).
I wonder if the planners are daring enough to make a causeway from all of the concrete rubble, which has to go somewhere. The symbolism would be the sticking point, and also permanent.
posted by Brian B. at 10:06 AM on March 8
I wonder if the planners are daring enough to make a causeway from all of the concrete rubble, which has to go somewhere. The symbolism would be the sticking point, and also permanent.
posted by Brian B. at 10:06 AM on March 8
It boggles my mind how many people in here refuse to acknowledge, after five months (and 75 years), that Joseph Robinette Biden is absolutely onboard with the massacre of Palestinian women and children and has, in fact, been saying so in public since NINETEEN EIGHTY-TWO.
There are certainly many reasons why US/Israel foreign policy is the way it is, but right now one of those reasons is that the President of the United States and his top advisors are all ardently in favor of what Israel is doing, even if they feel like they have to tone that down for public consumption.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:14 AM on March 8 [5 favorites]
There are certainly many reasons why US/Israel foreign policy is the way it is, but right now one of those reasons is that the President of the United States and his top advisors are all ardently in favor of what Israel is doing, even if they feel like they have to tone that down for public consumption.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:14 AM on March 8 [5 favorites]
Even if one accepts the premise it doesn't then imply that the port is for active participation in forced relocation of Palestinians. That logic is basically saying "Biden supports this bad thing. This other thing is also bad. Therefore Biden must support this other bad thing."
There's currently no reason to believe this proposed offshore port is for anything other than moving aid more effectively to Gaza.
posted by Justinian at 10:59 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]
There's currently no reason to believe this proposed offshore port is for anything other than moving aid more effectively to Gaza.
posted by Justinian at 10:59 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]
In the meantime, Biden is still handing over money and weapons to Israel like it's candy for the next two months, assuming the thing actually gets built and works as intended on the schedule provided.
Two months of massacres the Israeli government and military will essentially telegraph in advance, which will result in useless wrist-slaps at worst.
Two months of drips and drabs (the airdrop was a PR stunt that delivered less than a molecule in a drop in a bucket) from one of the strongest countries in the world, because they won't bother to stand up to a bunch of petulant, hateful thugs.
Two months of extreme starvation and famine that they could absolutely do something about but won't, because of Civility and Moderation.
Two months of Israel disappearing innocent Palestinians to be tortured or murdered, while the IDF somehow gets to be the final say on the fate of aid organizations like UNRWA.
Two months of destruction of centuries' worth of cultural and religious institutions, yet nothing but anger if you dare imply that an ethnic cleansing is going on.
But sure, we can wait two months.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:23 AM on March 8 [8 favorites]
Two months of massacres the Israeli government and military will essentially telegraph in advance, which will result in useless wrist-slaps at worst.
Two months of drips and drabs (the airdrop was a PR stunt that delivered less than a molecule in a drop in a bucket) from one of the strongest countries in the world, because they won't bother to stand up to a bunch of petulant, hateful thugs.
Two months of extreme starvation and famine that they could absolutely do something about but won't, because of Civility and Moderation.
Two months of Israel disappearing innocent Palestinians to be tortured or murdered, while the IDF somehow gets to be the final say on the fate of aid organizations like UNRWA.
Two months of destruction of centuries' worth of cultural and religious institutions, yet nothing but anger if you dare imply that an ethnic cleansing is going on.
But sure, we can wait two months.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:23 AM on March 8 [8 favorites]
There's currently no reason to believe this proposed offshore port is for the purpose of doing anything other than manipulating American voters, tbh.
They're citing a 30-60 day timeline just for construction, then more weeks for coordinating aid delivery, because Israel still gets to inspect and veto every pallet of potential aid. In the meantime, the WHO is right this minute evaluating whether to upgrade the classification of the situation in Gaza to a full-scale famine, which means 100-200 people dying of starvation-related causes per day.
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:25 AM on March 8 [7 favorites]
They're citing a 30-60 day timeline just for construction, then more weeks for coordinating aid delivery, because Israel still gets to inspect and veto every pallet of potential aid. In the meantime, the WHO is right this minute evaluating whether to upgrade the classification of the situation in Gaza to a full-scale famine, which means 100-200 people dying of starvation-related causes per day.
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:25 AM on March 8 [7 favorites]
So if it isn't built, Biden is awful because it's a cynical ploy to manipulate voters. If it is built, Biden is awful because it's part of laying the groundwork to become actively involved in the forced relocation of Palestinians.
Do you not see the problem when the conclusion of "Biden is terrible" is the pre-determined outcome of the two mutually exclusive results?
posted by Justinian at 11:54 AM on March 8 [9 favorites]
Do you not see the problem when the conclusion of "Biden is terrible" is the pre-determined outcome of the two mutually exclusive results?
posted by Justinian at 11:54 AM on March 8 [9 favorites]
It's possible for two things to be bad? Like, people aren't being cynical for no reason; there's a lot of reason to be cynical about a) the intent and b) the outcome of this plan.
posted by sagc at 12:05 PM on March 8 [7 favorites]
posted by sagc at 12:05 PM on March 8 [7 favorites]
Justinian:
Whether it's built or not, it's a cynical ploy to manipulate voters, because even if it's built it's not actually helpful. Additionally, if it is built, it's a colonialist nightmare that amounts to the US directly joining Israel's invasion of Palestine (rather than just being completely complicit in it.)
I assure you that i'm not actually unsatisfiable here. Biden could start actually enforcing the Leahy Law and the Foreign Assistance Act, which would mean immediately ceasing arms transfers and monetary aid to Israel. That would satisfy me!
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:30 PM on March 8 [9 favorites]
Whether it's built or not, it's a cynical ploy to manipulate voters, because even if it's built it's not actually helpful. Additionally, if it is built, it's a colonialist nightmare that amounts to the US directly joining Israel's invasion of Palestine (rather than just being completely complicit in it.)
I assure you that i'm not actually unsatisfiable here. Biden could start actually enforcing the Leahy Law and the Foreign Assistance Act, which would mean immediately ceasing arms transfers and monetary aid to Israel. That would satisfy me!
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:30 PM on March 8 [9 favorites]
There's currently no reason to believe this proposed offshore port is for anything other than moving aid more effectively to Gaza.
I mean....no reason except literally the entire history of US intervention and policy in the area. Do you genuinely not understand why people, Palestinians most of all and really everyone in the Global South, are cynical about US 'aid'?
posted by lizard2590 at 12:33 PM on March 8 [8 favorites]
I mean....no reason except literally the entire history of US intervention and policy in the area. Do you genuinely not understand why people, Palestinians most of all and really everyone in the Global South, are cynical about US 'aid'?
posted by lizard2590 at 12:33 PM on March 8 [8 favorites]
US aid to Palestinians has been around 350 million dollars per year, expected to rise to over 500 million this year. Relief aid is, importantly, in real goods like food and medicine, since cash won't buy what doesn't exist. Air drop is bad for distribution, as we have seen.
posted by Brian B. at 1:46 PM on March 8
posted by Brian B. at 1:46 PM on March 8
The Rafah thread is still open, so links are still being shared there, including news and comments about all the aid that's happening now or isn't. Might be of interest. specifically stuff about what's happening in Israel right now that's holding up the ground aid, and also some comments about the floating port idea.
posted by cendawanita at 4:32 PM on March 8 [2 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 4:32 PM on March 8 [2 favorites]
"In an interview with ABC News Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris reacted for the first time to President Joe Biden's hot mic comment in which he's heard saying he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will soon have a "come to Jesus" conversation about the war in Gaza."
posted by clavdivs at 5:05 PM on March 8
posted by clavdivs at 5:05 PM on March 8
It is unclear if Biden is pivoting in response to changing domestic political views on Israel’s intervention in Gaza or if he’s merely waited for that to develop. Either way it is pretty clear that he’s pivoting.
posted by interogative mood at 8:23 PM on March 8
posted by interogative mood at 8:23 PM on March 8
Re: pivot possibility - fwiw I shared over on the Rafah thread another scoop from Barak Ravid (he's basically trading on access journalism on the Tel Aviv/WH beat - pretty decent source of the political theatre but without the juice ie he doesn't step on anyone's toes, compared to Ahmed Akbar Shahid over at HuffPo, so it's greenlit gossip) at Axios, where while the title is, White House asks State Dept., Pentagon for Israel-bound weapons list, one of the main takeaways is: The U.S. officials said the request is not a signal of an imminent move by the White House to slow-walk or suspend any weapons transfers to Israel and stressed the Biden administration has no plans to restrict military assistance to Israel at this time.
posted by cendawanita at 9:58 PM on March 8 [3 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 9:58 PM on March 8 [3 favorites]
clavdivs: the verb "accepting" implies that there was an offer made. There was not. Again, this port is something that is being done to Palestinians; it is not something being offered to them. It is yet more colonial force.
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:04 PM on March 8 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:04 PM on March 8 [3 favorites]
It is unclear if Biden is pivoting in response to changing domestic political views on Israel’s intervention in Gaza or if he’s merely waited for that to develop. Either way it is pretty clear that he’s pivoting.
I've been wrong before, but to me it seems clear that Biden is pivoting directly in response to the pressure exerted through the "vote uncommitted" efforts. Immediately after those were shown to be effective, they pivoted first to air drops, then Harris's speech, and now this. It's way, way less than what the activists want (as seen in comments here) but it's way more than was on the table a few weeks ago. I expect the pivot to continue, and I was surprised that this latest set of negotiations ended without some kind of short term pause in the fighting at least, given the clear signaling from the US and others on this.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:17 AM on March 9 [4 favorites]
I've been wrong before, but to me it seems clear that Biden is pivoting directly in response to the pressure exerted through the "vote uncommitted" efforts. Immediately after those were shown to be effective, they pivoted first to air drops, then Harris's speech, and now this. It's way, way less than what the activists want (as seen in comments here) but it's way more than was on the table a few weeks ago. I expect the pivot to continue, and I was surprised that this latest set of negotiations ended without some kind of short term pause in the fighting at least, given the clear signaling from the US and others on this.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:17 AM on March 9 [4 favorites]
I do think in part this adds to the general sentiment that I do share that there is a wane of US soft power, insofar trying to balance the leverage they ought to have versus the strategic value of keeping Israel as an ally country. The last round collapsed also because Israel didn't show up in Egypt before announcing a no - there's back and forth that this was because Hamas couldn't provide a full hostage list (which is a chicken and egg situation especially if you agree Israel has reasonable control of the area they've bombed then there's no real way for administrative oversight to have full knowledge. At least this is my reasoning) but ultimately Israel couldn't be leaned on, judging from the trend in these past five months. In the near-long-term this is bad news for US foreign policy. I haven't mentioned this but outside of Egypt and Qatar, Russia is making a play by hosting key Palestinian leadership (a part of the main negotiations towards a joint/combined Palestinian government/party has taken place there), and China in the meantime just bides its time while continuing to make moves in the Pacific. Iran via Hezbollah in the meantime has managed to strike even deeper into Haifa, in response to Israel's targeted bombings (so they can be precise!).
Specifically on the foreign policy front which Biden does claim cred on, it will be very ironic indeed if his tenure marks a new chapter in US foreign policy.
posted by cendawanita at 10:30 AM on March 9 [3 favorites]
Specifically on the foreign policy front which Biden does claim cred on, it will be very ironic indeed if his tenure marks a new chapter in US foreign policy.
posted by cendawanita at 10:30 AM on March 9 [3 favorites]
that is being done to Palestinians; it is not something being offered to them. It is yet more colonial force.
Ya know, I'm tired and tired of doing your citation work. after 3 minutes search I found one article that says United States is having conferences with middle Eastern leaders and others concerning the port.
I'm going to go ahead and assume since I haven't seen any articles of the Palestinian people decrying the port, not wanting the port that they've been consulted. I know what you mean about the United States and other powers foisting their goods and will etc. to corrupt officials in other countries but I don't think this is the case with the port .
posted by clavdivs at 12:57 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Ya know, I'm tired and tired of doing your citation work. after 3 minutes search I found one article that says United States is having conferences with middle Eastern leaders and others concerning the port.
I'm going to go ahead and assume since I haven't seen any articles of the Palestinian people decrying the port, not wanting the port that they've been consulted. I know what you mean about the United States and other powers foisting their goods and will etc. to corrupt officials in other countries but I don't think this is the case with the port .
posted by clavdivs at 12:57 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Ya know, I'm tired and tired of doing your citation work. after 3 minutes search I found one article that says United States is having conferences with middle Eastern leaders and others concerning the port
Are you aware that Palestinians and everyone else in the Middle East are not actually interchangeable? They all have different cultures and countries and everything!
I'm going to go ahead and assume since I haven't seen any articles of the Palestinian people decrying the port, not wanting the port that they've been consulted.
If anyone consulted the Palestinian people right now about what they wanted, I'm pretty sure the first item would be "please stop murdering our children." I'm not sure the people who are currently subject to a genocide financially or politically supported by every major Western power are being very actively consulted on their wishes and hopes and dreams at the moment. And are saving their protest on the whole "not getting murdered" thing, not the minutiae of what Biden is doing to try to get American votes without making any meaningful change in policy.
posted by lizard2590 at 1:16 PM on March 9 [6 favorites]
Are you aware that Palestinians and everyone else in the Middle East are not actually interchangeable? They all have different cultures and countries and everything!
I'm going to go ahead and assume since I haven't seen any articles of the Palestinian people decrying the port, not wanting the port that they've been consulted.
If anyone consulted the Palestinian people right now about what they wanted, I'm pretty sure the first item would be "please stop murdering our children." I'm not sure the people who are currently subject to a genocide financially or politically supported by every major Western power are being very actively consulted on their wishes and hopes and dreams at the moment. And are saving their protest on the whole "not getting murdered" thing, not the minutiae of what Biden is doing to try to get American votes without making any meaningful change in policy.
posted by lizard2590 at 1:16 PM on March 9 [6 favorites]
I'm going to go ahead and assume since I haven't seen any articles of the Palestinian people decrying the port, not wanting the port that they've been consulted.
This is a silly point. There's no functional way to consult the citizens of Gaza, who are mostly living in refugee camps and overcrowded shelters with extremely limited communications. You could "consult" with prominent Palestinians who are outside Gaza, and you could talk to the Hamas political leadership in Doha, but in neither case are you meaningfully consulting with the actual Gazans. My guess is that anyone there is going to be in favor of more aid regardless of how it enters (albeit preferably not being dropped out of airplanes with no parachute), but that's an assumption and not backed by anything meaningful.
In the articles I've read, the actual experts on getting aid into Gaza don't think that this would be enough, and certainly not quickly enough, vs freeing up the land-corridors for trucks to enter. But then you are back to the seemingly intractable problem of Bibi's government saying "nope" to that, so...
I do think in part this adds to the general sentiment that I do share that there is a wane of US soft power, insofar trying to balance the leverage they ought to have versus the strategic value of keeping Israel as an ally country.
Frankly, the US was extremely slow to start exerting any pressure on Israel at all, and the pressure being exerted now is very low-key. I think that will start to change, but for now since "soft power" isn't particularly being exerted, it's not yet clear whether it has been eroded or not.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:41 PM on March 9
This is a silly point. There's no functional way to consult the citizens of Gaza, who are mostly living in refugee camps and overcrowded shelters with extremely limited communications. You could "consult" with prominent Palestinians who are outside Gaza, and you could talk to the Hamas political leadership in Doha, but in neither case are you meaningfully consulting with the actual Gazans. My guess is that anyone there is going to be in favor of more aid regardless of how it enters (albeit preferably not being dropped out of airplanes with no parachute), but that's an assumption and not backed by anything meaningful.
In the articles I've read, the actual experts on getting aid into Gaza don't think that this would be enough, and certainly not quickly enough, vs freeing up the land-corridors for trucks to enter. But then you are back to the seemingly intractable problem of Bibi's government saying "nope" to that, so...
I do think in part this adds to the general sentiment that I do share that there is a wane of US soft power, insofar trying to balance the leverage they ought to have versus the strategic value of keeping Israel as an ally country.
Frankly, the US was extremely slow to start exerting any pressure on Israel at all, and the pressure being exerted now is very low-key. I think that will start to change, but for now since "soft power" isn't particularly being exerted, it's not yet clear whether it has been eroded or not.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:41 PM on March 9
I mean, upthread i quoted an actual Palestinian in Palestine who doesn't want the port! If you'd like, i am sure i can find you two dozen more on Twitter within about a half an hour!
If you want to hold a plebiscite or something, I'm afraid that's actually impossible since Israel has destroyed basically every bit of infrastructure that could be used to hold one.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:45 PM on March 9 [3 favorites]
If you want to hold a plebiscite or something, I'm afraid that's actually impossible since Israel has destroyed basically every bit of infrastructure that could be used to hold one.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:45 PM on March 9 [3 favorites]
And regardless of whether they want it or not, the fact remains that they were never asked.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:46 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:46 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
DailyKos has a rather comprehensive run down of just how awful Trump was wrt to the Israel/Palestine conflict and how his actions as President laid the growdwork for Oct 7th and all that has followed in Gaza.
posted by interogative mood at 2:56 PM on March 9 [8 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 2:56 PM on March 9 [8 favorites]
This is a silly point. There's no functional way to consult the citizens of Gaza, who are mostly living in refugee camps and overcrowded shelters with extremely limited communications. You could "consult" with prominent.
no I thought about that and it does seem rather silly I was originally going to put in had they consulted ramallah but I thought I include the Palestinian people cuz maybe there's some sort of authority left under the f****** rubble that would support this or maybe take a poll of people that oppose it.
Are you aware that Palestinians and everyone else in the Middle East are not actually interchangeable?
I am.
and I do appreciate your sense of priorities when it comes to foreign intervention into Gaza. So go ask ramallah if this port thing is a good fit for the people of Gaza. there's 101 problems about getting supplies into Gaza, it would seem logical that this is already been done as evident by the Jordanian and United kingdom air drops, the ones at the United States are doing, there's flotillas on the way one ship is ready and most likely negotiated with Israel, a maritime corridor for supplies into Gaza.
my opinion, what I believe is one month or less into this war, send a big f****** flotilla in with everybody involved, happy soldiers waving and going high we're here to deliver supplies as part of an apology, get your f****** planes out of the way, but no, biden's got to play the soft stick worrying that if you break some sort of relations and international agreements with Israel that that's going to have a domino effect with other countries and I think everybody's telling them no that's not the case and he doesn't get it. he whispers about the Jesus talk in the halls of Congress and I think we all know what that phrase means. if Biden had the tall spine, he would have alluded to this is, what's going to happen on our behalf, this is what's been done, this is where we were wrong and we're going to try and right it.
I do think in part this adds to the general sentiment that I do share that there is a wane of US soft power, insofar trying to balance the leverage they ought to have versus the strategic value of keeping Israel as an ally country
this should be carved in stone. It is exactly the point, I think we were trying to reach up thread, about Conflation along a military and diplomatic scale with economic ramifications of America's current economic plan for more self-sufficiency and energy, technology, and medicine. South and Central America is a good parallel. Brazil, Venezuela, Honduras.
Obama reduced conventional military 12 years ago and it's not the same military today and locked in MOU til 2028.
they were never asked.
All on all I have to agree. It's a good question, did Blinken call.Ramallah. Did someone reach out to Hamas after all they were the last ones to try to widen and deepen the port.
posted by clavdivs at 3:30 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
no I thought about that and it does seem rather silly I was originally going to put in had they consulted ramallah but I thought I include the Palestinian people cuz maybe there's some sort of authority left under the f****** rubble that would support this or maybe take a poll of people that oppose it.
Are you aware that Palestinians and everyone else in the Middle East are not actually interchangeable?
I am.
and I do appreciate your sense of priorities when it comes to foreign intervention into Gaza. So go ask ramallah if this port thing is a good fit for the people of Gaza. there's 101 problems about getting supplies into Gaza, it would seem logical that this is already been done as evident by the Jordanian and United kingdom air drops, the ones at the United States are doing, there's flotillas on the way one ship is ready and most likely negotiated with Israel, a maritime corridor for supplies into Gaza.
my opinion, what I believe is one month or less into this war, send a big f****** flotilla in with everybody involved, happy soldiers waving and going high we're here to deliver supplies as part of an apology, get your f****** planes out of the way, but no, biden's got to play the soft stick worrying that if you break some sort of relations and international agreements with Israel that that's going to have a domino effect with other countries and I think everybody's telling them no that's not the case and he doesn't get it. he whispers about the Jesus talk in the halls of Congress and I think we all know what that phrase means. if Biden had the tall spine, he would have alluded to this is, what's going to happen on our behalf, this is what's been done, this is where we were wrong and we're going to try and right it.
I do think in part this adds to the general sentiment that I do share that there is a wane of US soft power, insofar trying to balance the leverage they ought to have versus the strategic value of keeping Israel as an ally country
this should be carved in stone. It is exactly the point, I think we were trying to reach up thread, about Conflation along a military and diplomatic scale with economic ramifications of America's current economic plan for more self-sufficiency and energy, technology, and medicine. South and Central America is a good parallel. Brazil, Venezuela, Honduras.
Obama reduced conventional military 12 years ago and it's not the same military today and locked in MOU til 2028.
they were never asked.
All on all I have to agree. It's a good question, did Blinken call.Ramallah. Did someone reach out to Hamas after all they were the last ones to try to widen and deepen the port.
posted by clavdivs at 3:30 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
I guess I don't understand how the Port is bad, when we had begged for this in New Orleans in 2005. Navy intervention. And we could not get it from the United States then.
This seems like a sea change to get the US to do this, when we couldn't get it for US citizens during the Bush administration
posted by eustatic at 4:36 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
This seems like a sea change to get the US to do this, when we couldn't get it for US citizens during the Bush administration
posted by eustatic at 4:36 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
It is amazing what the military can accomplish when they are not fully committed to fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as they were under Katrina.
posted by interogative mood at 5:39 PM on March 9
posted by interogative mood at 5:39 PM on March 9
eustatic: Among many other reasons, the explicit plan is for the IDF -- you know, the people who are already initiating daily massacres of Palestinians waiting for food aid -- to "provide security" for said port.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:20 PM on March 9 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:20 PM on March 9 [3 favorites]
Officials have said that they're currently working with Israel with regard to coastal security (which is obviously because Israel controls the coast) but all the reporting is that it's not yet clear who will provide security for the port once it's built. It may well end up being Israel but that's not the explicit plan since as yet there appears to be no explicit plan.
See for example the NYTimes piece from today. I'll quote the relevant part as there's a lot of other stuff in there too:
See for example the NYTimes piece from today. I'll quote the relevant part as there's a lot of other stuff in there too:
But security and distribution, more than money, seem to be the bigger challenges. It is unclear who will manage and secure the port area and the convoys that would be needed to distribute the aid. In his State of the Union speech Thursday night, President Biden was adamant that no “American boots” would touch ground in Gaza.posted by Justinian at 7:14 PM on March 9
Israel’s invasion successfully toppled Hamas’s government in northern Gaza but nothing has filled the security vacuum, resulting in widespread lawlessness in the north.
The remaining employees of Hamas’s civilian police could step in to provide security, U.N. officials have said, but their involvement would likely be unacceptable to Israel and the United States.
The Israeli military could patrol the convoys, but their presence would pose a challenge for the United Nations, which takes pains to avoid being seen as too close to any side in the conflict. The U.N. coordinates its convoys with Israel, but does not request that the Israeli military secure them.
nb: I'm not saying that "idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" is a better answer from officials as to who will provide security than "Israel".
posted by Justinian at 7:15 PM on March 9
posted by Justinian at 7:15 PM on March 9
nb: I'm not saying that "idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" is a better answer from officials as to who will provide security than "Israel".
I get that Biden needed to make the announcement when he did, but you'd think they could have done a bit more contingency planning along the way.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:10 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
I get that Biden needed to make the announcement when he did, but you'd think they could have done a bit more contingency planning along the way.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:10 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
The bottom line is that there is only so much Biden or any Dem can do, when Israel is now waging war almost entirely to keep Netanyahu from facing justice for the laws he has broken.
It will be infinitely easier for all parties to wage peace when he is removed from office and put into a prison cell. Some are protesting for his removal, but it hasn't been enough so far.
None of what Israeli voters have chosen to allow their government to do is Biden's responsibility or fault. Israel has to save its soul and allow its legal system to operate unimpeded for any chance that the genocide ends.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:29 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
It will be infinitely easier for all parties to wage peace when he is removed from office and put into a prison cell. Some are protesting for his removal, but it hasn't been enough so far.
None of what Israeli voters have chosen to allow their government to do is Biden's responsibility or fault. Israel has to save its soul and allow its legal system to operate unimpeded for any chance that the genocide ends.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:29 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
The bottom line is that Biden is enabling Netanyahu. Without his unprecedented military aid at this crucial time, Netanyahu's Israel could not sustain another day of genocide. No amount of food to Palestinians will change this. The US has to save its soul and admit its involvement, withdraw aid to Israel, and join the international community in imposing sanctions.
posted by i like crows very much at 6:21 AM on March 10 [7 favorites]
posted by i like crows very much at 6:21 AM on March 10 [7 favorites]
Not to be super doom and gloom, but while adrienneleigh is correct that no one is asking the Palestinians what they want, the reason for that is simple: what the Palestinians want doesn't matter to the people in power.
I think, at this point, almost six months into Israel's revenge, it is apparent that nothing short of invasion by other powers will stop Israel from doing whatever it wants to the Palestinian people. Even cutting off all American arms shipments probably wouldn't do it, and we all know that's not going to happen regardless of Biden's position.
Which means we have to ask what Israel's actual goal here is, and I think we all know the answer:
Israel wants all but the tiniest, most cowed, minority of Palestinians gone, and total Israeli control of all of Greater Israel.
The only real question is whether "gone" means expelled or killed. I'm fairly sure that Israel would vastly prefer expelled if for no other reason than it will make the inevitable return to diplomatic norms and trading post Palestinian genocide significantly quicker and simpler.
So yeah, I'm quite sure that if the port is built it will be used to deport the Gazan population that isn't killed.
I'm also not sure that's a bad thing since the other alternative seems to be killed. All better options are closed off, Israel won't let anything but deportation or murder happen.
The one thing I am absolutely certain about is that no one with any power will ever ask, or care, what the Palestinians in question actually want. Because they just plain don't matter to the people in charge.
posted by sotonohito at 8:06 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
I think, at this point, almost six months into Israel's revenge, it is apparent that nothing short of invasion by other powers will stop Israel from doing whatever it wants to the Palestinian people. Even cutting off all American arms shipments probably wouldn't do it, and we all know that's not going to happen regardless of Biden's position.
Which means we have to ask what Israel's actual goal here is, and I think we all know the answer:
Israel wants all but the tiniest, most cowed, minority of Palestinians gone, and total Israeli control of all of Greater Israel.
The only real question is whether "gone" means expelled or killed. I'm fairly sure that Israel would vastly prefer expelled if for no other reason than it will make the inevitable return to diplomatic norms and trading post Palestinian genocide significantly quicker and simpler.
So yeah, I'm quite sure that if the port is built it will be used to deport the Gazan population that isn't killed.
I'm also not sure that's a bad thing since the other alternative seems to be killed. All better options are closed off, Israel won't let anything but deportation or murder happen.
The one thing I am absolutely certain about is that no one with any power will ever ask, or care, what the Palestinians in question actually want. Because they just plain don't matter to the people in charge.
posted by sotonohito at 8:06 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Interviewer: Do you think people still think they're on the fence? Like when they vote for Trump or Biden, you think there are people standing with Palestine or they're waiting for more proof to be able to make that decision?
Khalidi: Truthfully, I don't know. It seems that the number of people who support Palestine has increased. In the past 3 months, in the USA, I mean. Mainly with the youth but generally, the public opinion too. Going against Biden's policy, agreeing to a permanent ceasefire, it has increased in the span of 3 months. Maybe that supports what you've said, that some people are on the fence, that they're in the middle but move towards the Palestinians and against Biden's policy. The big question is: will this development affect the 2024 elections, the one upcoming in November.
There are many articles saying Biden is losing amongst the youth, he's losing with the minority, he's losing with progressives as a result of his full support of Israel. God knows, this might change if the war stops in a couple of weeks. It might change if Biden changes his standpoint. If Israelis try to expand the war which isn't beneficial to the USA, the Americans would end them. Those who say Israel controls America— that's not true. Israel controls America in terms of the Palestinian cause which the American don't think is important strategically, but when Israel crosses an American strategic red line, they'll end them. They'll stop them. There are several proofs. For example, after the October War 1973, Israel didn't want to retreat at all. The Americans forced them to, Kissinger in particular. They forced them to accept the First Palestinian Agreement in 1974 and the Second Palestinian Agreement in 1975. They were forced to accept it. Dayan said, "Better Sinai without peace than peace without Sinai." He was forced to retreat.
They were forced in 1978/1979 to fully accept retreating from Sinai. As well as the nuclear agreement with Iran, Israelis were against it. Netanyahu came to Washington twice with an invite from Congress to speak against the Gulf Regime to Obama. Obama said [paraphrasing] "It's either this or a war. Would you like a war in the Middle East? Then go ahead." This is the result of Israeli policy. Israeli wants to force us to follow them so they signed the nuclear agreement with Iran. They sold weapons to Saudi Arabia several times in the past. The Israelis said, [paraphrasing], "This is not acceptable," and so on. Congress fully supported Israel. The president said, [paraphrasing] "Here you go. We're gonna sell. And they did."
There are several other examples too. They forced them to ceasefire during the War of Attrition in August 1970. No one remembers these things that Israel was against. They said the Egyptians brought the missiles through the Suez Canal which means they can pass through in the next couple of days. Anti-craft missiles that reach the East of the Suez Canal, which means... it's dangerous. They can create the passage, and they did later on. Israel said they won't accept the ceasefire. The Americans came and forced them to stop because the strategic American benefits forced them to. So saying they can't— yes, they can. They don't want to. That's what we're seeing here. Regarding Palestine, there never was an incident that led America to force Israel to stop what they're doing. During the Lebanese war in 1982, Regan kept asking how is that possible? But after the blockage that lasted 10 weeks and killing 19,000 civilians, after destroying a big part of Beirut as well as Sidon and the South, he said that's enough. And they stopped. But generally speaking, it happened because it threatened the strategic American interest. Not for the Palestinians sake.
So the situation is both very negative and very positive.
posted by i like crows very much at 9:11 AM on March 10 [8 favorites]
Khalidi: Truthfully, I don't know. It seems that the number of people who support Palestine has increased. In the past 3 months, in the USA, I mean. Mainly with the youth but generally, the public opinion too. Going against Biden's policy, agreeing to a permanent ceasefire, it has increased in the span of 3 months. Maybe that supports what you've said, that some people are on the fence, that they're in the middle but move towards the Palestinians and against Biden's policy. The big question is: will this development affect the 2024 elections, the one upcoming in November.
There are many articles saying Biden is losing amongst the youth, he's losing with the minority, he's losing with progressives as a result of his full support of Israel. God knows, this might change if the war stops in a couple of weeks. It might change if Biden changes his standpoint. If Israelis try to expand the war which isn't beneficial to the USA, the Americans would end them. Those who say Israel controls America— that's not true. Israel controls America in terms of the Palestinian cause which the American don't think is important strategically, but when Israel crosses an American strategic red line, they'll end them. They'll stop them. There are several proofs. For example, after the October War 1973, Israel didn't want to retreat at all. The Americans forced them to, Kissinger in particular. They forced them to accept the First Palestinian Agreement in 1974 and the Second Palestinian Agreement in 1975. They were forced to accept it. Dayan said, "Better Sinai without peace than peace without Sinai." He was forced to retreat.
They were forced in 1978/1979 to fully accept retreating from Sinai. As well as the nuclear agreement with Iran, Israelis were against it. Netanyahu came to Washington twice with an invite from Congress to speak against the Gulf Regime to Obama. Obama said [paraphrasing] "It's either this or a war. Would you like a war in the Middle East? Then go ahead." This is the result of Israeli policy. Israeli wants to force us to follow them so they signed the nuclear agreement with Iran. They sold weapons to Saudi Arabia several times in the past. The Israelis said, [paraphrasing], "This is not acceptable," and so on. Congress fully supported Israel. The president said, [paraphrasing] "Here you go. We're gonna sell. And they did."
There are several other examples too. They forced them to ceasefire during the War of Attrition in August 1970. No one remembers these things that Israel was against. They said the Egyptians brought the missiles through the Suez Canal which means they can pass through in the next couple of days. Anti-craft missiles that reach the East of the Suez Canal, which means... it's dangerous. They can create the passage, and they did later on. Israel said they won't accept the ceasefire. The Americans came and forced them to stop because the strategic American benefits forced them to. So saying they can't— yes, they can. They don't want to. That's what we're seeing here. Regarding Palestine, there never was an incident that led America to force Israel to stop what they're doing. During the Lebanese war in 1982, Regan kept asking how is that possible? But after the blockage that lasted 10 weeks and killing 19,000 civilians, after destroying a big part of Beirut as well as Sidon and the South, he said that's enough. And they stopped. But generally speaking, it happened because it threatened the strategic American interest. Not for the Palestinians sake.
So the situation is both very negative and very positive.
posted by i like crows very much at 9:11 AM on March 10 [8 favorites]
Ezra Klein eating a bit of crow.
*sad trombone*
posted by Justinian at 9:20 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
*sad trombone*
posted by Justinian at 9:20 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
i like crows very much Damn that is an absolutely perfect encapsulation of a whole lot of rambling and discourse: Israel controls America in terms of the Palestinian cause which the American don't think is important strategically, but when Israel crosses an American strategic red line, they'll end them. They'll stop them.
posted by sotonohito at 11:41 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 11:41 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
There are several proofs. For example, after the October War 1973, Israel didn't want to retreat at all.
You forgot the Suez crisis were Eisenhower warned Israel the British and the French. many Hstorians agree that this is where United States took supremacy along with the Soviet Union as superpowers.
posted by clavdivs at 12:51 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
You forgot the Suez crisis were Eisenhower warned Israel the British and the French. many Hstorians agree that this is where United States took supremacy along with the Soviet Union as superpowers.
posted by clavdivs at 12:51 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
The idea that this is magically all on Netanyahu and not the entirety of the War Cabinet, the vast majority of the Knesset, and the majority of Israeli society is wishful thinking. If Netanyahu got thrown in prison tomorrow literally nothing would change for Palestine. As of today, 75% of Jewish Israelis support using more military force.
Blaming Netanyahu for this holocaust and ignoring the complicity of Israeli society is like blaming Hitler for the original Holocaust and ignoring Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Mengele, and all the Good Germans who went along with them. (And no, 156 days in, i am no longer entertaining the suggestion that that comparison is offensive.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:09 PM on March 10 [6 favorites]
Blaming Netanyahu for this holocaust and ignoring the complicity of Israeli society is like blaming Hitler for the original Holocaust and ignoring Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Mengele, and all the Good Germans who went along with them. (And no, 156 days in, i am no longer entertaining the suggestion that that comparison is offensive.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:09 PM on March 10 [6 favorites]
Just asking for feedback, is it time to start a new Palestine thread, or are we moving to this one? I like how this is where the US policies are at. I'm not being snarky, I just realised the Rafah thread is about to close.
posted by cendawanita at 8:11 PM on March 10 [5 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 8:11 PM on March 10 [5 favorites]
Anyway, Politico (EU*, not US): Netanyahu vows to defy Biden’s ‘red line’ and invade Rafah
Without naming them, Netanyahu claimed he had the tacit support of several Arab leaders for driving ahead with the onslaught against Hamas.
“They understand that, and even agree with it quietly,” he said in an interview with Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. “They understand Hamas is part of the Iranian terror axis.”
(...) Israel's prime minister also doubled down on his rejection of the possibility of a Palestinian state — a topic that pits Israel against most of the rest of the world.
“The positions that I espouse are supported by the overwhelming majority of Israelis who say to you after October 7: 'We don't want to see a Palestinian state,'” he said.
Netanyahu also directly addressed criticism from Biden, who has said the Israeli leader is “hurting Israel more than helping Israel.”
Netanyahu hit back, saying while he didn’t know “exactly what the president meant,” if Biden was saying he was contravening the wishes or interests of Israel, he was “wrong on both counts.”
“[The Israeli people] also support my position that says that we should resoundingly reject the attempt to ram down our throats a Palestinian state. That is something that they agree on,” Netanyahu said.
*It's been noted that the EU one would be best understood by viewing it as a centre-right German publication
posted by cendawanita at 8:15 PM on March 10 [6 favorites]
Without naming them, Netanyahu claimed he had the tacit support of several Arab leaders for driving ahead with the onslaught against Hamas.
“They understand that, and even agree with it quietly,” he said in an interview with Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. “They understand Hamas is part of the Iranian terror axis.”
(...) Israel's prime minister also doubled down on his rejection of the possibility of a Palestinian state — a topic that pits Israel against most of the rest of the world.
“The positions that I espouse are supported by the overwhelming majority of Israelis who say to you after October 7: 'We don't want to see a Palestinian state,'” he said.
Netanyahu also directly addressed criticism from Biden, who has said the Israeli leader is “hurting Israel more than helping Israel.”
Netanyahu hit back, saying while he didn’t know “exactly what the president meant,” if Biden was saying he was contravening the wishes or interests of Israel, he was “wrong on both counts.”
“[The Israeli people] also support my position that says that we should resoundingly reject the attempt to ram down our throats a Palestinian state. That is something that they agree on,” Netanyahu said.
*It's been noted that the EU one would be best understood by viewing it as a centre-right German publication
posted by cendawanita at 8:15 PM on March 10 [6 favorites]
And from BM:
This is crazy!
So Netanyahu lets Smotrich & Ben Gvir block the aid trucks to Gaza, so he could keep his government intact, while at the same time suggesting the Americans should bring aid through the sea, so he doesn't lose Biden's support and keep receiving weapons from the USA.
(Translation of a screenshot from an Ynet news blast)
(They're QTing their own tweet: I heard a radio host last night on Kan Bet, a public radio station, say that the planned Gaza port is "a gift to Hamas for its terrorism". Many Israelis just want Gaza to starve no matter which way aid is coming through.)
posted by cendawanita at 8:40 PM on March 10 [5 favorites]
This is crazy!
So Netanyahu lets Smotrich & Ben Gvir block the aid trucks to Gaza, so he could keep his government intact, while at the same time suggesting the Americans should bring aid through the sea, so he doesn't lose Biden's support and keep receiving weapons from the USA.
(Translation of a screenshot from an Ynet news blast)
(They're QTing their own tweet: I heard a radio host last night on Kan Bet, a public radio station, say that the planned Gaza port is "a gift to Hamas for its terrorism". Many Israelis just want Gaza to starve no matter which way aid is coming through.)
posted by cendawanita at 8:40 PM on March 10 [5 favorites]
.... Boy howdy.
Jeet Heer: Pushing for regime change in Israel is a very risky, complicated and frankly illegitimate way to achieve ends better reached by just treating Israel as a separate country (i.e. cutting off aid, arms & diplomatic protection if they harm USA interests).
Commenting on this NY Mag piece: The Biden Plan to Ditch Netanyahu - The “come to Jesus moment” is already here, according to Israeli and U.S. sources.
One Israeli expert frequently consulted by American officials says, “I have been asked by a serious administration figure what it is that will force the Netanyahu coalition to collapse. They were interested in the mechanics, what can we demand which will collapse his coalition.”
You guys can't ever be normal.....
posted by cendawanita at 9:42 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
Jeet Heer: Pushing for regime change in Israel is a very risky, complicated and frankly illegitimate way to achieve ends better reached by just treating Israel as a separate country (i.e. cutting off aid, arms & diplomatic protection if they harm USA interests).
Commenting on this NY Mag piece: The Biden Plan to Ditch Netanyahu - The “come to Jesus moment” is already here, according to Israeli and U.S. sources.
One Israeli expert frequently consulted by American officials says, “I have been asked by a serious administration figure what it is that will force the Netanyahu coalition to collapse. They were interested in the mechanics, what can we demand which will collapse his coalition.”
You guys can't ever be normal.....
posted by cendawanita at 9:42 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
Gossip Girl Barak Ravid with another "scoop": Biden breaks with Netanyahu but sticks with Israel
Why it matters: No one incident led Biden to start changing his course with Netanyahu, whom he has known for 40 years. It's an accumulation of events and decisions by the prime minister over the last few weeks, U.S. officials tell Axios.
Between the lines: Biden hoped for weeks that he could use the war to push his Saudi mega-deal after the fighting. But in many ways, Biden sees Netanyahu as the one responsible for the deal slipping away.
Behind the scenes: The U.S. officials say Biden — and many other senior officials at the White House and the State Department — are extremely frustrated by what they see as ungratefulness by Netanyahu.
- Biden has given the Israeli government unprecedented support over the past five months, at the cost of strong pushback from the president's party during an election year.
Driving the news: Biden's "State of the Union" address contained a huge signal about his shift regarding Netanyahu. The president didn't call him by name, but referred to "the leadership of Israel."
posted by cendawanita at 11:31 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Why it matters: No one incident led Biden to start changing his course with Netanyahu, whom he has known for 40 years. It's an accumulation of events and decisions by the prime minister over the last few weeks, U.S. officials tell Axios.
Between the lines: Biden hoped for weeks that he could use the war to push his Saudi mega-deal after the fighting. But in many ways, Biden sees Netanyahu as the one responsible for the deal slipping away.
Behind the scenes: The U.S. officials say Biden — and many other senior officials at the White House and the State Department — are extremely frustrated by what they see as ungratefulness by Netanyahu.
- Biden has given the Israeli government unprecedented support over the past five months, at the cost of strong pushback from the president's party during an election year.
Driving the news: Biden's "State of the Union" address contained a huge signal about his shift regarding Netanyahu. The president didn't call him by name, but referred to "the leadership of Israel."
posted by cendawanita at 11:31 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Biden breaks with Netanyahu but sticks with Israel
This sideways move could do more to push for peace than anything else the US could realistically do at this point, without giving Republicans ammunition for a violent revolt here at home over withholding funds or materiel, because Netanyahu will maintain the genocide and expand the boundaries of war as far and as long as it takes to keep him out of prison.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:47 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
This sideways move could do more to push for peace than anything else the US could realistically do at this point, without giving Republicans ammunition for a violent revolt here at home over withholding funds or materiel, because Netanyahu will maintain the genocide and expand the boundaries of war as far and as long as it takes to keep him out of prison.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:47 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
I mean, better late than never, but I think it's worth pointing out that there were people saying Israel needed to stop its revenge killings way, way, way, back in the days just after 10/7.
Other than the fact that now Israel has succeeded in murdering over 30,000 Gazans, has reduced the entirety of Gaza to rubble, and brought the entire population there to the brink of starvation what EXACTLY has changed Joe?
But I think we know the answer to that: Joe Biden thinks Israel got to kill enough Palestinians and now they need to stop. He said their response was "over the top", not wrong but too much. As in, Biden et al thought it was totally reasonable for Israel to murder a whole bunch of random Palestinians and blow up SOME hospitals but they went past the bounds of totally permissible, reasonable, understandable revenge killings.
JFC.
Better late than never, but ugh.
We're back to the lament of the left: we are always right. ALWAYS. And yet no one will fucking implement what we say should be done until we've passed threshold of bloodshed and misery at which point they'll do what they could have done all along but wouldn't until enough people had been killed or tortured. What the actual FUCK?
What does Joe Biden intend to say to the last Palestinian killed by Israel before Israel is finally forced to back off and stop murdering random Palestinians? "Hey sorry 'bout that but you know how it is, Israel had to kill a whole fuckton of you guys before I figured out I could do the thing I could have done from the beginning. Sucks to be you, I have no empathy."
I feel like Cassandra.
posted by sotonohito at 5:25 AM on March 11 [9 favorites]
Other than the fact that now Israel has succeeded in murdering over 30,000 Gazans, has reduced the entirety of Gaza to rubble, and brought the entire population there to the brink of starvation what EXACTLY has changed Joe?
But I think we know the answer to that: Joe Biden thinks Israel got to kill enough Palestinians and now they need to stop. He said their response was "over the top", not wrong but too much. As in, Biden et al thought it was totally reasonable for Israel to murder a whole bunch of random Palestinians and blow up SOME hospitals but they went past the bounds of totally permissible, reasonable, understandable revenge killings.
JFC.
Better late than never, but ugh.
We're back to the lament of the left: we are always right. ALWAYS. And yet no one will fucking implement what we say should be done until we've passed threshold of bloodshed and misery at which point they'll do what they could have done all along but wouldn't until enough people had been killed or tortured. What the actual FUCK?
What does Joe Biden intend to say to the last Palestinian killed by Israel before Israel is finally forced to back off and stop murdering random Palestinians? "Hey sorry 'bout that but you know how it is, Israel had to kill a whole fuckton of you guys before I figured out I could do the thing I could have done from the beginning. Sucks to be you, I have no empathy."
I feel like Cassandra.
posted by sotonohito at 5:25 AM on March 11 [9 favorites]
Have been critically out of the loop re: Ukraine news tracking, but, still on foreign policy and Biden: (NYT over the weekend) Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine - For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era.
TL;DR as I best understood the piece is this was a retrospective of a successful intervention to get a non-allied state to not escalate into nuclear power (not like how the tweet I saw linking it that described that this concern had caused Ukrainian victory to be seen as a negative).
(That said though: CNN - Exclusive: Russia producing three times more artillery shells than US and Europe for Ukraine )
posted by cendawanita at 12:25 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
TL;DR as I best understood the piece is this was a retrospective of a successful intervention to get a non-allied state to not escalate into nuclear power (not like how the tweet I saw linking it that described that this concern had caused Ukrainian victory to be seen as a negative).
(That said though: CNN - Exclusive: Russia producing three times more artillery shells than US and Europe for Ukraine )
posted by cendawanita at 12:25 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
cendawanita: i do think we should probably have a new Palestine thread, not least because i expect the mods aren't thrilled with how many other threads it's leaking into and i'm surprised they aren't already being more forceful.
You know where to find me if you want to collab on links!
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:53 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
You know where to find me if you want to collab on links!
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:53 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
Remember that business a few weeks back, when Special Counsel Hur wrote in his report that Biden "did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died"? [Report as .pdf at justice.gov.] [Biden, at a "hastily arranged press conference" after the report was released:“How in the hell dare he raise that?” ] The interview transcript, released today before the former special counsel began testimony on Capitol Hill, is "more complicated" (AP News; via Yahoo):
Hur characterized Biden as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," after a 5-hour interview with the President conducted over the course of two days last October.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:13 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Hur didn't ask the president about his son's death; Biden brought it up himself during a discussion about how he stored documents at a rental home in Virginia after leaving the vice president's office in 2017.
And Biden recalled the specific date that Beau died, although he briefly wondered aloud about the year as the conversation toggled between various events.
“What month did Beau die?” Biden mused. “Oh, God, May 30th.”
A White House lawyer interjected by saying, “2015.”
“Was it 2015 he had died?” Biden asked. When someone responded affirmatively, the president added, “It was 2015.”
Biden aides defended the president’s inaccurate characterization of the interview during his press conference last month, describing his response as visceral and emotional. And they said his exchange with Hur showed how Biden believed it was important to reflect on how his son's death had affected his decision making over subsequent years. [...]
Biden mentioned the death during an interview that Hur conducted on Oct. 8. They were discussing where Biden kept documents that he was “actively working on” at his Virginia home.
The president responded by skipping back a few years to talk about how “in this timeframe, my son is — either been deployed or is dying.”
After the brief exchange about the specific date, Biden began to talk about writing his book, “Promise Me, Dad,” which was released in 2017.
“This is personal,” he said as he talked about how “Beau was like my right arm and Hunt was my left.”
Hur offered Biden a break at this point, but the president insisted on continuing with a lengthy story about his family. Biden said how Beau, after he was diagnosed with cancer, made him promise not to step away from public life.
Biden decided “I couldn't handle” another run for president but he would “stay involved.” However, in a story that Biden has frequently told at fundraisers, he changed course after the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 and Trump's response that there were “very fine people on both sides.”
Biden said that he is “the antithesis” of everything that “this guy stood for” and “I could beat him.”
As he wrapped up the story, Biden wondered aloud whether Hur needed such a lengthy answer.
“Sorry for the detail,” Biden said.
“No apology necessary," Hur replied.
Hur characterized Biden as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," after a 5-hour interview with the President conducted over the course of two days last October.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:13 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Weird! I wonder if there was anything going on those days that might have been taking some of his energy/attention.
Nah, he's just old.
posted by Jarcat at 5:14 PM on March 12
Nah, he's just old.
posted by Jarcat at 5:14 PM on March 12
“It doesn't matter if you vote. BUILD SOMETHING”—Anark, 11 March 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 8:16 PM on March 12
posted by ob1quixote at 8:16 PM on March 12
tbh, i think Biden is an absolutely terrible human being for a multitude of reasons, and i also think in general that there should be a mandatory retirement age of 75 for literally everyone in an elected or appointed position in the federal government, ESPECIALLY the fucking president -- but i honestly don't think "forgetting the year something happened" is a big deal or a sign of a poor memory in general. No, not even if it was a really important or traumatic or exciting thing -- in fact, those are the sorts of things where memory often gets the most fucked up, even for much younger people, because brains are weird.
(Signed, the middle-aged person whose anniversary is in a week and who constantly has to look up the year i got married -- which was less than a decade ago.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:20 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
(Signed, the middle-aged person whose anniversary is in a week and who constantly has to look up the year i got married -- which was less than a decade ago.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:20 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
counterpoint: It very much matters if you vote. If it didn't, they wouldn't be working so goddamn hard to stop so many people.
What a terrible video from anark.
posted by Justinian at 10:43 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
What a terrible video from anark.
posted by Justinian at 10:43 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
This sideways move could do more to push for peace than anything else the US could realistically do at this point, without giving Republicans ammunition for a violent revolt here at home over withholding funds or materiel, because Netanyahu will maintain the genocide and expand the boundaries of war as far and as long as it takes to keep him out of prison.
Schumer Urges New Leadership in Israel, Calling Netanyahu an Obstacle to Peace
Schumer Urges New Leadership in Israel, Calling Netanyahu an Obstacle to Peace
The top Senate Democrat, the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the United States, spoke from the Senate floor to condemn Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and call for elections to replace him.posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:52 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Trump Says Some Migrants Are ‘Not People’ and Predicts a ‘Blood Bath’ if He Loses
Cool cool cool. Still hard for some to say who should be the next President though, apparently.
posted by Justinian at 4:24 AM on March 17 [6 favorites]
Cool cool cool. Still hard for some to say who should be the next President though, apparently.
posted by Justinian at 4:24 AM on March 17 [6 favorites]
Any big Trump fans feel offended? I can't see anyone.
Im sure you didn't mean that people should stop calling out genocide though. It's wrong to accuse another mefite of being a genocide denialist.
posted by Audreynachrome at 4:36 AM on March 17 [5 favorites]
Im sure you didn't mean that people should stop calling out genocide though. It's wrong to accuse another mefite of being a genocide denialist.
posted by Audreynachrome at 4:36 AM on March 17 [5 favorites]
At this rate, by September half of the politics threads will be dipshits accusing users of being Trump voters and/or Russian agents.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 5:33 AM on March 17 [7 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 5:33 AM on March 17 [7 favorites]
I heard Trump only got in in the first place because Bernie Bros voted for him.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:40 AM on March 17 [5 favorites]
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:40 AM on March 17 [5 favorites]
At this rate, by September half of the politics threads will be dipshits accusing users of being Trump voters and/or Russian agents.
Only half? I don't see any reason to think there would be such a major improvement over 2016 and 2020.
posted by MrBadExample at 9:38 AM on March 17 [5 favorites]
Only half? I don't see any reason to think there would be such a major improvement over 2016 and 2020.
posted by MrBadExample at 9:38 AM on March 17 [5 favorites]
Justinian: “What a terrible video from anark.”I agree it's a terrible title, but the video makes a good point: Voting will not change the status quo. Only building real community will.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:58 AM on March 17 [4 favorites]
Voting may or may not greatly improve the status quo (for the purposes of this point I'll allow 'not' as a given even if I don't agree) but refraining from voting, in sufficient numbers, can certainly make things significantly worse.
I'm 100% on board the idea that too many people think voting is their one and only civic duty and voting alone is all they need to do to make things significantly better. Telling them that's not so is good. But you have to pair other action with voting. Even if you do think that voting won't greatly improve things it's a lot easier to build community from Status Quo A than it is from Status Quo (A-100). And the baseline gets worse and worse every cycle enough people refrain from voting.
tl;dr - "you have to do more than cast a vote every 4 years" is a great message. "Voting doesn't matter, you have to do other things" is a bad message.
posted by Justinian at 12:16 PM on March 17 [2 favorites]
I'm 100% on board the idea that too many people think voting is their one and only civic duty and voting alone is all they need to do to make things significantly better. Telling them that's not so is good. But you have to pair other action with voting. Even if you do think that voting won't greatly improve things it's a lot easier to build community from Status Quo A than it is from Status Quo (A-100). And the baseline gets worse and worse every cycle enough people refrain from voting.
tl;dr - "you have to do more than cast a vote every 4 years" is a great message. "Voting doesn't matter, you have to do other things" is a bad message.
posted by Justinian at 12:16 PM on March 17 [2 favorites]
For the country’s sake, Vice President Harris should step aside (Washington Post opinion column, 3/15/2024)
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:50 PM on March 17
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:50 PM on March 17
Trump says some migrants are 'not people,' warns of 'bloodbath' if he loses (AP via NPR, 3/16/24)
“You could also look at the definition of bloodbath and it could be an economic disaster." (Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-LA, 3/17/24)
posted by box at 1:08 PM on March 17
“You could also look at the definition of bloodbath and it could be an economic disaster." (Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-LA, 3/17/24)
posted by box at 1:08 PM on March 17
I assumed the Harris Should Step Aside link was going to be to an Alexandra Petri parody. But no, it's an actual thing by Kathleen Parker (whose columns are admittedly often indistinguishable from self-parody).
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on March 17 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on March 17 [5 favorites]
Dang, that step aside article is... wow. I mean, I'm NOT a Harris fan at all, not even a little. But JFC man, she's the VP. I'm with Justinian, I also initially thought it was a Petri article.
The Vice President's job is to sit around and not commit any major gaffes. In her case we've seen her a bit more since she's been casting tie breaking votes in the Senate, but her actions and behavior there were 100% gaffe free.
It looks to me that Parker is spewing textbook standard "I'm not a racist but..." type BS in a slightly better disguise than it often has.
posted by sotonohito at 4:12 PM on March 17 [4 favorites]
The Vice President's job is to sit around and not commit any major gaffes. In her case we've seen her a bit more since she's been casting tie breaking votes in the Senate, but her actions and behavior there were 100% gaffe free.
It looks to me that Parker is spewing textbook standard "I'm not a racist but..." type BS in a slightly better disguise than it often has.
posted by sotonohito at 4:12 PM on March 17 [4 favorites]
Harris is also out there field-testing further-left positions on things like abortion and Israel/Palestine.
I might be a bit of a fan—she’s a careerist California Democrat, sure, but whether it’s being the first VP to tour an abortion clinic, or (checks notes) calling out Biden about busing, she has had some moments.
posted by box at 5:32 PM on March 17 [3 favorites]
I might be a bit of a fan—she’s a careerist California Democrat, sure, but whether it’s being the first VP to tour an abortion clinic, or (checks notes) calling out Biden about busing, she has had some moments.
posted by box at 5:32 PM on March 17 [3 favorites]
NBC: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort - Biden locked up the Democratic nomination last week, but looking ahead to the general election, anxiety has seemed to increase.
In a private meeting at the White House in January, allies of the president had just told him that his poll numbers in Michigan and Georgia had dropped over his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas.
Both are battleground states he narrowly won four years ago, and he can’t afford any backsliding if he is to once again defeat Donald Trump. He began to shout and swear, a lawmaker familiar with the meeting said.
He believed he had been doing what was right, despite the political fallout, he told the group, according to the lawmaker.
Asked about the episode, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said: “President Biden makes national security decisions based on the country’s national security needs alone — no other factor.”
The rest is about the struggle to communicate the policy achievements.
posted by cendawanita at 7:24 PM on March 17 [4 favorites]
In a private meeting at the White House in January, allies of the president had just told him that his poll numbers in Michigan and Georgia had dropped over his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas.
Both are battleground states he narrowly won four years ago, and he can’t afford any backsliding if he is to once again defeat Donald Trump. He began to shout and swear, a lawmaker familiar with the meeting said.
He believed he had been doing what was right, despite the political fallout, he told the group, according to the lawmaker.
Asked about the episode, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said: “President Biden makes national security decisions based on the country’s national security needs alone — no other factor.”
The rest is about the struggle to communicate the policy achievements.
posted by cendawanita at 7:24 PM on March 17 [4 favorites]
Happy St Paddy's.
Al-Jazeera: ‘He’s lost my vote’: Many Irish Americans turn against Biden over Gaza war
The dead man’s mother asked Mulligan: “Can you march with us? Can you stand at the front with our family? Because they’re not gonna shoot you, you’re white … I just need someone, literally, to stand with me.’”
This moment – the struggle to bury the dead in peace – hit home for Mulligan, 54, who went to primary school in Northern Ireland during the Troubles in the late 1970s.
“It felt, to me, very much like going into political funerals in the north of Ireland, where helicopters would be overhead – in that case, it was the British Army. And here it was the Israeli army,” he says. “It really resonated.”
Mulligan points to these parallels as part of the reason he is rallying with other Irish Americans in the US to support Gaza.
(...) Cuán McCann, an Irish stick fighting coach in Baltimore whose family emigrated through Ellis Island, New York, generations ago, says he’s been stunned by how rapidly a network of Irish Americans has connected around support for Palestine.
“Some folks are in touch with organisers in Ireland, others are chatting through social media, many are talking to friends and siblings,” explains McCann, who has almost 20 years of experience organising for advocacy and protests. He calls the rapid and organic nature of the network-building “jaw-dropping”, adding that “every time I have a conversation, it leads to three more with three other people.”
(...) On March 3, Mike Doyle, a teacher in Brooklyn who is fourth-generation Irish, marched in the “St Pat’s for All Parade” in Queens, New York, a long-running alternative to the official New York City parade, the oldest and largest St Patrick’s Parade in the world. Some groups hoisted signs and banners for a ceasefire in Gaza, and Doyle recalls that as they walked through the historically Irish neighbourhood of Sunnyside neighbourhood, “pretty much the whole street was cheering for us and shouting, ‘Ceasefire’!”
As the election approaches, Irish Americans who object to Biden’s support of Israel have said the plan is to make their voices heard not only at protests, but also at the polls.
McCann voted for Biden in 2020, but says he will vote for “uncommitted” in Maryland’s primary, a vote held in May to choose the state’s Democratic presidential candidate.
posted by cendawanita at 3:56 AM on March 18 [4 favorites]
Al-Jazeera: ‘He’s lost my vote’: Many Irish Americans turn against Biden over Gaza war
The dead man’s mother asked Mulligan: “Can you march with us? Can you stand at the front with our family? Because they’re not gonna shoot you, you’re white … I just need someone, literally, to stand with me.’”
This moment – the struggle to bury the dead in peace – hit home for Mulligan, 54, who went to primary school in Northern Ireland during the Troubles in the late 1970s.
“It felt, to me, very much like going into political funerals in the north of Ireland, where helicopters would be overhead – in that case, it was the British Army. And here it was the Israeli army,” he says. “It really resonated.”
Mulligan points to these parallels as part of the reason he is rallying with other Irish Americans in the US to support Gaza.
(...) Cuán McCann, an Irish stick fighting coach in Baltimore whose family emigrated through Ellis Island, New York, generations ago, says he’s been stunned by how rapidly a network of Irish Americans has connected around support for Palestine.
“Some folks are in touch with organisers in Ireland, others are chatting through social media, many are talking to friends and siblings,” explains McCann, who has almost 20 years of experience organising for advocacy and protests. He calls the rapid and organic nature of the network-building “jaw-dropping”, adding that “every time I have a conversation, it leads to three more with three other people.”
(...) On March 3, Mike Doyle, a teacher in Brooklyn who is fourth-generation Irish, marched in the “St Pat’s for All Parade” in Queens, New York, a long-running alternative to the official New York City parade, the oldest and largest St Patrick’s Parade in the world. Some groups hoisted signs and banners for a ceasefire in Gaza, and Doyle recalls that as they walked through the historically Irish neighbourhood of Sunnyside neighbourhood, “pretty much the whole street was cheering for us and shouting, ‘Ceasefire’!”
As the election approaches, Irish Americans who object to Biden’s support of Israel have said the plan is to make their voices heard not only at protests, but also at the polls.
McCann voted for Biden in 2020, but says he will vote for “uncommitted” in Maryland’s primary, a vote held in May to choose the state’s Democratic presidential candidate.
posted by cendawanita at 3:56 AM on March 18 [4 favorites]
The good, the bad, and the ugly in a new poll about Trump's trials and the Supreme Court (Politico)
tl;dr, convictions count with some voters, voters don't trust the Supreme Court, and 11% of people polled think Presidents should be above the law.
Trump has been unable to get bond for $464 million judgment, his lawyers say (NBC News) It's not that long, but if you only have time to read two sentences, make it these:
tl;dr, convictions count with some voters, voters don't trust the Supreme Court, and 11% of people polled think Presidents should be above the law.
Trump has been unable to get bond for $464 million judgment, his lawyers say (NBC News) It's not that long, but if you only have time to read two sentences, make it these:
"Defendants’ ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment’s full amount is 'a practical impossibility. These diligent efforts have included approaching about 30 surety companies through 4 separate brokers."posted by box at 7:58 AM on March 18 [4 favorites]
That sounds like terrible news for Trump, but Putin's proxies keep calling for Biden to step aside, so it's really unfortunate that the media can't focus on that, while Trump quietly rounds up money from friends in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China to bail him out.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:20 AM on March 18
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:20 AM on March 18
What a terrible video from anark.
Agreed. Anti-voting reminds me of crackpot advice to withhold medication from sick kids. It can't escape its faith based premise. Nor does it follow that voting has anything to do with not building "real" communities, unless maybe they are referring to cults.
Trump has been unable to get bond for $464 million judgment, his lawyers say (NBC News)
The news pundits were so quick to declare that he had plenty of cash on hand, as if they knew.
posted by Brian B. at 8:20 AM on March 18
Agreed. Anti-voting reminds me of crackpot advice to withhold medication from sick kids. It can't escape its faith based premise. Nor does it follow that voting has anything to do with not building "real" communities, unless maybe they are referring to cults.
Trump has been unable to get bond for $464 million judgment, his lawyers say (NBC News)
The news pundits were so quick to declare that he had plenty of cash on hand, as if they knew.
posted by Brian B. at 8:20 AM on March 18
Nobody is willing to secure the bond with real estate because this particular verdict says, and Trump admitted on the stand, that he lies about how much his real estate is worth.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:26 AM on March 18 [5 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 8:26 AM on March 18 [5 favorites]
Nobody is willing to secure the bond with real estate because this particular verdict says, and Trump admitted on the stand, that he lies about how much his real estate is worth.
Theoretically, he has enough real estate assets that he could back this bond, even at values that were not inflated. That he can't suggests that maybe things are already mortgaged to the hilt, or otherwise unavailable as collateral due to one form of shadiness or another.
I just hope the appeals court doesn't bail him out on this one, he deserves to squirm and ideally have everything go to collections.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:58 AM on March 18 [1 favorite]
Theoretically, he has enough real estate assets that he could back this bond, even at values that were not inflated. That he can't suggests that maybe things are already mortgaged to the hilt, or otherwise unavailable as collateral due to one form of shadiness or another.
I just hope the appeals court doesn't bail him out on this one, he deserves to squirm and ideally have everything go to collections.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:58 AM on March 18 [1 favorite]
Why the Right Loves to Cheap-Shot Kamala Harris (Stop the Presses)
posted by box at 9:32 AM on March 18 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 9:32 AM on March 18 [2 favorites]
Why I’m Voting for the Enemy.
The left needs to challenge Biden, especially on US involvement in Gaza. But to do that, we need to keep him in office.posted by Justinian at 11:45 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]
“3 Smart Takes on Trump's ‘Bloodbath’ Comment and Context,” Parker Molloy, The Present Age, 20 March 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 12:58 PM on March 20
posted by ob1quixote at 12:58 PM on March 20
Posted this in another thread but i think it's relevant here too; Adam Johnson has a great take over on his newsletter.
On Gaza Protest Voters, Dem Pundits Don’t Need to Rally the Troops 8 Months Before Election
On Gaza Protest Voters, Dem Pundits Don’t Need to Rally the Troops 8 Months Before Election
This is why the timing is important, and liberal, progressive, and left-adjacent types attempting to rally the troops—or downplay the power of Uncommitted Movement—right now are so vulgar and careerist. What purpose does this rallying serve other than to undermine leverage pressuring Biden to change course? Unfortunately, due to circumstances outside of powerless voters’ control, the only leverage they have is a credible threat of mass vote-withholding. To concede this eight months out serves no functional purpose other than giving the White House the signal that it will suffer no consequences for crossing a clear red line of supporting the mass killing and starvation of a civilian population.posted by adrienneleigh at 3:35 PM on March 21 [3 favorites]
Assuming one simultaneously holds the two morally sound positions of wanting to stop and genocide and make sure Trump doesn’t have a second term, they are effectively resigned to a game of chicken with the DNC and White House. Who will flinch first matters, and for morally self-evident reasons, it’s best for humanity—and for the goal of stopping Trump—if the President does so first. But it’s a game of chicken that must exist; indeed, Biden has left voters of conscience no choice.
Pretty good response to "Are you better off now... " by Biden's team. (link to stupid X)
posted by Glinn at 4:17 PM on March 21
posted by Glinn at 4:17 PM on March 21
Nearly $6 billion in student debt cancellation for an additional 78,000 public service workers. Because of the fixes my Administration has made, we have now cancelled student debt for over 870,000 public service workers – compared to only about 7,000 public service borrowers ever receiving forgiveness prior to my Administration. And through all of our various student debt relief actions, nearly four million Americans have had their student debt cancelled under my Administration.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:31 PM on March 21 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:31 PM on March 21 [3 favorites]
About 1 in 4 Americans have unfavorable views of both Biden and Trump (Pew Research, March 19, 2024) Younger adults are particularly likely to be “double negatives.” About four-in-ten adults ages 18 to 29 (41%) have an unfavorable opinion of both Biden and Trump. In comparison, three-in-ten adults ages 30 to 49 and fewer than two-in-ten of those 50 and older dislike both men.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:05 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:05 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]
Polling is broken, right? Or is it the news? Or all of the US? (The Straight Dope Message Board)
posted by box at 6:16 AM on March 23
posted by box at 6:16 AM on March 23
About 1 in 4 Americans have unfavorable views of both Biden and Trump (Pew Research, March 19, 2024) Younger adults are particularly likely to be “double negatives.” About four-in-ten adults ages 18 to 29 (41%) have an unfavorable opinion of both Biden and Trump. In comparison, three-in-ten adults ages 30 to 49 and fewer than two-in-ten of those 50 and older dislike both men.
That is, to me, the stand-out weird element of this election cycle, that both parties would pick candidates who are so polarizing and unloved by such wide swaths of the electorate. I mean, I understand how we got to where we are, but it must have party strategists on both sides feeling conflicted at best.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:23 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]
That is, to me, the stand-out weird element of this election cycle, that both parties would pick candidates who are so polarizing and unloved by such wide swaths of the electorate. I mean, I understand how we got to where we are, but it must have party strategists on both sides feeling conflicted at best.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:23 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]
Are there any potential candidates who would be better liked?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:05 AM on March 23
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:05 AM on March 23
Are there any potential candidates who would be better liked?
On the GOP side, with their primary voters the answer was "no thanks, we prefer Trump." But the issue there is the difference between the primary voters and who might vote in the general election. For example, almost certainly Haley would do better in the general but she couldn't get traction in the primary. (Though it is noteworthy that she isn't even running anymore and is still pulling in around 15 to 20 percent support in primaries; there are quite a few Repubs who are expressing dissatisfaction with Trump.)
On the Dem side, this just wasn't tested out in any serious way. The polling shows all the main contenders (like Newsom) doing worse vs Trump, but also none of them had the chance to try and build national support and recognition. Personally I think Biden's weaknesses are being exaggerated but there's no denying that lots of people are dissatisfied with him for a variety of reasons.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:15 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]
On the GOP side, with their primary voters the answer was "no thanks, we prefer Trump." But the issue there is the difference between the primary voters and who might vote in the general election. For example, almost certainly Haley would do better in the general but she couldn't get traction in the primary. (Though it is noteworthy that she isn't even running anymore and is still pulling in around 15 to 20 percent support in primaries; there are quite a few Repubs who are expressing dissatisfaction with Trump.)
On the Dem side, this just wasn't tested out in any serious way. The polling shows all the main contenders (like Newsom) doing worse vs Trump, but also none of them had the chance to try and build national support and recognition. Personally I think Biden's weaknesses are being exaggerated but there's no denying that lots of people are dissatisfied with him for a variety of reasons.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:15 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]
I think that's a fair assessment. Maybe somebody else would be in a better position than Biden. Maybe. There's no evidence for that as of now but maybe there would have been if they'd had an additional year to build support.
Which is one of the major problems with the Ezra Klein or others "Biden should step aside" position; the time for that was a year ago, not now.
But, yeah, the issue is that it's not particularly clear if there's anybody the Dem electorate would like better given how broad the electorate is. You need support from 20 year old leftists and Joe Manchins.
posted by Justinian at 7:21 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]
Which is one of the major problems with the Ezra Klein or others "Biden should step aside" position; the time for that was a year ago, not now.
But, yeah, the issue is that it's not particularly clear if there's anybody the Dem electorate would like better given how broad the electorate is. You need support from 20 year old leftists and Joe Manchins.
posted by Justinian at 7:21 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]
That is, to me, the stand-out weird element of this election cycle, that both parties would pick candidates who are so polarizing and unloved by such wide swaths of the electorate.
Two final candidates are by definition polarizing. We need a way to have a dozen but not have a spoiler, while avoiding clones and strategic voting. No problem if we are able to select two choices AS IF we are each making our own ideal runoff ballot. No runoff is needed though. This still favors organized parties as a safe vote with solid backing, but encourages a serious challenger who doesn't want to be subjected to mud slinging, coming off as kind and saintly if they want, letting their policies attract votes. Negative campaigning would be blunted because an opponent can't know who will benefit from the smears, and may backfire by failing to campaign positively on their own policy merits, which this framework encourages.
posted by Brian B. at 7:33 AM on March 23
Two final candidates are by definition polarizing. We need a way to have a dozen but not have a spoiler, while avoiding clones and strategic voting. No problem if we are able to select two choices AS IF we are each making our own ideal runoff ballot. No runoff is needed though. This still favors organized parties as a safe vote with solid backing, but encourages a serious challenger who doesn't want to be subjected to mud slinging, coming off as kind and saintly if they want, letting their policies attract votes. Negative campaigning would be blunted because an opponent can't know who will benefit from the smears, and may backfire by failing to campaign positively on their own policy merits, which this framework encourages.
posted by Brian B. at 7:33 AM on March 23
I would argue that any process which results in a Trump v Biden election is clearly a process that needs to be torn out and rebuilt.
Somehow, out of 380 million people, those two were the absolute best our two parties could select. I just... wow.
I'm also increasingly pissed that anything Trump does or says is, to many people, not quite as bad as Biden being old. "Well, yeah, Trump says immigrants aren't human, calls for a dictatorship, and promises a trade war but Biden is old so it's a toss up".
The basic premise, old is as bad as Fascist, is awful but what really drives me bonkers is that Trump is old too yet somehow it gets ignored. Biden is old, and apparently that fills the mental space available for that adjective so Trump must be something else.
posted by sotonohito at 7:03 PM on March 23 [6 favorites]
Somehow, out of 380 million people, those two were the absolute best our two parties could select. I just... wow.
I'm also increasingly pissed that anything Trump does or says is, to many people, not quite as bad as Biden being old. "Well, yeah, Trump says immigrants aren't human, calls for a dictatorship, and promises a trade war but Biden is old so it's a toss up".
The basic premise, old is as bad as Fascist, is awful but what really drives me bonkers is that Trump is old too yet somehow it gets ignored. Biden is old, and apparently that fills the mental space available for that adjective so Trump must be something else.
posted by sotonohito at 7:03 PM on March 23 [6 favorites]
Ground sentiment I think worth flagging, this is a TT reply (twt repost) from Imani Barbarin (disability activist) to a commenter question -
Q: "what is the solution?"
A: "you are continuing to communicate for a moment you're not actually in. So let me just be blunt. The headline here is, that Biden is so racist against Arabs, he would rather fund a genocide than win a reelection. Is that on the people to fix? Furthermore, if he is so racist against Arabs that he's willing to commit a genocide, and nothing being said or done moves him in direction, what makes you all think he's gonna save you from jackshit? I genuinely don't get the cognitive dissonance you all have to still believe in any of this.
"Frankly, the greatest threat to Democrats that I've been saying, for almost a year now, is not that people are going to vote for Trump, is that people are not going to vote at all, because they do not fucking believe in any of it anymore--"
Later on she mentions polisci studies (I didn't see cites in the repost) about how the greatest indication a law is going to pass is the amount of money spent lobbying for it, and now it's a matter of not just Biden, but the long-term viability of the Democratic party and concluded the video by saying that if electoral politics isn't working, then is it really between the lesser of two evils.
As a disability activist, I believe they have been dissatisfied for much longer following the lack of COVID protection at societal level. There's an overlap there that I see with those who saw the reversal on Roe v Wade as a betrayal too (I don't really follow the various discussions about what federal mandates there are v state).
Worth noting that in the last week, I believe two democrats voted against a Muslim-American judge nominee who was slandered by the repubs, and the bill that Congress just passed may have a headline that it cuts funding for UNRWA, but also contains a clause to limit aid to the Palestinian Authority if "the Palestinians" initiate or support an International Criminal Court investigation against Israel "for alleged crimes against Palestinians".
posted by cendawanita at 9:40 PM on March 23 [7 favorites]
Q: "what is the solution?"
A: "you are continuing to communicate for a moment you're not actually in. So let me just be blunt. The headline here is, that Biden is so racist against Arabs, he would rather fund a genocide than win a reelection. Is that on the people to fix? Furthermore, if he is so racist against Arabs that he's willing to commit a genocide, and nothing being said or done moves him in direction, what makes you all think he's gonna save you from jackshit? I genuinely don't get the cognitive dissonance you all have to still believe in any of this.
"Frankly, the greatest threat to Democrats that I've been saying, for almost a year now, is not that people are going to vote for Trump, is that people are not going to vote at all, because they do not fucking believe in any of it anymore--"
Later on she mentions polisci studies (I didn't see cites in the repost) about how the greatest indication a law is going to pass is the amount of money spent lobbying for it, and now it's a matter of not just Biden, but the long-term viability of the Democratic party and concluded the video by saying that if electoral politics isn't working, then is it really between the lesser of two evils.
As a disability activist, I believe they have been dissatisfied for much longer following the lack of COVID protection at societal level. There's an overlap there that I see with those who saw the reversal on Roe v Wade as a betrayal too (I don't really follow the various discussions about what federal mandates there are v state).
Worth noting that in the last week, I believe two democrats voted against a Muslim-American judge nominee who was slandered by the repubs, and the bill that Congress just passed may have a headline that it cuts funding for UNRWA, but also contains a clause to limit aid to the Palestinian Authority if "the Palestinians" initiate or support an International Criminal Court investigation against Israel "for alleged crimes against Palestinians".
posted by cendawanita at 9:40 PM on March 23 [7 favorites]
contains a clause to limit aid to the Palestinian Authority
The Intercept had a bit about this--apologies if it was already posted.
posted by mittens at 5:28 AM on March 24 [2 favorites]
The Intercept had a bit about this--apologies if it was already posted.
posted by mittens at 5:28 AM on March 24 [2 favorites]
Somehow, out of 380 million people, those two were the absolute best our two parties could select. I just... wow.
Fundamentally your problem is with the electorate, not the process. (As is mine, to be clear). No process saves you from an electorate who either actively want or are fine with terrible things.
posted by Justinian at 5:48 AM on March 24
Fundamentally your problem is with the electorate, not the process. (As is mine, to be clear). No process saves you from an electorate who either actively want or are fine with terrible things.
posted by Justinian at 5:48 AM on March 24
Fundamentally your problem is with the electorate, not the process. (As is mine, to be clear). No process saves you from an electorate who either actively want or are fine with terrible things.
I'd quibble a bit with this, while overall mostly agreeing. There are definitely process-based things in the primaries that drive some of this, like the rule changes that the Trump campaign was able to push through in a bunch of states, or the Biden team using the power of incumbency to close out any serious challenge.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:05 AM on March 24
I'd quibble a bit with this, while overall mostly agreeing. There are definitely process-based things in the primaries that drive some of this, like the rule changes that the Trump campaign was able to push through in a bunch of states, or the Biden team using the power of incumbency to close out any serious challenge.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:05 AM on March 24
Fair enough. There are definitely also process things I'd change and which would improve the situation. I mostly mean that there's a limit to what that can accomplish when the electorate is as it is. But yeah that doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to improve the process.
posted by Justinian at 10:13 AM on March 24
posted by Justinian at 10:13 AM on March 24
“Binaries and Illusions of Binaries,” A.R. Moxon, The Reframe, 24 March 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 10:56 AM on March 24 [1 favorite]
posted by ob1quixote at 10:56 AM on March 24 [1 favorite]
Justinian I'm not sure I'd argue a bad electorate is the real core problem. There are filters in place, it's not as if the parties went around looking for the best possible Presidential candidate out of the entire American population. The only people who could even make it to the "lulz they'll never win" level of the clown car were people who had already been on board and backed by various Democratic or Republican organizations.
Which, sure, makes sense, I'm not saying there's some dark conspiracy. But it's clear that those gatekeepers are doing a horrible job. They're supposed to keep people like Biden and Trump OUT not push them to the top.
It's like the electoral college. The justification people keep using for its existence is that if the electorate ever makes a horirble mistake it can overrule them and keep a demagogue out of office.
2016 proved that was nonsense.
Similarly 2016, 2020, and now 2024 prove that the various Republican and Democratic gatekeeprs are also failing miserably at their jobs.
When we have our ostensible gatekeepers preventing better candidates from getting in and promoting the worst candidates we need to change how the gatekeepers work.
posted by sotonohito at 11:28 AM on March 24 [3 favorites]
Which, sure, makes sense, I'm not saying there's some dark conspiracy. But it's clear that those gatekeepers are doing a horrible job. They're supposed to keep people like Biden and Trump OUT not push them to the top.
It's like the electoral college. The justification people keep using for its existence is that if the electorate ever makes a horirble mistake it can overrule them and keep a demagogue out of office.
2016 proved that was nonsense.
Similarly 2016, 2020, and now 2024 prove that the various Republican and Democratic gatekeeprs are also failing miserably at their jobs.
When we have our ostensible gatekeepers preventing better candidates from getting in and promoting the worst candidates we need to change how the gatekeepers work.
posted by sotonohito at 11:28 AM on March 24 [3 favorites]
Worth noting that in the last week, I believe two democrats voted against a Muslim-American judge nominee who was slandered by the repubs,
Those would be Catherine "Sinema's understudy" Cortez Masto and Joe "not going to run because I'd get rinsed anyway" Manchin.
and the bill that Congress just passed may have a headline that it cuts funding for UNRWA, but also contains a clause to limit aid to the Palestinian Authority if "the Palestinians" initiate or support an International Criminal Court investigation against Israel "for alleged crimes against Palestinians".
The bill (full text, oh so fun to read) additionally prohibits funding an embassy in the current state other than Jerusalem.
posted by StarkRoads at 4:18 PM on March 24 [3 favorites]
Those would be Catherine "Sinema's understudy" Cortez Masto and Joe "not going to run because I'd get rinsed anyway" Manchin.
and the bill that Congress just passed may have a headline that it cuts funding for UNRWA, but also contains a clause to limit aid to the Palestinian Authority if "the Palestinians" initiate or support an International Criminal Court investigation against Israel "for alleged crimes against Palestinians".
The bill (full text, oh so fun to read) additionally prohibits funding an embassy in the current state other than Jerusalem.
posted by StarkRoads at 4:18 PM on March 24 [3 favorites]
« Older What if we made no money? | Fat profits are one of the telltale signs of an... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 7:14 PM on March 2 [33 favorites]