The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is an especially vulnerable spot for Biden. With only 26% of U.S. adults approving of his handling of the issue, it’s well below his overall approval rating (39%). In the latest AP-NORC poll, nearly 6 in 10 Democrats disapprove of his approach to the conflict
trump is worse than Biden, and only 26% agree with Biden…
You don’t think it’s worth talking about when a foreign country buys off both parties in a two party system so that no matter what happens their interests (in this case a genocide) would be protected and funded?
You don’t see how this could be happening to a lesser extent in other areas like banking, healthcare, employment, and even social issues that religions care about?
Carl’s Jr and Hardee’s are also two different things, but two things don’t have to be absolutely identical to be compared to each other. If they were, we wouldn’t be comparing them because they would be the same.
I think that’s what you’re missing and why you’re accusing people of arguing in bad faith.
You just don’t understand the point they’re making, but you think you do.
Oh, I absolutely agree they’re both pretty awful, but one is significantly worse. I fully support putting pressure on both candidates to be better, but the American political system means one of these people will be the next president and if you care about Palestinians its important to make sure that’s Biden.
Oh, I absolutely agree they’re both pretty awful, but one is significantly worse.
We’re talking about genocide tho…
We’re asking people to support “some” genocide, and that “some” is actually quite a fucking lot of genocide.
And we’re not just asking Americans to overlook that, we’re asking young Dem voters to overlook it. A demographic who historically doesn’t like that shit going back for pretty much the entire existence of the party.
It makes absolutely zero sense except if the party as an entity wants to be as conservative as possible so when the nation has such a serious risk as trump, instead of the easy win of a candidate dem.voters want, we get someone significantly more conservative than the party, 82 years old, and uncharismatic.
It’s like someone at the DNC bet on winning, but not to cover the spread. So they’re trying to win by the smallest majority possible.
Our system of government means one of these two assholes will be the next president. Do you want three helpings of genocide or two? It’s going to be one of those outcomes so do you have the courage to say less genocide is desirable?
Biden needs to convince 10s of millions of people. Politicians like Obama and Bill Clinton could do that, but they were charismatic in addition to being the lesser of two evils.
It just makes zero sense to be running Biden.
If all that matters is beating trump, why force a candidate that supports genocide? Why is it ok for Dems if trump is worse? Why not at least someone that people like and is a good speaker?
Like, you understand someone slightly less bad as trump is still pretty fucking bad?
Where do you draw the line if you’ll support “some” genocide?
If it was trump VS Mitch McConnell who would you vote for? Would you finally realize it’s the parties that need voters, not voters that need parties?
Here’s the bad news - the primary is over. Administratively, if we switched Democratic candidates now there would be immense voter confusion and democrats would end up splitting the vote between the two.
The only way out of this is if Biden literally dies before the election, and I think that’s highly unlikely.
In terms of supporting genocide, America is going to genocide and part of being a responsible voter is making the least awful choice.
If someone else wins the convention I’ll pop a bottle of champagne but I think it’s nearly impossible. If you can get Whitehouse on the ballot though… I’ll buy the next round.
https://apnews.com/live/presidential-debate-2024-updates
trump is worse than Biden, and only 26% agree with Biden…
You don’t think it’s worth talking about when a foreign country buys off both parties in a two party system so that no matter what happens their interests (in this case a genocide) would be protected and funded?
You don’t see how this could be happening to a lesser extent in other areas like banking, healthcare, employment, and even social issues that religions care about?
Carl’s Jr and Hardee’s are also two different things, but two things don’t have to be absolutely identical to be compared to each other. If they were, we wouldn’t be comparing them because they would be the same.
I think that’s what you’re missing and why you’re accusing people of arguing in bad faith.
You just don’t understand the point they’re making, but you think you do.
Oh, I absolutely agree they’re both pretty awful, but one is significantly worse. I fully support putting pressure on both candidates to be better, but the American political system means one of these people will be the next president and if you care about Palestinians its important to make sure that’s Biden.
We’re talking about genocide tho…
We’re asking people to support “some” genocide, and that “some” is actually quite a fucking lot of genocide.
And we’re not just asking Americans to overlook that, we’re asking young Dem voters to overlook it. A demographic who historically doesn’t like that shit going back for pretty much the entire existence of the party.
It makes absolutely zero sense except if the party as an entity wants to be as conservative as possible so when the nation has such a serious risk as trump, instead of the easy win of a candidate dem.voters want, we get someone significantly more conservative than the party, 82 years old, and uncharismatic.
It’s like someone at the DNC bet on winning, but not to cover the spread. So they’re trying to win by the smallest majority possible.
Our system of government means one of these two assholes will be the next president. Do you want three helpings of genocide or two? It’s going to be one of those outcomes so do you have the courage to say less genocide is desirable?
You’re acting like convincing me means anything…
Biden needs to convince 10s of millions of people. Politicians like Obama and Bill Clinton could do that, but they were charismatic in addition to being the lesser of two evils.
It just makes zero sense to be running Biden.
If all that matters is beating trump, why force a candidate that supports genocide? Why is it ok for Dems if trump is worse? Why not at least someone that people like and is a good speaker?
Like, you understand someone slightly less bad as trump is still pretty fucking bad?
Where do you draw the line if you’ll support “some” genocide?
If it was trump VS Mitch McConnell who would you vote for? Would you finally realize it’s the parties that need voters, not voters that need parties?
Here’s the bad news - the primary is over. Administratively, if we switched Democratic candidates now there would be immense voter confusion and democrats would end up splitting the vote between the two.
The only way out of this is if Biden literally dies before the election, and I think that’s highly unlikely.
In terms of supporting genocide, America is going to genocide and part of being a responsible voter is making the least awful choice.
It’s not tho.
The convention is the end of the primary.
Biden appointed Jamie Harrison to the head of the DNC.
And Jamie Harrison set the convention for mid August.
If you don’t like it, go complain to them. But they picked when the primary was over.
If someone else wins the convention I’ll pop a bottle of champagne but I think it’s nearly impossible. If you can get Whitehouse on the ballot though… I’ll buy the next round.
So…
You don’t think it’s possible the DNC or Biden does the right thing to maximize our chances of beating trump?
The primary isn’t a real election. The DNC can just nominate someone else, they’ve been very open about it
And Biden can obviously just step aside.
Do you think they don’t care if trump wins? Or that they’d just rather that happen then a Dem candidate Dem voters want winning?