this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024

0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

18883 readers

3494 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.
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.
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]

Rashida Tlaib endorses campaign to vote against Joe Biden in the Michigan Democratic primary (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

She doesn’t say anything about the general election, but knowing that she’s a smart and pragmatic politician I would hope that she’ll still rally for Biden in the general. Her effort is to try to get Biden to change his messed up policy on Gaza, which is an admirable goal that I fully agree with. But if he doesn’t, and she still doesn’t get behind him against Trump, then this helps no one and ultimately makes everyone less safe, especially the communities she represents so well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean if her rallying for Biden means campaigning for him, I honestly think that she particularly has every good reason not to do that. Tlaib is a Palestinian American, and Biden has openly contributed billions directly to Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza, going so far as to bypass congress to do so, all while he and nearly every other Dem continue to refuse to acknowledge that Israel's actions constitute anything "messed up," much less full-on genocide.

I cannot stress enough that if, in the face of Biden's continuing contributions to the genocide of her family's country of origin, it is an ethical impossibility for her to publically endorse him for a second term, that is completely on him, not on her.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

it is an ethical impossibility for her to publically endorse him for a second term

I get your point, it is a tough spot. But when you introduce that stance to reality, it quickly goes from "not supporting Biden" to "allowing Trump". Biden not being the ideal doesn't mean the alternative is better. Between the two, Trump will cause considerably more harm to her cause than Biden ever would. I am not saying Biden is the solution, just that Trump is worse for her ethical issues. That's the choice. Sucks but... that's the choice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Biden isn't "not ideal". He's very handily hit rock bottom. I mean Trump wouldn't be better, that's for sure, but Biden has done everything under the sun in the current "war". I see everyone saying Trump would be worse, but like what did Biden leave for Trump to do? Give them weapons? Check. Lie publicly for them (remember the 40 babies)? Check. Dispatch aircraft carriers to protect them from anyone with an ounce of conscience in the region? Check. Trump would be spouting genocidal rhetoric (more than he is anyway), but that's about it.

Edit: Added a question mark.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Right... Because there is another real choice in this race.

The orange con-man is even friendlier to Israel and would help to escalate this tragedy.

I don't like the choices either, but the one that isn't Biden is so much worse!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The point is "you don't have a better choice" isn't a great argument FOR something. The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates, not "he's not the other guy" lumps of wet tissue paper.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that’s why we should have RCV. Until then though, we’re stuck with first past the post voting and not voting for Biden is basically the same as voting for Trump. This could flip enough people in battleground states to let Trump win.

It’s stupid and she knows it but she’s doing it anyway

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And what will be next elections reason to not change the system, fight against it at all, and just "vote for the safer pick"? Change has to happen sometime or not at all. So when, pray tell, do we start caring that we're stuck in a shallow 2 party system and do something about it? When it's convientant?!?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If there’s a risk of not having a next election then that changes the calculation

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago

Our elections are already a sham. We already don't have truly free elections in this closed two party system. So again, when do we make change? It'll never be convientant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates

It's assumed that the incumbent will run unless they decide not to. Biden should've stuck to one term only, he would've gone down as a pretty good President, all things considered. That he didn't is on him, the DNC isn't going to go against a sitting President when there's no concrete reason to do so.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And they SHOULD. That's why they're weak. That's the entire problem.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What should they do, exactly?

Lay it out for me.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not let traditions like "we don't oppose the sitting president" override supporting who is actually best for the job. Elections should be cutroat even amongst the party. Not some dog and pony circus that we're given where both candidates are chosen for us and we get to play "lesser of two evils" game.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There will still be a sizable, perhaps even majority, of members who support Biden's choice to run again. What you're advocating for is a civil war in the Dem party during an election year against Donald fucking Trump.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No, what I'm advocating is for more than a 2 party system where multiple viable candidates are brought forth and not just the same two groups controlling it all.

Crazy idea, I know. Maybe we could call it a "Parliament" or something.

You just keep arguing "LESSER OF TWO EVILS!" like that actually means something

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

You're talking about something that would be great to work towards. I'm talking about why the DNC didn't do the thing you wanted them to do.

What actually means something is keeping Trump out of the White House.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

None of this changes the fact that if you wanted a better candidate you should have campaigned them a year ago, not now.

When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago, when is the next best time? Now.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Lmao "it's too late now, why are you even trying?". Your quote at the end literally contradicts yourself, by the way. The point of the quote is that yes, it should have been done then, but it's now and now is better than later. And of course later you'll have another handy excuse for why it's too hard, right?

None of this changes the fact that you're advocating the easy answers instead of the right answer and even you know it. But just like the boomers before who only looked out for themselves and what was easiest, so too will these next generations. And round and round we go.