55 points

Says the people who swallowed the genocide every year they’ve been alive but decided to get unproductively upset at the moment it will help conservatives most.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Oh we’ve cared. It’s just that previous democratic presidents were working to stop settlements and work towards the two state solution.

This turbo kill approach is new.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Biden is the first US president to issue sanctions against Israeli colonizers on Palestinian land.

Previous presidents of any side for the past 70 years have been sending military aid to Israel.

You got your facts way wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yeah sure, he sanctioned 5 of them. While he’s supplying massive amounts of war material for their genocide. It’s performative at best. And those settlers are still blocking aid with the help of the Israeli authorities who tell them where to find the shipments and don’t clear them off the road.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Not in 2000. Republicans win when Democrats abstain or vote third-party. I’m not judging, but sharing personal experience. I voted for Nader along with plenty of others. In turn, we had Bush respond to 9/11 and decide how to address climate change instead of Gore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Yes in 2000, third party didn’t cede yhe election to Bush.

There were much more influential factors.

  1. Disenfranchisement of democratically leaning voters, voting machines literally being relocated for no reason on election Day.

These " random, unforeseeable" technical problems across many states coincidentally disenfranchised black and white voters 10 to 1 vote.

  1. Before the votes were counted, katherine Harris, who worked for Jeb Bush, the governor of California and George Bush’s brother, requested that at that specific moment, while George Bush had a lead in the number of Florida votes recounted, Florida election officials be allowed to stop counting votes(If they kept counting, the projection was for Gore to win the count a second time)

  2. That went to the supreme Court, who said “yea, election officials shouldn’t be made to count every vote if they don’t want to”, so George Bush ended up winning in his Governor brother’s state.

Those travesties had a much greater impact, a magnitude greater, than your perfectly legitimate vote for Nader.

In every election, you should vote for the candidate than most aligns with your views.

I’m voting for Biden because he has an impressive executive track record on civil rights, the environment, sustainable technology in his first term and I hope he does the same in the second.

No other candidate that I’m aware of is more likely to do as much for the issues I think should be most urgently addressed.

Anyone voting for the green party or any third party should not be dissuaded from doing so because the American election system is broken.

By voting for a third party, they’re fixing that break.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Please explain how voting third-party fixes anything when a third-party candidate has never received even one electoral vote in the history of our nation since 1968.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Don’t forget that the ballots in Florida were really poorly designed, and caused Pat Buchanan to get a very high number of Democratic votes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Republicans win close races via fuckery. While US Americans are all distracted by the presidential race, republicans around the country are plotting all kinds of fuckery to rig the congressional races, the ones that are collectively far more important than the presidency.

Everyone is focused on Joe Biden, but the reality is that, without a democratic congressional majority, very little will continue to happen. Even with a majority in both the house and senate, i don’t think Democrats will fix (or want to fix) many of the broken parts of the system, like Citizen’s United, FISA, Copyright, DMCA, healthcare, supreme court expansion, gerrymandering, anti-trust and regulations, regulating Wall Street, regulating banks, fixing the housing market, taking power back from the supreme court, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s not fuckery. It’s voter disengagement. Republicans know that they have limited numbers, but they vote with party loyalty. All they need to do is sour the left on their candidate to win. The largest historical Democratic turnout was 2020.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Thank you for saying the truth. I’ve cared since the 80s. It’s cute people turned on the news. Gaza has nothing to do with our elections unless you’re a Russian plant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Absolutely, or a limp maga.

People have gone from blindly supporting anything #Israel and condemning anything #Palestine without making any distinctions between civilians and their government, and then once they couldn’t deny the violence, they were like “got it, so Israel always bad and Palestine always good” without learning anything more about the situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Exactly. Everything is a binary now. No nuance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points
*

“I don’t like the butcher of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria’s vibes” is a bit of an understatement.

I can only attribute the fact that we didn’t go to war with Iran after Iran’s response to blowing up the guy who beat ISIS while he was on a peace mission to historical coincidence, since it definitely wasn’t Trump’s character, but 0% chance Hillary would have called off the attack at the last minute.

If Hillary had won, we’d have started a war with Iran the year Covid was starting. And then maybe had Trump in 2020 instead of 2016

Edit: Anyone downvoting me wanna say why they think the person who was so proud of facilitating the brutal murder of Qaddafi would have pulled back from the brink of war?

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Fuck Putin.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Did you mean to reply to a different thread?

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

the personal disciple of war criminal Henry Kissinger starting more wars? nah …

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

Bad take.

You get genocide either way; one is a guy trying to stop the genocide that’s been negotiating behind the scenes for months (and yes, also giving the Israelis arms), and the other guy wants to accelerate the genocide while also ending democracy.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Mostly because Netanyahu has been souring on Biden real fast. Biden held up a delivery of bombs to Israel back in May, citing Israel’s plans to bomb Rafah. Netanyahu announced he was pushing forward anyway, and there was a big public spat about it. That sort of thing has been happening since Oct 7.

I mean one could say it’s all an act or something, but that strains credulity to me.

I’m not saying Biden is doing great here, I’d much prefer he take Bernie Sanders’ advice on this and stop weapon deliveries altogether. But it’s certainly fair to assess that Biden wants the genocide to stop, but is not doing enough to stop it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Which is a de facto admission he knows Israel is committing war crimes with the weapons and that he has the power to stop military aid at any time.

This is Student Loans all over again where his cult says he can’t do it, because he doesn’t have that power. And then he does it.

Edit to add, he also released those bombs to Israel something like last week?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It’s not the leaks, it’s the fact that Anthony Blinken has been holding talks in Cairo to try and negotiate a peace settlement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points

Or. Just maybe. We could actually care enough to pressure Biden.

No? Just going to shove your head in the ground and pretend politics is an immutable object?

I can’t imagine why Biden was already in so much polling trouble. It can’t possibly be the cult like atmosphere around him preventing him from contacting reality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

…And exactly, EXACTLY, how do you pressure him in a way that doesn’t actively risk making things far, far worse, not just in Israel, but here in the US as well? Because if your answer is, “don’t vote for him”, well, congrats, you’re going to make things worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You let them know. You don’t just sit on it. The one thing that will move a politician is knowing they can’t get elected again if they keep doing something. By throwing “But Trump!” at us, no matter how obliquely, you’re just protecting a genocide.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Ah yes. The insular Biden cult. I don’t know how deluded you need to be to buy this. No one, Not one person is in a cult of personality for Unkie Joe. No one. Why do you think this?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Says one of two people that have showed up to frame this as an either/or problem we can’t possibly even try to tackle. It’s either commit genocide or lose our democracy. No possible other option, especially after a disastrous debate that confirmed fears of age related mental decline.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Israel controls one of the largest political lobbies in America. No president who goes against the interests of the Israeli government will ever be elected until this changes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

AIPAC has only won one house race this year, and that was an already vulnerable incumbent. They’re nothing like titans like the NRA.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Bad take.

It’s a return2ozma post. Of course it’s a bad take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

It’s difficult to defend the idea that Biden has been trying to end the genocide. He’s had that power from day 1. If you give Israel a bullet, you have solid awareness that there is a good chance it will be used against a non-combatant. That’s hard reality. If Biden was not supportive of genocide he would place an embargo on the weapons being poured into the massacre. He also wouldn’t sanction the ICC when they attempted to call out the primary actors in the genocide. He has given enabling support to the campaign in multiple ways.

Biden is not a good man as he is portrayed, he is complex obviously, but the reality is that Hitler still petted his dog and was nice to his friends and family. Biden should be joining Netanyahu at the Hague, not sabotaging democracy by being virtually un-electable while at the same time working to make it even more obvious that the international order is only there to punish certain war criminals.

Anyway, I think the take is pretty on point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

He’s had that power from day 1

Not as such, no. When congress appropriates funds, the president is legally obligated to disburse those funds for the purpose that they were appropriated for. This is a law, and it’s not something that’s up for debate. That was part of the underlying crime that Trump was first impeached for; he attempted to withhold funds corruptly. Could he have vetoed that? Sure. It also would have vetoed funding for Ukraine though. (And, just pointing out here that Trump would have vetoed assistance for Ukraine, while helping Israel kill more Palestinians faster.)

You can–and should–condemn his rhetoric, because he has been supportive of Israel waging war in Gaza. But he’s also been working behind the scenes, trying to negotiate a peace that Hamas will accept, and that Israel will accept. Even when he’s supporting Israel in public, it’s been clear that he’s been working to negotiate a truce.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

The Leahy Law and Foreign Assistance Act make sending that aid illegal, no matter how much Congress appropriates.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Didn’t we have a whole impeachment about a president preventing arms that were allocated by Congress from going to their destination? Oh yeah that was Trump trying to get some election fuckery from Ukraine. Granted, the election aspect was another level on it but that is functionally the same thing you’re demanding Biden do which was already determined to not be ok. President doesn’t have that power so maybe instead of wondering why Biden isn’t fixing the thing all on his own, we can start (or continue if you were ever paying attention between presidential elections) pressuring and replacing the Congress critters that are actually approving the sale of arms to continue the genocide. Why does everyone keep getting big man deluded when we know for a fact that the president isn’t a king with total control?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

It’s not a bad take. The post didn’t imply that there was a no-Genocide option

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You read the word OR in there?

Did it say AND ? NO. It said OR.

The post absofuckinglutely strongly implied there was a no-genocide option.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

No it didn’t. That’s just the way you read it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
100 points

More like people were betrayed by the DNC and rejected an unpopular candidate that was thrusted onto them.

permalink
report
reply
62 points

The dnc really ought to let voters nominate their own candidates, instead of force feeding us their choice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

That is far too democratic to ever be a thing in your country. The political system is financed and thus owned by the capital, so they will never permit a not capitalist to have any political success. Bernie, a by all objective measures very moderate leftist, is the furthest the spectrum goes, and he is more tolerated as a sort of token minority than realistically able to affect any real change.

If people were able to select and push their own candidates the whole big money oligarchy collapses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I saw a Michael Moore documentary that claims Bernie actually had the votes for the nomination and the DNC lied and said he lost in a state where he actually won.

Not sure if that’s true 100%

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The dnc really ought to let voters nominate their own candidates, instead of force feeding us their choice.

They actually do (Kind Of) candidates have to come forward and nominate themselves to the Democratic Party of the individual states after getting a certain amount of signatures from registered Democratic voters from those states.

The biggest hurdle for potential candidates is name recognition and funding for getting those signatures. Even after getting the signatures, it’s very hard to challenge an incumbent, like was proven by Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

You must not remember the 2016 primaries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

And it wasn’t the last time. Remember super Tuesday?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Can you fill me in? I don’t remember hearing or reading about it

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Before Super Tuesday in 2019, Bernie was the forerunner despite the DNC’s best efforts.

So every conservative democrat dropped out and endorsed Biden while the candidate who shared many of Bernie’s policies split the progressive vote (ensuring none of the progressive policies the former Reagan campaigner was running on would actually be implemented).

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

What’s happening in Gaza now has been happening a long time, as President Carter said people weren’t demanding change or horrified in general because ‘‘they don’t know, they don’t want to know’’. The passive approval has been there a long long time. Biden may actually respond to pressure, Trump will be directed by his evangelical base to stoke all out unilateral war, and he’ll approve it.

Nothing here is simple, Biden doesn’t control Isreal, and neither will Trump or anyone else, Trump used ‘Palestinian’ as a slur, an insult. He also expressed his stance against Biden as Biden not aiding Isreal MORE. Who do you think is going to effect change in the direction of ending the genocide?

If you’re against the genocide, why in the world would you let the very pro genocide candidate win?

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

He can absolutely stop giving them half their ammunition and ordnance. Seems like a lot less Palestinians would die in that case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes. He could. If he said that’s the deal tomorrow, I would accept that within the realm of possibility. Trump would never do that. Ever. He’s pro genocide. 100%. Who’s a better choice?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Any number of people after that debate. But he wanted to talk about “doing the right thing” on that ABC interview. While he’s materially supporting war crimes. In the original definition of material support even. So yeah, any reasonably high profile democrat with a pulse at this point.

permalink
report
parent
reply

People Twitter

!whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

Create post

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 680

    Posts

  • 32K

    Comments