How do you get that? By moving the Overton window. And how do you get that? By VOTING. But it seems you want to yell at a cloud instead. Something tells me you'll just keep at this 'whoo is me', so I'm out.
Wrong. The party that can "move left" went to court to assert their right to do what they want regardless of voters, and have an equal hand in moving the goalposts anytime a third party comes close to the requirements for inclusion. Hell, just look at their messaging - they don't even talk about Republicans or their policies, they just namedrop trump then blame leftists for all their woes.
"MoVe ThE oVeRtOn WiNdOw (even though they openly and pointedly snipped completely off anything left of mid right genocide Joe)"
The answer is guillotines and anyone who says otherwise are well off liberals who would rather have Trump than redistribute wealth and resources.
Meanwhile, the Overton window has been shifting right radically. Seems like this lesser of two evils nonsense is actually doing the opposite of what you claim.
Moved because Trump won an election. But you want to suggest that's just random? C'mon.
*Btw it's moving the Overton window, not lesser of two evils as you want to put it. You want policy number 426? You have to vote for policy 1 first. You have to walk before you can run.
What are you talking about? We have been moving rightward ever since the Clinton administration, baring a handful of social issues. Are you genuinely telling me that we are more left leaning now than we were under the new deal politics before Reagan?
All we've progressed in is gay and civil rights, which is good. Economically and by most other metrics, we've slid Faaaaar to the right.
It's not a good look for your position on slow incremental change that the entire apparatus can collapse in one election.
You said radical, that was Trump. You think Clinton change was radical? No that was Trump. Can't forget Bush either! You know the one that lied his way into war. But you want to suggest everything was all Clintons fault or something? C'mon be better than this weird game you're playing. Like really, do you think it would be more right or more left without Bush and Trump? That's the Overton window.
BTW Clinton had to be moderate because he was going against an incumbent.
Yeah I could go over different issues, but you're already trying to poopoo them away. So I'll broadly address economics with we have regulated capitalism. One party wants to remove regulation (Gop because I think you're trying to be obtuse) and be entirely free for all, no EPA or anything. And one wants proper regulation (again, Dems because think you're trying to be obtuse).
The Overton window is not something that can be changed electorally. Candidates can only get on the ballot in the first place if they’re within the Overton window, as anybody outside the window is “radical” or “extreme”, and the existing political powers forbid their candidacy. The electoral window is moved outside the electoral process, and only then can the electoral system permit new candidates with new ideas.
Lol yes it can. Why are we having idiotic discussion to disband the EPA? Because Trump won an election. That moved the Overton window, drastically at that. Why can't Biden do ______? Because the Republicans still have a very real chance of winning. When the GOP has no chance of winning, then the Overton window can move more.
Self-righteous bullshit. I want to solve problems someday and that's precisely why I vote for Democrats. Letting Trumpists take over now will make any progress vastly harder for the foreseeable future.
Ah, so since one of your two options doesn't give you everything you want, you've decided that you're okay with the one that wants to take away everything you have. Cool story, good luck with that.
It has to be supporting policies that reduce the disparity in wealth, not exacerbate it.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
Also, try letting people use their own words. You were wrong about your assumptions and hyperbole, but i think instead of admitting you're wrong you're just going to assume more.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
...effectively no-one, as far as country-wide population statistics are concerned? What percentage of the vote went third-party in the last three elections? Gary Johnson (8 years ago) got a whole 3%, and that was massive compared to anyone in the past 30 years... basically unprecedented. Those numbers barely broke 1% last time.
I'm sorry, but no, it doesn't. Most people are just living in a reality where voting third-party gets the worst option elected, because that's historically its only effect.
Look, I'm not gonna fight you, it's clear that your mind is made up. Just think about the probability of your choices, and think about how much you appreciate the ability to even vote... because that's the actual argument, here. Trump has laid out his plans, and you're welcome to ignore them, but most people don't have that luxury, they need to vote in ways that don't have a chance to lead to their culling.
You're making false assumptions about what people's voting habits say about what they want, drawing absurd conclusions as a result, and then doubling down on your false assumptions even when real people tell you what they want why they vote the way they do. Here's a clue for you: other people know their own beliefs and motivations a hell of a lot better than you do. It's supremely arrogant for you to think otherwise.
Literally yes, in the voting system that the US has. This isn't some ideological hill I'm dying on, this is basic statistics and understanding of elections.
My issue is that while we squabble over social issues, the ruling class fucks us with fiscal ones.
Greed and the growing disparity in wealth is the worst issue we face as a species.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder. Each option results in a loss because we don't want actually want to address the disparity in wealth.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder.
...and you think we need to lose harder?
Or do you actually believe that the system that has had the same outcome literally every single election has a chance to produce a different result? How many third-party candidates have received more than 1.5% of the vote? I'll help: exactly FOUR in the past HUNDRED YEARS.
Or do you actually just want Trump to win and are using your enlightened centrist persona to disguise that fact?
I think a slow loss is still a loss and we shouldn't cheer when people like Biden get elected over people like Bernie.
If you notice, the disparity in wealth is still growing at an increasing-rate. That's why "the economy is doing good." Not for me or you. But for the rich people who control who we can vote for.
The minuscule amount of support for third parties exemplifies the number of people who actually want to reduce the disparity in wealth.
It really puts into perspective who is a useful idiot, and who is not.
Because capitalism profits from genocide. The question then is, are you ok with diet Palestinian genocide or would you prefer the supersized Palestinian genocide combo with a side of homegrown genocide?
Because a First-Past-The-Post voting system doesn't care about your ideals. Until we have a different system, literally your only hope of effecting change is to vote for one of the two partied candidates and work locally to influence your party from the bottom-up.
Voting third party doesn't send a message you want it to send. It doesn't send any message at all except "I approve of whatever you choose for me."
You misspelled Netanyahu. Also you will have egg on your face from head to toe when you find out what Biden is really doing to stop the killing in the Mideast.
I could sus it like you think Biden moved it right (lol), but that requires you ignore Trump would have actually moved it rght, which is exactly the Overton window is moving it as left as you can every step, but why the fuck am I bothering even with this you'll just say but but but but but but Biden bad! I'm out.
Is it fair to say that the overton window is only moving right when we are still making progress moving it left?
The overton window isn't a zero-sum measure. It can expand simultaneously in both directions. Given that we have nazis in the street now, I'd say it's not correct to say that it's moving only left either.
That has little to do with whatever political machinations are occurring and more to do with housing and necessities inflation driving labor pressure as a lagging inflation indicator.
Think of it as a tectonic/landscape thing rather than the stupid games people happen to be playing on the landscape.
Of course if any of them had their heads out of their own asses, or the asses of their owners, they might recognize this and start adapting...
I just want one of the "You can't vote for Biden!" people to outline what I should do instead. What's the play here? Dismantle the government? Sure, outline your plan and let's see if it has any merit. Protest? Great, tell me when and where but it doesn't preclude the need to vote.
They talk big, but if their entire plan begins with "don't vote" and ends with "bitch about it online" then it's not a great plan.
I fucking hate, and from the bottom of my heart, how Biden is funding the genocide in Palestine, but I'm still going to vote for him this time, because we just can't have a person like Trump in the white house, period. I still can't figure out how he got in the first time. I'd never let my 10 year old lead a country, yet we let Trump do it for four fucking years.
I, too, am sick of this "the lesser of two evils" bullshit, but this time I'm giving it a pass because of Trump. We already have a crumbling country and can't afford another four years of this dude.
I think Joe Biden is maybe the best president of my lifetime, and I'm going to vote for him with my head held high even though I live in a red state where it doesn't matter at all. I wish things were simpler in the Levant, but I appreciate that Joe Biden is between a rock and a hard place with Israel. It's not like he can just take Bibi out. He's not Boeing. That said, even if I laid the entire genocide at Biden's feet (which, while he's not blameless, is absolutely not appropriate), he would still be head and shoulders an improvement over Donald Trump.
For that matter, I'd absolutely let my 12 year old run this country before I'd let Trump have a second term. My kid is brilliant, and more importantly, unlike Trump he listens to advice, can take no for an answer, and gives a shit about having a functional democracy four years from now.
A second Trump term is an existential threat to the nation. Hold your nose, hold your neighbor's nose if you have to, but every able-bodied patriot owes it to their descendants and their patriotic ancestors to prevent a second Trump term.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
He has all but said he would cut Israel loose to do whatever they needed to finish the job.
The use of Israeli aggression is not a point of comparison when viewing the differences between trump and Biden.
Edit: and I apologize for the late edit - FWIW Biden has become critical of Israeli actions and offered some aid to Palestinians (Yeah, I absolutely agree it isn’t enough) while trump would prefer to wash his hands of the whole Palestine thing. That is a notable difference.
It isn’t the potential for denial that initiated my reply, it’s the fact that people declare US support of Israel is a strike against Biden when comparing Biden to trump as a reason to consider not voting for Biden. This is a false comparison and it is the point I am making.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
And hence why I won't vote for Trump either. It's not that hard to understand.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
Because Democrats are suppose to be better than that. But, apparently, they actually aren't.
This is about the Democratic party. This whole "vote for the least fascist candidate" has reached a breaking point. It'stotally beyond the pale and isn't just about whats best for the next election cycle. People simply cannot actively support a genocidal party because it runs fundementally against their core values.
We're not talking about compromising on tax policy or economics here. We're talking about fully mask off genocide support. It's deeply unconscionable to anyone who has a moral compass.
No, you're not listening. Stop fear-babbling about fucking Trump for one fucking second and consider that voting for Biden is voting for genocide. It's putting your own name to it.
While that clearly means nothing to you and you'rejust fixated on your own self-interest, consider how non-sociopaths might view this choice.
Ok. GFY for making the “if you vote for Biden you vote for genocide” argument while completely ignoring trump would do the same. You’re just a damn shill for the right wing. Useless MF.
I would honestly get yourself checked out by a psychologist. Normal people are not this incapable of understanding why someone might have trouble voting for a genocidal fascist.
Like, yes, you disagree, but I'm talking about how easily you're able to support genocide without blinking an eye and then getting angry at other people who won't actively support genocide.
The level of selfish disregard for even attempting to understand is really disturbing. Like, you understand that there are people right now that have relatives in Gaza being killed with the bombs that Biden gave Israel, right? You understand that Biden spit in those people's faces when they asked him to not support genocide? Intellectually you can at least wrap your head around that, right?
lol, keep making stuff up about me, tankie. Keep throwing innuendos at me couched as reason so everyone can read your anti-Biden propaganda instead of what’s actually being discussed. Repeat it every single reply like a good little fascist.
E: quick trip through your post history says this is all you do, trash talk democrats and Biden, repeat genocide over and over while never a single mention of trump policy. Well, a quick stop in a porn community to jerk off for a break, right? How’s the propaganda job pay? Any good? Or do you just do it voluntarily out of pure hatred?
If voting for Biden is voting for genocide, then not voting or voting third party is voting for Trump, genocide and the destruction of democracy in the US.
The destruction of democracy in the United States has much deeper roots, and has been in-process for a long time. How long the effects have been visible is arguable, and the manifestation unpredictable, but fundamentally, a voting system which doesn't allow people to express their actual preferences, well, isn't representative of people's actual preferences.
I can't think of any more-profound way to state that truth at this early hour. A "democracy" which doesn't reflect the will of the people is a democracy in name only, and we can only keep the "lesser-evil" streak going for so long before we're so far into evil that we "have to" vote for a candidate materially supporting genocide so we don't get the candidate who supports genocide without having non-actionable "concerns" about it.
"I still can't figure out how he got in the first time"
Easy. He was propped up by democrats, namely Hillary Clinton.
If we reach a point 40 years from now when your choice is between a dem supporting 5 genocides and a republican supporting 10 genocides, are you still going to be militantly democrat and lash out at leftists who are sick of the whole thing?
Nope. I've stated this in multiple posts on other platforms, this is my last time going with this "lesser of two evils" bullshit. Because at some point, we HAVE to believe that it is intentional. I mean, what happened to "fool me once........"?
In this hypothetical we wouldn't have the option to vote 40 years from now because dim bulbs allowed an insurrectionist to be elected. Donald will also accelerate climate fuckery so anyway we'll be too busy squabbling over what meager food comes out of the remaining arable regions.
By not answering the question and participating in the process of this hypothetical choice the outcome is Israel is supported and Joe Biden loses the 2024 election.
So if a Trump presidency means the end of democracy in America, why hasn't Trump been outlawed?
Why is Biden focusing on banning TikTok instead of truth social? Why weren't the courts getting stacked 2 years ago? Why are the democrats' obsession with "precedent" and "civility" taking more primacy than outlawing a candidate who, by their own admission, would mean the end of democracy?
By propping up Trump, the democrats have effortlessly oriented you such that you now give blind support to a genocidal regime. You've given the democrats a blank check. The democrats would rather lose to Trump and usher in fascism than shift left in the slightest way (halting genocide).
Also, epic reddit catchphrase my good sir. I tip my hat you, for you are a gentleman and a scholar.
Ten year old?! Thats a high bar for most republicans these days. They want knee jerk and whining. Thats something most 10 year olds are already figuring out doesnt get them what they want.
Biden is not funding Israel. The United States government is. Even if he wanted to stop the aid (he doesn't), he doesn't have the power to just ignore laws passed by Congress. Trump did that with Ukraine and got impeached for it.
I mean, he fundamentally does have the power to veto laws. There are potentially negative political consequences in doing so, but he certainly has that power.
Certain important people need to keep selling spyware, drugs, guns and war to keep themselves and their associates employed. As for whether the funds or the actual work (conflict) available is sustainable is for everyone including the accountants to consider.
The other problem is that war doesn't really die, we just displace where we choose to fight, and how, if we imagine physical and cyber world peace for a moment, for the USA or China to reduce its military capacity by one third, or one tenth, we would see absolute chaos, thousands unemployed, the losses in maintenance and equipment, military supplies, medical, etc, nobody would win.
Any complex society where financial and other systems operate needs a minimum degree of social enforcement to maintain. Whether that can change like a function or is something that depends on a country's GDP is another issue.
Just consider that humanity would either need lots of free time, energy and money or it would literally need to feel incredibly threatened by something on earth, which we all could not fight to control in order to actually fund going to space or even the moon, and I doubt a triple whammy of pandemic, food shortage or severe draught and floods could do it, it happened in the Bible and people literally just found more dumb reasons to do more dumb things, and no lowering mens testosterone or telling guys to shave more often wouldn't do shit either. If people don't find reasons to explore or learn, they find reasons to fight/play fight, it's pretty normal, and if anyone remembers their childhood, usually it's pretty much the same across generations.
The fact you phrase it as though that's an actual question is terrifying. You're comparing someone who wants to LITERALLY be a dictator and never have an election again, to someone who isn't willing to fully embrace every last left-wing policy you demand.
The "ruling class" didn't dictate Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination, people voting in primaries did. Do you know which group of people overwhelmingly don't vote in primaries? The same 20-somethings bitching about Biden being the "only other option". Get the fuck out of here with your "demonstrating to the ruling class" - you had your opportunity to show up and overwhelm the primaries and chose not to. The "ruling class" don't have the numbers to determine a primary, and if you choose to watch their commercials and buy into it, that's on you.
But hey, if a bunch of people think like you'll they'll find out what actually living in a dictatorship is like. And no, Canada isn't just going to welcome you with open arms when the world starts burning down around you so I hope you've got an exit strategy.
Recently came across project 2025, which is a plan to upend the government for trump to run it like a dictatorship. It's actually frightening to even entertain the possibility. And I'm guessing it's derived from how putin got to his dictatorship position, because trump really likes putin and met with him too often.
Personally, i'm worried that the biden administration is underestimating the electoral importance of his decision to continue supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians.
Personally, i’m worried that the biden administration is underestimating the electoral importance of his decision to continue supporting Israel’s genocide against Palestinians.
he's aware of the optics of his positions and voting history; that's why he reversed course on gay marriage; gays in the military and federal service long after it was popular and gave the barest of minimums for weed and student loans that didn't have much of an impact on the status quo.
palestine is the one thing he won't budge on; but he'll (somewhat) do all of the other things that'll get him votes like he's always done and give the people not paying enough attention warm fuzzy feels for supporting him.
i think the worst take away from this election cycle is learning that most american's don't give a rat's ass about genocide; so long as their guy wins and get to express regret over it. (i also wonder if that's how every other genocide is/was allowed to happen).
Yup. (I was just mirroring Bernie's verbiage and flipping the active subject)
Biden is the quintessential capital-L Liberal: he is performatively responsive to progressive issues, but only insofar as it does not alter the fundamental power structures of the western capitalistic and chauvinistic principles.
If you are worried about the Palestinians, do you expect Trump to be more lenient in that regard? I think it would be even worse with Trump. He'd not be mildly criticizing Netanyahu, but would rather asking Netanyahu why he isn't going further
But as someone who doesn't have to live in the hellhole called the US, sees that they are represented by their own politicians accurately. The US let it come this far because the US decided to perpetuate a system that just makes everything worse due to lesser evil politics. So by USean logic, voting Biden prevents worse things from happening to Palestinians compared to Trump. But I personally would vote for someone who accurately represents my stances instead of buying into the lesser evilism in a messed up system.
as a black person i'm worried that donald trump's batting average isn't showing the potential it should be this season. he should spend more time in the cages.
there is an understandable wave of nihilism manifesting in the younger generations that will probably persist for as long as they live. i don't imagine the united states will stop producing nihilists for a long time as the circumstances are not projected to change
If they fuck around they're going to find out real fast. Look how long it's taken to get weed semi legal. Like we've already lived in a kinda super wealthy oligarchy. I don't think we need to fight, unless the fascists win. They don't make up nearly the majority though so we could see what happened in Brazil here, horrible but they did get a more socially minded president. But Trump never conceded and still doesn't. He's caused basically a weird cult.
I get it that Biden has some possibly underreported accomplishments, but like Trump tried to overthrow the government and is still walking around like nothing happened.
Eh, I got a day job and a full life. I can barely fit in the doom scrolling I already do today.
I appreciate the sentiment, but it's been my experience in >40 years of living that the amount of influence I'll be able to have over the onslaught of doom is miniscule.
I kinda lost all hope for the future of this country when Trump was elected the first time. After how disastrous his first term was, if this country full of morons actually puts the clown back in that same position I'll completely and fully give up on it.
It's the idiots' country, I just have to live in it.
I think the current climate of digging up anything someone has ever done or said that is against the current accepted morality and punishing them for it severely makes a lot of people not want to stick out their neck. This probably isn’t an accident.
I've come to the conclusion from this thread and others that liberals either don't believe or can't comprehend that leftists consider Palestinians to be actual human beings whose lives are inherently valuable. The way they see it, we're whiny children throwing a fit because we were refused a puppy. I keep seeing people talk about opposition to genocide as "an individual want" or "being upset that you got bread instead of a cake," and so on, characterizing us as selfishly prioritizing our individual preferences, because in their minds it's just about us feeling bad when we see dying Palestinians, and not about the Palestinians themselves.
Opposition to genocide is a hard red line and a fundamental moral principle. It's not a want, it's not a preference, it is a demand which is absolutely non-negotiable.
I'm never going to be convinced to vote for Biden, but if you actually care about convincing leftists, then you're shooting yourself in the foot by trivializing the issue. Of course, the most effective way to convince an opponent of genocide to support a politician would be to get the politician to stop supporting genocide, but if you choose to focus you efforts on getting leftists to stop opposing genocide instead, I can't stop you.
How about we flip this around and talk about trivializing the issue of having a Trump-led slide into fascism and any attempt at leftist organising getting you thrown into a camp... while Palestinians are still getting bombed because Israel certainly doesn't need the US's help to produce arms. Mabye that's an evil enough evil to convince you that the lesser evil is, indeed, the lesser one.
Nobody is trivializing Trump. The fact is that the Democrats are getting worse and worse, and will commit more and more atrocities and crimes if nobody holds them accountable. Ask yourself why they'd rather have Trump become a president instead of stopping to aid in a fucking genocide? Also the Dems were happy to continue most of Trumps policies, like internment camps at the borders and building that infamous wall. By supporting the Dems no matter what all you get is the Dems in 4 years to be where the Reps are now.
they’d rather have Trump become a president instead of stopping to aid in a fucking genocide?
Trump is no less likely to support Israel, on top of that he's a gazillion times more likely to support genocides within the US itself.
By supporting the Dems no matter what all you get is the Dems in 4 years to be where the Reps are now.
That's what you get by not organising civil society to move past the current bipartisan BS. Make the right policies popular and politicians will rise to support those policies because guess what, politicians want to get elected. Therefore, yes, it's true that the solution is not electoralism, also, yes, it's also true that you shouldn't shoot yourself in both foot and knee by allowing democracy to be abolished and organisation, changing the mind of the people, to be made illegal.
Also the Dems were happy to continue most of Trumps policies
I'm sorry did Biden order the army to break up strikes with artillery or something. Must've missed that.
Also the Dems were happy to continue most of Trumps policies,
I'm still waiting for the people held without a trail in Guantanamo to be released. There have been 11 years of Democratic Presidential leadership since then...
A protest vote won't save Gaza. It will allow the war in russia to expand and get more innocents killed though. I do wish people wouldn't trivialize the second Ukrainian genocide they're risking.
In two years of the Russian invasion the UN gives a confirmed minimum of 10.700 killed Civilians and 20.000 wounded by the End of February 2024. Ukraine reports another 11.000 missing and 28.000 captive by Nov/Dec 2023.
So even extrapolating that till may, for a two year period we are nowhere near close to the killing of Civilians by Israel in Gaza within just 7 months. Russias invasion of Ukraine is illegal, it is appalling and it is a grave injustice with Millions of people suffering. But in terms of murder of Civilians it is hardly comparable. Especially when considering that Ukraine has a population of about 34 Million whereas Gaza has a population of about 2 Million.
So even extrapolating that till may, for a two year period we are nowhere near close to the killing of Civilians by Israel in Gaza within just 7 months. Russias invasion of Ukraine is illegal, it is appalling and it is a grave injustice with Millions of people suffering. But in terms of murder of Civilians it is hardly comparable.
You know why? Play a game like Armored Brigade which imagines a cold war gone hot scenario in eastern Europe (Fulda Gap or feinting going for the Fulda Gap) where nuclear war somehow doesn't erupt and end civilization (which it would in all likelihood making the entire wargame of Armored Brigade a weird fucked up memorial to the last people on earth) and full on armored warfare has begun with entire armored divisions committed to catastrophically quick and deadly warfare.
Everything happens fast, mistakes come in the form of universe ending mass rocket artillery strikes or precision Close Air Support or a "tactical support missile" ATACMS missile that hunts down a critical piece of air defense equipment that thought it was hiding tens of miles from the reach of artillery near the front. Two Main Battle Tanks can obliterate an entire field of 60 armored personnel carriers loaded with heavily armored troops in a matter of minutes from a kilometer away from a fold in a hilltop.
This kind of war is brutal and awful, with weapons having become so powerful and decisive in order to penetrate thick armor or catch impossibly fast jets, that human bodies almost instantly become thrown to pieces when they get anywhere nearby them even if they aren't the target. A lot of Hollywood explosion fx in movies is really stupid and unrealistic but have you ever seen footage of a tank turret getting launched hundreds of feet straight up into the air by the incredible build up of pressure from a High Explosive Anti Tank shell or missile turning the inside of a tank into such a pressure cooker that it shears straight off from the rest of the hull like a wine cork?
Still, this kind of war is about the movement of strategically valuable resources and military equipment, the goal isn't to put a bullet in every single one of your enemies troops. The goal is to punch through their lines where they aren't expecting it using armored divisions and then develop the breach in the lines into a deep thrust into enemy territory. Armored units race to exploit the temporary confusion in the enemies intelligence and move at high speed to critical junctures in transportation infrastructure (cities with rail line convergences, important bridges) far behind where the enemy thinks the front line is, and if the geometry of the offensive is right and is in sync with quickly adapting supply lines than massive numbers of enemy troops can be decisively removed from relevance from the broader war without excessive sacrifices of friendly troops to accomplish the attrition (and thus not require killing all of the enemy troops to destroy their army).
This is the polar opposite of the brutal pointlessness of WW1, not in terms of ethics but in terms of literal military strategy towards achieving political aims (winning a war and removing your enemies military from the political picture as a force).
You see when this happens and a large amount of a military is encircled, fighting doesn't automatically stop, but it really isn't in the best interests for either the vulnerable encircled army to shed needless lives in aimless attacks at the enemies flanking force or for the vulnerable sections of the encircling army to risk starting a fight on two sides (the encircled enemies side and the enemy side). Both sides have every incentive to fight as hard as they possibly can in that moment, but the risk and consequences of choosing the wrong time and place to do so limits the willingness of higherups in military to just grind whole sections of their troops into meat. Thus a complex interaction of maneuver warfare plays out that isn't not willing to carelessly toss away human lives but at least it isn't actively invested either way in how many humans do or don't die to accomplish a strategic goal (so long as it doesn't undermine the strategic goal...).
See the point of this entire post is that Israel basically started from this position with the Palestinians except Palestine is a city not an army and so people just live there and mostly don't want to hurt anybody just go about their lives. When Israel successfully "encircled" these violent Palestinians for trying to be a city when the land was rightfully owned by rightwing jewish colonial settlers (another lame rip off of MAGA heads echoed somewhere else in the world) instead of negotiating peace terms and ending a period of symmetrical war with two armies that both had air support, tanks, armored divisions and complex logistics support networks capable of supplying a MOVING army with consistent weapons and supplies Israel decided to just start randomly killing innocent Palestinians one by one, for various different bullshit reasons.
This is not a war. Palestinians dying en masse (what, 80,000 dead by now probably? who knows? Israel killed all the journalists or threatened them enough for them to stop checking the numbers) is not a means to an end for the IDF in winning this Not War.
Killing Palestinians en mass IS THE POINT. THE GENOCIDE IS THE POINT
This is just Murderers killing helpless people who already control their victims access to food, electricity, internet, housing, their loved ones who only live nearby past a purposefully byzantine checkpoint.....
Also FUCK Russia and its brutal war on Ukraine too, please if anyone comes into this reply and starts claiming "but Russia is still bad" like yes of course Russia is committing an awful act. I don't know who the hell not living in Russia thinks the invasion of Ukraine is ok that doesn't directly profit from it but they are an idiot if they do.
What exactly is the game plan for Ukraine anyway? It seems to be headed for a stalemate along their current borders. If that happens, how long will the US need to keep funding them? 10 years? 20?
The war in Ukraine is tragic but it doesn't fit the classification a genocide, and regardless, I'm not going to vote for one genocide to stop another. As I said, genocide is a hard red line that I will never support, even if you put a gun to my head.
Young people? How about Democrat party leadership? If you need certain people to vote for you, then you have to earn their votes! How is this so hard to understand?
Because the side that benefits from voter apathy is relying on that exact ‘wall of noise’ media coverage to disenfranchise enough voters to get their preferred candidate in.
The amount of damage that Trump was able to inflict upon the United States in his term (3 Supreme Court picks, countless lower court picks); he will deliver a killing blow if given the opportunity.
As hyperbolic as it sounds, this could very well be the least legitimate Presidential election should he succeed.
“Both Sides Bad” is a 4Chan-level talking point concocted by the right, to obfuscate all the good that has been implemented over the past four years - even without all the roadblocks the GOP keeps putting in the way.
Is the system so weak that one president can break it? If so then it is already broken. If Trump is able to leverage presidential power to such effect, then why isn't Biden able to do the same? I think the word apathy obscures how a lot of non-voters feel. Give people some credit for their political motivations, even if they may present as lack of motivation.
Democracy is fragile, and requires buy-in from a majority of politicians to maintain.
The GOP have been evil for longer than you’ve been alive; and their grand scheme has always been “to shrink the Government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. They are not in a position to do it.
The Trump presidency brought to light a flaw in the existing systems, that a lot of processes and regulations weren’t sufficiently bound by law, but rather protocol.
In that, one bad actor with support from their political party could ignore norms and standards set previously to withhold judicial appointments in an election year to deprive Obama of a seat, and then completely ignore that precedent when it happened again to Trump, giving him a 3rd appointment after one term.
Could/should Biden try something similar? Perhaps, and in some ways he is (student debt forgiveness) - but he now faces an uphill struggle against an openly hostile Supreme Court which has already proved to have no care for precedent either (e.g. overturning Rowe v. Wade).
Just remember, it takes a lot less time to destroy something, than it was to build it in the first place.
I just don't think the Democrats are up to the task of saving democracy (if that's what we even have). I think it's an indictment of them as a party that they struggle to achieve decisive wins against the totally kookoo Republicans.
how about refusing to acknowledge that repubs would do the same or worse with this situation? no sane person thinks the situation is great. but brain dead is making a voting issue out of this when it isn't one.
I'm trying to convince essentially one guy to stop supporting genocide. People like you have the unenviable task of convincing millions of people to vote for a guy who currently supports genocide. The election isn't happening tomorrow, why don't you put your efforts into convincing your party leaders to adopt saner positions rather than bullying people who are genuinely and rightly outraged at what our country is and isn't doing in regards to it's support of Israel?
once again, you're making this into a voting issue when it isn't one because neither party is interested in taking your preferred stance. naturally, withholding a vote because of this makes no sense especially when the stakes on other important issues are so high.
I understand how strongly you feel about this issue. I agree with your feelings about it. I would love to see the Israeli govt get pulverised for what they are doing. and it is objectively atrocious in every way that they are supported.
I can also use my brain to logically determine that refusing to vote dem is likely to put power into the hands of those who will do worse both on this specific issue and many others. voting for Biden might not make it better, but doing anything else will definitely make it worse. and that's the brain dead choice.
The brain dead choice is allowing yourself to be literally without political agency. I have a list of things I care about, and there isn't really anything higher than "not doing genocide". I'm never going to change my mind about that, and I'm never going to listen to anyone who says "of course genocide is bad, but...". Are you making your opposition to genocide known to your party leaders? Are you supporting efforts to get them to notice the significance of electorate opposition to genocide? Your efforts are better spent doing that kind of thing over the coming months, than arguing with me.
which is the definition of ideological to a fault.
you're falsely equating voting dem for justifying genocide. they are not the same. one can be actively working against it and still vote blue, recognizing that any other action likely promotes genocide and more terrible things.
Ideological to a fault is losing an election because you just can't stop supporting a genocidal state. If our only choices for leadership both support genocide, then we've already lost anything we might have needed to save. It's not ideological, it is a low fucking bar.
let's be absolutely clear here. the only argument you have is to say that Republicans will do less genocide. that's it. because in any other case your extreme ideology only causes more.
Let's be clear here: you refuse to do anything to pressure an administration that is doing genocide right now. Your extreme ideology is causing genocide right now. Don't blame me if Republicans win in the fall, blame yourself and your party who can't even manage to stop causing genocide long enough to win an election.
as a non American i have no party in your shit hole country.
are you incapable of thinking pragmatically? because it's pretty clear you are letting your ideals cloud your judgement, unless you actually believe Republicans will help your cause. your pathetic political system has long been about choosing the lesser of 2 evils and frankly the fact that you refuse to accept this tells me everything I need to know. enjoy living in a fascist hellscape, with all those leopards eating your face.
Hard to believe you're not American the way you sound just like our whiney liberals. Particularly the way you insist on reducing my outrage and opposition to an ongoing genocide as mere ideology or unpragmatic. If you genuinely care who wins our next elections, I hope you are having similarly spirited conversations with my "blue no matter who" countrymen about what a losing strategy their party is employing.
Well, there is a very simple solution to this. The Democrats could actually be a progressive party that recognizes and protects human rights, international law, and basic humanity of its American people.
But they don't. They continue to aid a genocide. They continue to obstruct justice on an international level. They continue the racist policies of Trumps like interment camps at the southern borders and building "the wall". They continue to protect the interest of rich elites against the American people like denying universal healthcare and basic social security for all.
The Democrats would rather have Trump win, than have the US not be a violent rogue nation internationally and a far-right economics hellhole internally.
Now they decided to crack down on free speech together with the Republicans, instead of taking the young peoples protests seriously. They are fine with Trump. For them Trump is better than universal healthcare or upholding international laws, like not committing mass murder.
In addition, Democrats do everything possible to make sure nobody left of center wins the Democratic nomination: when there was a real challenge to the corporate Democrats (Bernie in 2016 and 2020), they did everything they could to rig the primary process in order to keep out any leftward movement. Similarly for 2024, instead of holding debates to convince Democrats that Joe Biden was still up to the task, they held no debates and even canceled the primaries in several states. In 2020, polling showed that Bernie would have a much more comfortable path to victory than Biden, but Democrats were more comfortable with Trump than Bernie.
Because of the electoral college, my vote doesn't mean much of anything in a presidential election because I live in a very blue state, not a swing state. I still vote, though.
