news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[GraceRandolph]

1 minute ago, byzantium said:

Is vote for Biden because by the time of the election everyone in Gaza will be killed so a mute issue really going to convince anyone who has anything research moral conscience? 

I'm convinced that most people here only care about defeating Trump because they view politics as a sport, and Biden is on their team. Just totally divorced from material reality yet claim that voting for the guy funding Israel is the best way to prevent harm to marginalized communities.

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

so they should vote for who they support on other matters?

...like healthcare? 

[Thickorita]

1 minute ago, Redstreak said:

This is holocaust denialism sis

My (Slavic) great grandparents were literally locked up and killed in Auschwitz 

 

Israel develops and exports surveillance and military technology, which is exclusively tested in Gaza and the West Bank, which are open air prisons. Where's the denialism in that?

[Redstreak]

7 minutes ago, Thickorita said:

My (Slavic) great grandparents were literally locked up and killed in Auschwitz 

 

Israel develops and exports surveillance and military technology, which is exclusively tested in Gaza and the West Bank, which are open air prisons. Where's the denialism in that?

So then you should know that this is not and has not been an Auschwitz  the distinctive historical aspect of auschwitz was not about the testing of technology  and Jews were not allowed to leave Auschwitz 

Edited April 5 by Redstreak

[GraceRandolph]

4 minutes ago, Communion said:

...like healthcare? 

I think you meant to quote wastedpotential

[Communion]

Palestine? More 2,000 bombs.

Healthcare? "I'd veto single payer healthcare!!"

Abortion Rights? "I don't believe in expanding the court", "I'm not big on my body, my choice"

Student Loans? "jk!"

Immigration? "Illegals!", Most anti-migrant legislation in 30+ years

Rescheduling Marijuana? "Vote for me in 2024 and you'll get it, maybe"

 

Just like in the story of school integration, Biden will be remembered in the story of American progressive politics... as the antagonist. 

 

 

[Thickorita]

2 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

So then you should know that this is not and has not been an Auschwitz

If we take the status quo as the baseline, from 2018:

 

- 1.94 million Palestinians live behind a blockade and are refused access to the other occupied Palestinian areas and the rest of the world.

- 7 out of 10 Palestinians in Gaza are registered as refugees

- Half of all children have been psychologically traumatised by war, occupation and blockade. Close to 300,000 children need psychosocial help

- 35 per cent of the land eligible for farming is unavailable and fishermen are blocked from 85 per cent of the waters on the coast of Gaza due to Israeli security zones

- 45 per cent are refused medical treatment outside Gaza. Those in need of specialised medical treatment must apply for permission from the Israeli government to leave Gaza

 

https://www.nrc.no/news/2018/april/gaza-the-worlds-largest-open-air-prison/

 

Sounds like a concentration camp to me.

 

 

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

I think you meant to quote wastedpotential

ddd yes, quoting within a quote doesn't pull the original user. @wastedpotential How many M4A's can I buy with my $2000 $1200 Biden check? 

 

[Redstreak]

1 minute ago, Thickorita said:

If we take the status quo as the baseline, from 2018:

 

- 1.94 million Palestinians live behind a blockade and are refused access to the other occupied Palestinian areas and the rest of the world.

- 7 out of 10 Palestinians in Gaza are registered as refugees

- Half of all children have been psychologically traumatised by war, occupation and blockade. Close to 300,000 children need psychosocial help

- 35 per cent of the land eligible for farming is unavailable and fishermen are blocked from 85 per cent of the waters on the coast of Gaza due to Israeli security zones

- 45 per cent are refused medical treatment outside Gaza. Those in need of specialised medical treatment must apply for permission from the Israeli government to leave Gaza

 

https://www.nrc.no/news/2018/april/gaza-the-worlds-largest-open-air-prison/

 

Sounds like a concentration camp to me.

 

 

But it isn't in the distinct way Auschwitz was, that's the denialism. In no modern time has it had an equivalent which is why holocaust comparisons are generally frowned upon

[GhostBox]

 

[GraceRandolph]

 

[byzantium]

43 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

I'm convinced that most people here only care about defeating Trump because they view politics as a sport, and Biden is on their team. Just totally divorced from material reality yet claim that voting for the guy funding Israel is the best way to prevent harm to marginalized communities.

It is just insanity, like DSM-5 insanity, how some people are rationalizing genocide as something that is tolerable.  

[GhostBox]

10 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

 

Ew. Shouldve known you were a Russia loving grifter stein supporter 💀 

Edited April 5 by GhostBox

[GhostBox]

 

[Redstreak]

59 minutes ago, Communion said:

I have a hunch on who exactly is going to enjoy Trump winning in November. 

Well according to the last page it's your buddy @ClashAndBurn

 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

First, under Biden, Israel has killed ~33k (according to the most recent numbers I found), or a rate of ~183 people killed per day. Considering the potentials of modern warfare, that's not even close to what it could be. Hypothetically, Trump is elected and tells Netanyahu "I want you to clear Gaza of all inhabitants so my son in law can build a beach resort, use WMDs for all I care (assuming he doesn't hand over the latest DARPA chemical weapon...)", and that rate could easily triple or quadruple.

There's genuinely nothing stopping Biden from taking this route once he no longer has to worry about re-election. He agrees with Trump on this issue! The Venn Diagram is literally a circle because they're both more ideologically pro-Israel than any other government official this country has EVER had. Period.

 

Honestly I don't know how anyone can look at Biden's record and conclude that his "anger" and "compassion" is genuine here. He hates Arabs with a passion, always has, and wants them all wiped out. Him undercutting Obama and Hillary and encouraging Bibi that expanding West Bank settlements wouldn't be a big deal should be the biggest clue that he's a genocidal ideologue that is only holding back because it would be a political liability. And yet, he's still sending 2k-pound bombs and fighter jets to the tune of billions of dollars because he is COMMITTED to the cause.

 

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

You can't convince me that Biden is a conservative's dream president because of his total failures to get any policies through when that's just... objectively not true. Sorry if it doesn't fit your narrative. 

That's only objectively not true because he isn't Trump. He's governed much like how a mainstream Republican would. He's shifted hard right on border security and wanted to claim "the farthest-right immigration bill the country has ever seen" as a legislative win. The infrastructure bill was BIPARTISAN and was largely

 

what Republicans wanted to pass under Trump but could never manage because Trump's adversarial relationship with the press, along with scandal after scandal, would constantly derail any and all policy directives (and plenty of Democrats would never want to give Trump a win on infrastructure that he could run for re-election on either, much like how Republicans didn't want to with Biden in the last Congress).

 

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

Maybe he's told Trump about it. Do you think Trump will step in when Azerbaijan and Turkey decide that the easiest way to resolve the Armenia problem is to just kill them all and split the land?

Turkey is literally a NATO ally. If anything Biden and much of Europe would be inclined to help with the genocide of Armenians. But more likely, they'd just ignore it. They already stood by and watched the cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh and did absolutely nothing. I don't know why you'd think Biden would intervene here when Rwanda was much more clear-cut and no intervention happened there under a Democrat president. 

 

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

Oh, I don't think Biden is a good option. I don't think anyone here (except maybe GhostBox) would argue that Biden is a good option. I do, however, think he is the only other option, because I'm not as naive as you are that your bluffs will work, so I don't think the DNC will pick a different candidate at the last minute, nor as developmentally stunted as some of you who are thrilled to see the end of the Biden presidency without a whit of thought given to what happens next. Is 4 years of genocide in Gaza and complete government gridlock followed by another election cycle just like this one where we have to fight this same fight, where the Democrat candidate will be just as shitty and unpopular as Biden or Harris a good thing? No. Do I look forward to doing it again in 2032 and probably 2036, too? No. The risk of backsliding seems likely to grow with each future election, and that thought scares me far more than you can imagine. I do, however, think it's a better thing than what Trump has the potential to do with his potential future term, because there is genuine cause for concern that a Trump election in 2024 will be the last election we have for a while (I mean, look at his words from last week on that...). Let's say Biden wins in 2024 and Trump dies in 2027, so the Republicans run someone like Blake Masters or Josh Hawley. They'd have a decent chance at the job because they cater to the same base and have basically none of his flaws, and are probably much more intelligent and much more capable of evil than he is. The risk of backsliding and collapse isn't going away, so the best thing that I think we can do is just delay until some other political solution is found. What that solution is, remains to be seen. 

I can agree with this, however I also feel that re-electing Biden is also just delaying the inevitable and amounts to kicking the can down the road for another four years, in which a much more intelligent and savvy fascist Republican can and will consolidate enough power to carry out Project 2025 in 2029 when the DNC's dream ticket of Harris-Buttigieg inevitably flops.

Edited April 5 by ClashAndBurn

[GhostBox]

Cool to see  Biden and Bernie teaming up again. 

[GhostBox]

 

[Redstreak]

 

this has been such an interesting dichotomy to follow this election season

[wastedpotential]

2 hours ago, Thickorita said:

Mama that's literally what the Gaza strip has been for decades. Israel uses the Palestinians as guinea pigs for the development of military/tech and then exports the technology abroad.

Actually, my reference to Auschwitz was based upon the premise that the Israelis would have to kill roughly 7500 Gazans a day (which is a 700% increase from what they're doing today) in order to have completely ethnically cleansed the territory by January 2025, which would require an industrialization of death that hasn't been seen before or since Auschwitz. 

[wastedpotential]

2 hours ago, byzantium said:

Is vote for Biden because by the time of the election everyone in Gaza will be killed so a mute issue really going to convince anyone who has anything research moral conscience? 

No, but that's not the point I was making. I'm not trying to convince anyone using that logic, because I think it's faulty in the first place . I didn't think that user had the numbers right, nor did I think the conclusion of their argument was a fair take, and my method of proving that was following their logic to its extreme to exhibit its flaws. The only conclusions to be drawn from someone saying "well all the Gazans will be dead before the election no matter what" is that people can only really choose either to retributively punish Biden with a vote against him, or to regard the point as an inevitability and choose to vote on other issues, but because I seriously doubt that all Gazans will be dead, I also doubt that that will be a part of the electoral calculus of the average American. 

[ClashAndBurn]

So now we're being pedantic about whether or not all Gazans will be dead by the time Biden faces his re-election bid? Let's just say it doesn't even need to come to that, because the imminent Rafah incursion could be enough the get many Gazans to flee across the border and be denied right of return, while anyone who doesn't flee for their lives gets purged.

[wastedpotential]

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

There's genuinely nothing stopping Biden from taking this route once he no longer has to worry about re-election. He agrees with Trump on this issue! The Venn Diagram is literally a circle because they're both more ideologically pro-Israel than any other government official this country has EVER had. Period.

 

Honestly I don't know how anyone can look at Biden's record and conclude that his "anger" and "compassion" is genuine here. He hates Arabs with a passion, always has, and wants them all wiped out. Him undercutting Obama and Hillary and encouraging Bibi that expanding West Bank settlements wouldn't be a big deal should be the biggest clue that he's a genocidal ideologue that is only holding back because it would be a political liability. And yet, he's still sending 2k-pound bombs and fighter jets to the tune of billions of dollars because he is COMMITTED to the cause.

 

True, but there's also nothing to stop from Trump from doing it either, and since I think we do all agree that those are the only two viable options for who will be getting inaugurated in January of 2025, does it even matter for this issue? I have no illusions as to how fondly Biden thinks of Arabs, he's the person I second-least want to be president for many reasons, one of which being the two-facedness of putting out "celebrations" of Arab Americans with one hand and then delivering bombs to Israel with the other, and how highly disingenuous and performative and sick that is. It just so happens that the only other viable option happens to be my least favorite pick, and I'm a bit more forward thinking than some of the users on here who seem to be unable to consider the ramifications of these things past the election...

 

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

That's only objectively not true because he isn't Trump. He's governed much like how a mainstream Republican would. He's shifted hard right on border security and wanted to claim "the farthest-right immigration bill the country has ever seen" as a legislative win. The infrastructure bill was BIPARTISAN and was largely

 

what Republicans wanted to pass under Trump but could never manage because Trump's adversarial relationship with the press, along with scandal after scandal, would constantly derail any and all policy directives (and plenty of Democrats would never want to give Trump a win on infrastructure that he could run for re-election on either, much like how Republicans didn't want to with Biden in the last Congress).

 

Sure, the policies had conservative buy-in, but taking a step back from the partisanship, they were a net positive. It's a good thing to stimulate the American economy by building semiconductors and bridges and EVs and solar panels in the US. Even if it required Republican support to make happen, and even if it happened at the expense of other legislation... I'd rather get something than nothing. The alternative here wasn't getting better legislation, it was getting no legislation, and I'm broadly pleased (if not enthused or satisfied) with what we've gotten. It's more progress in the right direction than I think we'll see under the second Trump term, for whatever that's worth. If I were a card carrying progressive, I'd be thrilled that Biden actually managed to get some student debt relief, for instance (even if it didn't meet your expectations), because it's not as if Trump, or any of his successors will bother with that. 

 

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Turkey is literally a NATO ally. If anything Biden and much of Europe would be inclined to help with the genocide of Armenians. But more likely, they'd just ignore it. They already stood by and watched the cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh and did absolutely nothing. I don't know why you'd think Biden would intervene here when Rwanda was much more clear-cut and no intervention happened there under a Democrat president. 

 

Eh fair enough, that probably wasn't the best example. I considered using some of the language coming out of Uzbekistan regarding their Fergana Valley neighbors, but I thought that was too niche and would require too much explanation to make the point. My point wasn't that the US would intervene (because there isn't a potential case where the American public would care that much), but that the credibility of the potential of the US to intervene is at least marginally higher under Biden than under Trump, and that might be enough to delay an invasion and mass casualty event. It's probably worked to some extent with China and Taiwan, for instance, and has probably kept Indonesia from re-conquering Timor-Leste in a Falklands-style start a war to distract the public. Either way, I don't think anyone in Washington is particularly enamored with Erdogan right now, NATO ally or not, so any full-fledged war (that might capture the public's attention and through which the Biden admin may think they can win back some humanitarianism points that were lost in Gaza) might warrant a reaction (no more than sanctions, but that's a lot more than Israel got), but the thinking in Washington is almost certainly that the American public won't care after the first few days. Rwanda is a rather moot point - no one in the Oval Office was ever going to break a sweat about a group of people in sub-saharan Africa committing a genocide against another group of people in Africa, just down to racism, because no one in the general American populace really cared, and it's not as if anyone was trying to court Tutsi voters for the 1996 election. Look at how even less attention was paid to Darfur or Kivu or the Isaaq's of Somaliland during the same era, and how little attention is dedicated to Myanmar now. 

 

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I can agree with this, however I also feel that re-electing Biden is also just delaying the inevitable and amounts to kicking the can down the road for another four years, in which a much more intelligent and savvy fascist Republican can and will consolidate enough power to carry out Project 2025 in 2029 when the DNC's dream ticket of Harris-Buttigieg inevitably flops.

 I guess my thought process is that I'd rather deal with a fascist regime change in 2028 than in 2024, because at least it gives us all 4 years to prepare our metaphorical 5 acre plot of land in Saskatchewan or Minnesota or wherever (actually, 2032 is even better to hope for, but that's probably delusional wishful thinking) to try and survive. Harris-Buttigieg will end up in front of a firing squad (either that of public opinion, or literally if things swing bloodthirsty), but you are right in thinking that the DNC is heading down that path. I just think that a Trump victory in 2024 has the chance to lead to the dissolution of the DNC as an organization and the imprisonment of its leadership, preventing them from ever making a different (and more prudent) choice. 

[GraceRandolph]

The pseudo-sophisticates want to pretend that they have moral high ground and are the adults in the room compared to us pEdAnTiC and purity testing leftists, but are really just treating Palestinians as expendable.

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

True, but there's also nothing to stop from Trump from doing it either, and since I think we do all agree that those are the only two viable options for who will be getting inaugurated in January of 2025, does it even matter for this issue? I have no illusions as to how fondly Biden thinks of Arabs, he's the person I second-least want to be president for many reasons, one of which being the two-facedness of putting out "celebrations" of Arab Americans with one hand and then delivering bombs to Israel with the other, and how highly disingenuous and performative and sick that is. It just so happens that the only other viable option happens to be my least favorite pick, and I'm a bit more forward thinking than some of the users on here who seem to be unable to consider the ramifications of these things past the election...

At this point, it's the fact that liberals have made it clear to Biden that nothing he could do could make him lose their vote, which is why he's held so steadfastly to his failed policy that is damaging the party for generations. Telling people to suck it up and "get over it" like Hillary Clinton is alienating, if anything, and harms the cause more often than not.

 

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

Sure, the policies had conservative buy-in, but taking a step back from the partisanship, they were a net positive. It's a good thing to stimulate the American economy by building semiconductors and bridges and EVs and solar panels in the US. Even if it required Republican support to make happen, and even if it happened at the expense of other legislation... I'd rather get something than nothing. The alternative here wasn't getting better legislation, it was getting no legislation, and I'm broadly pleased (if not enthused or satisfied) with what we've gotten. It's more progress in the right direction than I think we'll see under the second Trump term, for whatever that's worth. If I were a card carrying progressive, I'd be thrilled that Biden actually managed to get some student debt relief, for instance (even if it didn't meet your expectations), because it's not as if Trump, or any of his successors will bother with that. 

 

There have been multiple times that Biden could have changed course and held on to reluctant voters like me, but he's decided he wants to throw us away and court Nikki Haley voters while at the same time berating us for not being on board with his policy choices. Like acquiescing to Republicans on border security. Like his unconditional aid to Israel. Like his purposefully putting forward a student debt cancellation plan (that still wasn't comprehensive enough) that was HEAVILY means-tested, meaning that the process required to make sure that applicants met the means-testing parameters delayed the actual cancellation and gave Conservatives ample time to build a case, get the SCOTUS to impose a stay, and then kill the plan outright with the utmost prejudice. You can argue that it's a conspiracy to say he didn't actually want to cancel the debt and was just trying to look like he's doing something so that he could put the blame on Republicans, but the fact of the matter is, he chose COVID emergency powers as his legal backing while simultaneously declaring that COVID was over (it still isn't, btw) instead of the Higher Education Act (which would have had stronger standing) for a reason.

 

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

Eh fair enough, that probably wasn't the best example. I considered using some of the language coming out of Uzbekistan regarding their Fergana Valley neighbors, but I thought that was too niche and would require too much explanation to make the point. My point wasn't that the US would intervene (because there isn't a potential case where the American public would care that much), but that the credibility of the potential of the US to intervene is at least marginally higher under Biden than under Trump, and that might be enough to delay an invasion and mass casualty event. It's probably worked to some extent with China and Taiwan, for instance, and has probably kept Indonesia from re-conquering Timor-Leste in a Falklands-style start a war to distract the public. Either way, I don't think anyone in Washington is particularly enamored with Erdogan right now, NATO ally or not, so any full-fledged war (that might capture the public's attention and through which the Biden admin may think they can win back some humanitarianism points that were lost in Gaza) might warrant a reaction (no more than sanctions, but that's a lot more than Israel got), but the thinking in Washington is almost certainly that the American public won't care after the first few days. Rwanda is a rather moot point - no one in the Oval Office was ever going to break a sweat about a group of people in sub-saharan Africa committing a genocide against another group of people in Africa, just down to racism, because no one in the general American populace really cared, and it's not as if anyone was trying to court Tutsi voters for the 1996 election. Look at how even less attention was paid to Darfur or Kivu or the Isaaq's of Somaliland during the same era, and how little attention is dedicated to Myanmar now. 

Washington probably isn't enamored with Azerbaijan either, but they still let the Azeris get away with it regardless. He has re-continued economic assistance to Ethiopia in spite of evidence of continued abuses in Tigray. His response to the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea was to immediately cobble together a (failed) coalition of white Western colonizer states and Bahrain rather than get Israel to back down on its genocidal campaign in Gaza. Allowing Israel to continue its genocide with impunity was deemed more important than pursuing diplomacy. Guess how that's going now, by the way.

 

 

1 hour ago, wastedpotential said:

 I guess my thought process is that I'd rather deal with a fascist regime change in 2028 than in 2024, because at least it gives us all 4 years to prepare our metaphorical 5 acre plot of land in Saskatchewan or Minnesota or wherever (actually, 2032 is even better to hope for, but that's probably delusional wishful thinking) to try and survive. Harris-Buttigieg will end up in front of a firing squad (either that of public opinion, or literally if things swing bloodthirsty), but you are right in thinking that the DNC is heading down that path. I just think that a Trump victory in 2024 has the chance to lead to the dissolution of the DNC as an organization and the imprisonment of its leadership, preventing them from ever making a different (and more prudent) choice. 

Canada is too full and has allowed too many immigrants in, according to Trudeau. So... good luck applying for refugee status I guess. No country in their right mind would dare accept an American asylum-seeker though. The idea is... honestly laughable.

 

 

If you don't like SkyNews's right-wing Australian commentary, as I don't, there are clips circulating on Xitter, but searching without being logged in is kinda impossible. Thanks for that, Musk.