news Update: Biden's Palestine failure - lowest approval of term, record-low #s w/ Dems

[taylamour]

4 hours ago, shelven said:

The sheer amount of hyperbole that is emerging from every angle during this conflict is wild  I don't mean this as a defense of Biden at all because the lesser of two evils is still an evil. But people are on crack if they think Trump's rhetoric and decision-making in this situation wouldn't be 100x worse if he were president right now  The only reason why Trump did not directly call for the eradication of Gaza during his presidency is because nothing like October 7 happened while he was president. Even right now, as he's doing campaign speeches, he's saying things like "if someone spills one drop of our blood, we'll dump a gallon of theirs in response."

 

If people feel like they can't stomach voting for Biden because of how he's handled this situation, that's their right, but I just really hope they've fully thought through how much horrifyingly worse it will get if Trump is re-elected and this current unrest is still going on or if there's a new inciting incident to re-ignite it while he's president.

I think the hope is, which existed before the current situation, was that someone else runs in Biden's place. 

 

Nobody wants Trump. But nobody wants Biden. The Democratic Party isn't even offering us the opportunity to choose someone we think better fits the party values. 

 

By no means does anybody want Trump though.

[Communion]

5 hours ago, shelven said:

The sheer amount of hyperbole that is emerging from every angle during this conflict is wild  I don't mean this as a defense of Biden at all because the lesser of two evils is still an evil. But people are on crack if they think Trump's rhetoric and decision-making in this situation wouldn't be 100x worse if he were president right now  The only reason why Trump did not directly call for the eradication of Gaza during his presidency is because nothing like October 7 happened while he was president. Even right now, as he's doing campaign speeches, he's saying things like "if someone spills one drop of our blood, we'll dump a gallon of theirs in response."

 

If people feel like they can't stomach voting for Biden because of how he's handled this situation, that's their right, but I just really hope they've fully thought through how much horrifyingly worse it will get if Trump is re-elected and this current unrest is still going on or if there's a new inciting incident to re-ignite it while he's president.

 

5 hours ago, WokeEqualist said:

You think Trump would be saying Free Palestine if he was in power?

 

5 hours ago, GhostBox said:

Yea right 😂😂😂😂

 

the delusion is real 💀

"But the other side would be worse!!!" is simply not a meaningful defense. It is not how people rationalize their pain and suffering. Biden is going to suffer for his comments unless he makes amends. And this result will unfold similarly across others Western countries where so-called liberal leaders have decided Muslims and Arabs are expendable. 

 

For reference, here is the current voting intention of British Muslims after Keith Starmer, the head of the Labour Party, said Israel restricting water and food was justified. The same poll last year showed 71% of British Muslims planning to vote for Labour:

Telling people they're being hyperbolic won't bring back for them their dead loved one or the dead loved one of a friend or co-worker.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Communion

[Kitty Kat]

4 minutes ago, Communion said:

 

For reference, here is the current voting intention of British Muslims after Keith Starmer, the head of the Labour Party, said Israel restricting water and food was justified. The same poll last year showed 71% of British Muslims planning to vote for Labour:

Telling people they're being hyperbolic won't bring back for them their dead loved one or the dead loved one of a friend or co-worker.

Staunchly pro-Palestinian here and anti-Biden's rhetoric in this, but just wanted to flag for those seeing this that this survey is not a poll with a specific methodology. The survey was not at all weighted, this was an online survey that anyone could fill in, several times even. The census claims that they did all they could to prevent the use of several devices. There was no verification of identity. The Labour Party in the UK will have most definitely lost some support with Muslim voters, but there's no clear evidence as of yet to express that it's as drastic as this.

[Mr. Mendes]

6 hours ago, shelven said:

But people are on crack if they think Trump's rhetoric and decision-making in this situation wouldn't be 100x worse if he were president right now

I don't think anyone who's upset with Biden thinks Trump would be doing better. We know he'd be doing much worse. 

 

The thing that we're upset about though is that simply being better at Trump is not good enough, yet that seems to be all he aspires to be. He doesn't aspire to be or try to be a good president, or a groundbreaking one, or a modern one, or a strong one, he just strives to be better than his predecessor and future opponent. Being a little better than the worst possible option is not the way to inspire confidence in your voters. 

 

When it comes to issues like this, a president needs to be able to stand up with strong and consistent messaging and actions that back that messaging up. His messaging on this has been inconsistent at best, complete lies at worst. He has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth from day one. You can't take someone seriously when they say they're committed to negotiating safety and aid for Palestinians while they at the same time pledge billions in money and resources to assist in a military operation that will directly lead to their deaths and further oppression. 

 

He went on national television and parroted an unproven claim about decapitated babies that, even though his press team walked back on, he's not personally walked back on. He continues to parrot blatant propaganda and has been attempting to rally a national defense for Israel despite acknowledging a humanitarian crisis in Palestine--without paying acknowledgement to what and who is causing that crisis. 

 

He has not been having like a president, he has been behaving like a reactionary which is exactly what Israel wants. There is no better ally to them than the reactionary war-hawk leader of one of the world's largest and richest militaries. 

[monologueNacafe]

20 hours ago, dawnettakins said:

No honest person who isn't fooling themselves or acting in good faith would believe a sitting President polling IN THE 30s would win re-election or have a decent chance even. 

 

The fact that some of you can't see that, refuse to, or blindly believe it doesn't matter are foolish. 

 

The only thing Biden has going for him is Trump, who is a wildcard. If it were anyone else Biden would be absolutely clobbered in 2024. 

Exactly. He has a year to turn things around but yeah...I'm sure he's desperately hoping Trump stays out of jail

[shelven]

10 hours ago, taylamour said:

I think the hope is, which existed before the current situation, was that someone else runs in Biden's place. 

 

Nobody wants Trump. But nobody wants Biden. The Democratic Party isn't even offering us the opportunity to choose someone we think better fits the party values. 

 

By no means does anybody want Trump though.

 

8 hours ago, Mr. Mendes said:

I don't think anyone who's upset with Biden thinks Trump would be doing better. We know he'd be doing much worse. 

 

The thing that we're upset about though is that simply being better at Trump is not good enough, yet that seems to be all he aspires to be. He doesn't aspire to be or try to be a good president, or a groundbreaking one, or a modern one, or a strong one, he just strives to be better than his predecessor and future opponent. Being a little better than the worst possible option is not the way to inspire confidence in your voters. 

 

When it comes to issues like this, a president needs to be able to stand up with strong and consistent messaging and actions that back that messaging up. His messaging on this has been inconsistent at best, complete lies at worst. He has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth from day one. You can't take someone seriously when they say they're committed to negotiating safety and aid for Palestinians while they at the same time pledge billions in money and resources to assist in a military operation that will directly lead to their deaths and further oppression. 

 

He went on national television and parroted an unproven claim about decapitated babies that, even though his press team walked back on, he's not personally walked back on. He continues to parrot blatant propaganda and has been attempting to rally a national defense for Israel despite acknowledging a humanitarian crisis in Palestine--without paying acknowledgement to what and who is causing that crisis. 

 

He has not been having like a president, he has been behaving like a reactionary which is exactly what Israel wants. There is no better ally to them than the reactionary war-hawk leader of one of the world's largest and richest militaries. 

You’re both preaching to the choir on Biden being bad and the bar being in hell for him. My problem with that specific tweet is that it’s directly implying that Trump would be better. It’s the exact type of headline that feeds into the larger problem of the last year or so where people with goldfish memories are suddenly pretending like Trump wasn’t actually all that bad and maybe things would be better under him after all. If the headline had just been something about Biden stooping to a new low or Biden being worse than we hoped, I’d see no problem with that. But this headline is (likely intentionally for clicks) suggesting that Biden is worse on this issue than Trump is, and I think that’s an incredibly irresponsible way to frame otherwise valid criticism of Biden’s handling of this. 
 

9 hours ago, Communion said:

Telling people they're being hyperbolic won't bring back for them their dead loved one or the dead loved one of a friend or co-worker.

See, this is where you lose me because this is essentially saying that people experiencing grief can never be validly criticized for making misleading or harmful statements. How far should that go? If a friend or family member of a dead Gazan started actively campaigning for Trump to win in 2024 because of how mad they are at Biden, should we still not be allowed to criticize that? And by this same logic, shouldn’t we also be prohibited from criticizing the rhetoric of family members and friends of the October 7 non-military victims? If an Israeli who was personally affected by October 7 wrote an article in a popular newspaper arguing that Netanyahu’s not all that bad and he’s just acting out of love and care for his citizens, are we not allowed to criticize that because that won’t change the fact that the author’s loved one is dead? If we start using grief and tragedy as a blanket immunity from criticism of potentially harmful rhetoric, that very quickly creates a slippery slope I don’t think anyone would want to see through to its extreme. 

[Antonini]

This country deserves Trump tbh. 
 

Honestly at least with Trump you know you’re getting pure evil and mess instead of these fake ass dems lying to your face. 
 

Trump presidency might actually motivate these yt liberals to pursue progressive policies again. 
 

and the Supreme Court…It’s already gonna be right leaning for the reminder of our lifetime and perhaps beyond. The Dems didn’t really even try to fix it when they could they just published a “study.” So, if they didn’t care why should I? They didn’t even pretend to be interested in passing SCOTUS reform and just blamed Sinema and manchin. 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, shelven said:

If an Israeli who was personally affected by October 7 wrote an article in a popular newspaper arguing that Netanyahu’s not all that bad and he’s just acting out of love and care for his citizens, are we not allowed to criticize that because that won’t change the fact that the author’s loved one is dead?

That is... genuinely what Democrats and their media would say to silence any dissent and have anyone who does so written off as an anti-Semite, so yeah.

[shelven]

3 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

That is... genuinely what Democrats and their media would say to silence any dissent and have anyone who does so written off as an anti-Semite, so yeah.

Okay but that’s also wrong  My entire point is that being the victim of tragedy shouldn’t give you free rein to say misleading and damaging things. It’s wrong when Israeli civilians do it and it’s wrong when Palestinian civilians do it And this isn’t even really on topic to the original tweet I was criticizing to begin with because I wasn’t criticizing some random individual who personally lost a loved one to Israel’s airstrikes. The Al Jazeera editorial board as a collective corporate entity shouldn’t get to claim immunity from criticism because they’re generally on the side of innocent people, just like how no rational person should give The Jerusalem Post that same type of immunity. 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 minute ago, shelven said:

Okay but that’s also wrong  My entire point is that being the victim of tragedy shouldn’t give you free rein to say misleading and damaging things. It’s wrong when Israeli civilians do it and it’s wrong when Palestinian civilians do it And this isn’t even really on topic to the original tweet I was criticizing to begin with because I wasn’t criticizing some random individual who personally lost a loved one to Israel’s airstrikes. The Al Jazeera editorial board as a collective corporate entity shouldn’t get to claim immunity from criticism because they’re generally on the side of innocent people, just like how no rational person should give The Jerusalem Post that same type of immunity. 

I don't disagree that it's wrong, but that doesn't stop it from happening. People are getting doxxed, blacklisted, and are losing their jobs if they show sympathy towards Palestinians. Student groups are getting banned from organizing. No such thing is happening to the pro-Israel side who are cheering for Israel to do what it wants with impunity, like Amy Schumer.

 

Oh, and for the Al Jazeera example, Israel actively targets their journalists and their families, and Biden has given them cover for it, even when it was an American (Shireen Abu Akleh) who was the victim. They can be criticized for their coverage, sure. But they're ultimately getting silenced, whether it's Israel killing them or Joe Biden leaning on Qatar to get them to censor their coverage.

[Communion]

5 hours ago, shelven said:

See, this is where you lose me --

We seem to be talking about two different things.

 

You seem to be reacting to the referenced tweet as a persuasive attempt to voting for Trump, but I'm reacting to it as an opinion piece reflected of a singular person's feelings over not voting. I'm not interested in doing any analysis over the empirical data of who has caused more harm, Trump or Biden, because I understand that's not how voters work.

 

"I will not vote" is not a harmful statement. "I hate Biden so much I don't care if Trump wins" is not a harmful statement. It cannot be. It is not material - voting is a legal construct that largely has no impact, on the individual level. What if the op-ed writer is from a D+45 state? What harm is their staying home incurring?

 

You seem to take the article as a persuasive argument to convince people to vote for Trump, when it clearly lays out a Palestinian person's feelings that the US under no leader will ever care about Palestinians and traces the bipartisan support for the eradication of the Palestinian people. 

 

Do you agree the intent of the Israeli state is the destruction of Palestinians? Do you accept that as material reality? If so, I don't see and can't imagine why you're flabbergasted at such an opinion over why a Palestinian will rebuke the suggestion of electoral politics as relevant to their liberation. "This is hyperbolic" - no, voting is transactional. Why would people vote for someone who wants them dead? I don't expect genocidal Zionists to vote for people who support Palestine, and I don't expect Palestinian victims to the Zionist genocide to vote for people who support Israel. 

[shelven]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

We seem to be talking about two different things.

Yeah I think we are. I’m not criticizing the broader opinion of the author of the article. I’m criticizing the choice of Al Jazeera’s editorial staff or social media team to boil down the opinion in a very misleading and clickbait way by falsely suggesting that Biden is actively worse on this issue than Trump is. I don’t think that’s the same as saying “here’s why you shouldn’t vote at all” or “here’s why both candidates are ultimately garbage.” A headline like “Biden is now worse on this issue than Trump” is essentially an implied endorsement of Trump, even if Al Jazeera didn’t intend it that way (although the headline seems intentionally provocative to me so I have my doubts that they didn’t know what they were doing). If anything, Al Jazeera is actively doing a disservice to its own writer by misleadingly painting that writer as not that far removed from a Trump supporter. 
 

That’s really all I’m focused on here. You’ve seen me since like 2019 on this site say that I understand why people choose not to vote, even if I personally wouldn’t choose to sit out myself. But to me there’s a distinction between “I’m not voting because I can’t stomach Biden regardless of which other candidate is running” and “I’m not voting for Biden because I think Trump would be better on this issue”, or worse yet, “I’m going to vote for Trump over Biden because I’ve been convinced he’ll be better than Biden on this.” The first one is valid, the latter two are based on an objectively false premise, and it’s the latter two that Al Jazeera’s tweet is perpetuating. 

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, shelven said:

Yeah I think we are. I’m not criticizing the broader opinion of the author of the article. I’m criticizing the choice of Al Jazeera’s editorial staff or social media team to boil down the opinion in a very misleading and clickbait way by falsely suggesting that Biden is actively worse on this issue than Trump is. I don’t think that’s the same as saying “here’s why you shouldn’t vote at all” or “here’s why both candidates are ultimately garbage.” A headline like “Biden is now worse on this issue than Trump” is essentially an implied endorsement of Trump, even if Al Jazeera didn’t intend it that way (although the headline seems intentionally provocative to me so I have my doubts that they didn’t know what they were doing). If anything, Al Jazeera is actively doing a disservice to its own writer by misleadingly painting that writer as not that far removed from a Trump supporter. 
 

That’s really all I’m focused on here. You’ve seen me since like 2019 on this site say that I understand why people choose not to vote, even if I personally wouldn’t choose to sit out myself. But to me there’s a distinction between “I’m not voting because I can’t stomach Biden regardless of which other candidate is running” and “I’m not voting for Biden because I think Trump would be better on this issue”, or worse yet, “I’m going to vote for Trump over Biden because I’ve been convinced he’ll be better than Biden on this.” The first one is valid, the latter two are based on an objectively false premise, and it’s the latter two that Al Jazeera’s tweet is perpetuating. 

I think my issue with this framing - or less so an "issue" but what roots my confusion over your perception of it - is that the article and even the headline do not largely fit into this framework. 

 

I guess maybe if someone believes most people are propelled to want to vote and be civically active, there's an ambiguity that they fear is doing something like they fear, but I don't see that.

 

What you said in the bold is true, but also, this:

"Biden is so pro-war that Trump is actually the pro-peace candidate" (which would be a silly, false statement)

is different from something like:

"Biden has surpassed Trump in his cruelty" (which implies that the "lesser evil" defense no longer works)

 

I don't see how someone reads even the headline and walks away from it as an endorsement of Trump.

I literally can only imagine it as someone being uncomfortable that it's less of a personal affectation ("I PERSONALLY am hopeless so *I* will not vote for Biden, but am FINE with THOSE who DO) and more of a condemnation of electoral politics as a whole ("It is clear that voting for either Democrats or Republicans will not bring Palestinians freedom").

 

To where the alleged offense is that the author is more than willing to say: "No, voting, for us, IS pointless". 

 

And I just don't accept that such is an endorsement of Trump. I don't see that as a conjuring of harm.

 

I see that as a failure of Biden. What material difference does different accelerations of death between Biden & Trump offer Palestinians Americans? Of course people can make the argument of solidarity for other groups, but.. where is this solidarity to the Palestinians? How can people who no one will stand with be demanded to stand up for others?

 

Of course I know your values and we largely agree on most things. I just don't see how "there is no lesser evil" can be read as an endorsement for either of the evils. What do theoreticals of a 2024 Trump presidency offer to Palestinians simply observing that Biden's caused more Palestinian death thus far than Trump did and thus neither can be voted for?

[shelven]

2 minutes ago, Communion said:

I just don't see how "there is no lesser evil" can be read as an endorsement for either of the evils. What do theoreticals of a 2024 Trump presidency offer to Palestinians simply observing that Biden's caused more Palestinian death thus far than Trump did and thus neither can be voted for?

I think this is where we're each reading the headline differently. To me, the headline reads like Al Jazeera is picking a "lesser evil" and that lesser evil is Trump. They literally use a comparative verb in the tweet. "Surpassed" does not mean "same as" - it means "more than". Even if you changed the headline so that it read something like "Biden has now stooped to Trump's level", I probably wouldn't have bat an eye. I'd probably still disagree, but as you've said, it'd be an understandable position for someone closely affected by the violence against Palestinians to come to the conclusion that the candidates aren't meaningfully different. But regardless of what you think the headline and the article means in some larger philosophical way, from a literal perspective, the headline clearly states that Biden is worse than Trump on this. So I just cannot read that as "the point of the headline is that there's no lesser evil anymore" when Al Jazeera intentionally made a comparative statement.

 

You might say I'm being picky and focusing too much on Al Jazeera's verb choice, but I think words matter, particularly in a geopolitical conflict where a lot of misinformation and clickbait runs rampant on all sides, and particularly where the words are coming from a large news organization and not some guy on Twitter with 473 followers who chose an awkward set of words because they're emotional about what's going on.

[ryoncé]

4 hours ago, Communion said:

We seem to be talking about two different things.

 

You seem to be reacting to the referenced tweet as a persuasive attempt to voting for Trump, but I'm reacting to it as an opinion piece reflected of a singular person's feelings over not voting. I'm not interested in doing any analysis over the empirical data of who has caused more harm, Trump or Biden, because I understand that's not how voters work.

 

"I will not vote" is not a harmful statement. "I hate Biden so much I don't care if Trump wins" is not a harmful statement. It cannot be. It is not material - voting is a legal construct that largely has no impact, on the individual level. What if the op-ed writer is from a D+45 state? What harm is their staying home incurring?

 

You seem to take the article as a persuasive argument to convince people to vote for Trump, when it clearly lays out a Palestinian person's feelings that the US under no leader will ever care about Palestinians and traces the bipartisan support for the eradication of the Palestinian people. 

 

Do you agree the intent of the Israeli state is the destruction of Palestinians? Do you accept that as material reality? If so, I don't see and can't imagine why you're flabbergasted at such an opinion over why a Palestinian will rebuke the suggestion of electoral politics as relevant to their liberation. "This is hyperbolic" - no, voting is transactional. Why would people vote for someone who wants them dead? I don't expect genocidal Zionists to vote for people who support Palestine, and I don't expect Palestinian victims to the Zionist genocide to vote for people who support Israel. 

imagine even alluding to the fact that Biden is anywhere at horrible as Trump....

 

beyond ludicrous  

[45seconds]

On 10/22/2023 at 3:17 PM, byzantium said:

Quite honestly, I had actually been pleasantly surprised by the Biden administration and the work they have accomplished.  I was actually planning on voting for Biden despite not voting for him in 2020.  But supporting genocide is just a line I cannot cross.  

Welp. President Trump here we come.

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, ryoncé said:

imagine even alluding to the fact that Biden is anywhere at horrible as Trump....

 

beyond ludicrous  

Biden's not blowing up my family so I veer on the side of caution of not scolding or lecturing those whose family is he helping to murder. 

[AvadaKedavra]

Not people here supportin a trump presidency again  and rooting for biden downfall. Are you for real guys??
 The extreme leftists and right wingers have so many things in common.
The Horseshoe theory is true 

Edited October 31, 2023 by AvadaKedavra

[bad guy]

Oh. People still think Biden is any different than Trump? Lol.

[GraceRandolph]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:11 AM, bad guy said:

Oh. People still think Biden is any different than Trump? Lol.

The only difference is that he won't appoint a crazy anti-abortion SCOTUS judge.