this post was submitted on 22 May 2024

86 points (69.2% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2504 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Biden is dramatically out of touch with voters on Gaza. He may lose because of it | Moira Donegan (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

106 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Many voters believe, with good reason, that none of this would have happened without Biden’s assent. Biden has continued to speak of Israel’s attack on Palestinian civilians using the absurd language of “self-defense”. He has insulted Jewish Americans and the memory of the Holocaust by invoking them to justify the slaughter. And though his White House repeatedly leaks that he is “privately” dismayed by Israel’s conduct of the war, he has done little to stop the flow of US money and guns that support it.

Even after the US state department issued a vexed and mealy-mouthed report on Israel’s conduct, which nevertheless concluded that it was reasonable to assess that Israel was in violation of international humanitarian law, the Biden administration has continued to fund these violations. That state department report was published on 10 May. The Biden administration told Congress that it intends to move forward with a $1bn arms sale to Israel. “OK, [Israel] likely broke the law, but not enough to change policy,” is how one reporter summarized the administration’s judgment. “So, what is the point of the report? I mean, in the simplest terms, what’s the point?”

Meanwhile, Biden has expressed public disdain for the Americans – many of whom he needs to vote for him – who have taken to protest on behalf of Palestinian lives. Speaking with evident approval of the violent police crackdowns against anti-genocide student demonstrations, he said coolly: “Dissent must never lead to disorder.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

there's really nobody I could see on the Democrat side of the aisle who's both ready and able to take down Trump this year

I think it's probably too late to even bother speculating, but I think that there are a few who could've been better picks if Biden had chosen to not run for reelection and we got a full primary. Adam Schiff has proven to be organized and effective. Katie Porter might need more experience, but the way CA districts got adjusted it might've been a good time for her to shoot her shot. Hakeem Jeffries has proven his ability to unite the party. Gavin Newsom ain't perfect, but I wouldn't be surprised by a Presidential run in 28 or 32; he could've been a solid pick for this year too. I know he's had an unsuccessful attempt already, but Pete Buttigieg is charismatic af, speaks laps around everybody, and now has more experience than in his run years ago; he's much more ready now.

I'm certainly missing other rising stars, and each of these people has their own baggage as everybody does, but I'm confident that these all would've been good nominees right now. I didn't bother renaming Raskin, but I think he would've done fine this year too. Crockett is great, but I think she might need a little more time before she can realistically hope for a successful Presidential run. I'd love to see her do more in committees, go to the Senate, or even get a cabinet position before she tries for that level. I like her passion and no nonsense approach, but I want to see her capability for calm unity over clapback, and I think that will come from further experience.

Idk, I'm kinda excited for up and coming younger Democrats; I'm also terrified of the dogshit up and coming younger Republicans who are basically just professional twitter trolls.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Adam Schiff has proven to be organized and effective.

He's got a couple of problems. One is that Trump spent 4 years painting him as a lightning rod, and the other is that he's got all the charisma of a doorknob. I do not think he has what it takes to be able to take on the Trump Hate Machine when push comes to shove. He's OK in short soundbytes, but I don't see him having what it takes to take Trump on head-on.

Katie Porter might need more experience, but the way CA districts got adjusted it might’ve been a good time for her to shoot her shot.

At the very least, she needs more time. And I don't know quite how to put this without coming off as discriminatory in some form, but she seems like the type that a lot of middle- and upper-middle class people wouldn't take seriously because she's too "working class".

Hakeem Jeffries has proven his ability to unite the party.

Like Schiff, problem #1 is that he's got the charisma of a doorknob. Problem #2 is that he's black, which again will rile up the GOP base and drive turnout for the racists who may have otherwise stayed home but are now gonna go and make sure that another black person doesn't get elected again. I wouldn't consider this as an issue normally, but Trump is literally campaigning on racism.

Gavin Newsom ain’t perfect, but I wouldn’t be surprised by a Presidential run in 28 or 32; he could’ve been a solid pick for this year too. I

My understanding is he didn't want it. And my memory is fuzzy, but I remember there being somewhat of an uproar when rumors started circulating that he was going to run. Personally, I thought he'd have been fine, but there were plenty of talking heads that I remember saying it wasn't a good idea.

know he’s had an unsuccessful attempt already, but Pete Buttigieg is charismatic af, speaks laps around everybody, and now has more experience than in his run years ago; he’s much more ready now.

I think he'd be an excellent choice in general, but I think he sometimes leads a little too hard into his homosexuality. While this normally shouldn't be an issue, when your opponent is literally running on a platform of hate and has a base of racists that is much larger than most people thought pre-Trump, giving Trump a lightning rod like Buttigieg to be able to point to may not be the best strategy.

And again, it shouldn't be this way. But when Trump's base of racists is as large as it is and the margins in swing states are so small, putting a minority up there that doesn't have the national popularity (or, quite frankly, the charisma and aggression) to overcome Trumpism in these swing states may end up doing more harm than good.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

All fair points that I didn't want to hear lol. At the same time, it's been proven that a man of color can win the presidency and that a woman of color can win the vice presidency in this country, so I'm hesitant to jump right into thinking that only a white, Christian, hetero, cis man can beat trump. It might even get more excitement out of people to come vote for something that isn't yet another old white guy, which is the only real reason I was hesitant to mention Newsom.

Idk, it's all speculation on a hypothetical situation, so it's impossible to say how well anybody would've done in this scenario. Just interesting to hear others' thoughts and see a more thoughtful take than usual. Cheers :)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

it’s been proven that a man of color can win the presidency and that a woman of color can win the vice presidency in this country, so I’m hesitant to jump right into thinking that only a white, Christian, hetero, cis man can beat trump.

Cheers to you too. :)

I just want to reply to this by saying that in this political environment, the fact that they're minorities makes their job more difficult against this opponent. I could see someone like Hakeem Jeffries with a more aggressive attitude like AOC or Crockett being able to take on Trump and win. But the reality of the situation is that you've got to bring a LOT of ammo and a LOT of chutzpah to the table if you're going to take on Trump as a minority, and I'm not convinced that people like Jeffries have that on their own. At least not right now. In a more "regular" election, absolutely. But I just don't see someone like Jeffries being able to withstand months of what would be an endless firehose of racism pointed right at his face while he's trying to mount a campaign actually based on the issues instead of just answering whatever Trump vomited up this morning.