politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
"Biden realizes his polling numbers are falling and decides to do damage control".
Israel is not going to be a winning issue in terms of poll numbers.
Every issue is a winning (or losing) issue in presidential elections. There's far too many factors to assume any one thing can't sway the tide.
Hillary made that mistake in 2016.
No, my point is that Biden will lose more voters than he gains on Israel if he changes course. Most of the US is still overwhelmingly pro-Israel despite the genocide on display.
I absolutely think he should drop Israel like a hot potato, but not for domestic strategic reasons. It'll damage his poll numbers, not help them.
I don't think so? Republicans won't vote for him either way, and among Democrats support for Palestine has already overtaken support for Israel AFAIK. Biden's current stance is losing him young voters like crazy.
Compare support for continued Israeli aid, not support for Palestine. Lots of people claim support for Palestine, yet support continued aid to Israel. If you have something to the contrary, unironically, I'd love to see it. It'd be a rare bright light in these dark times.
As a young voter, we generally don't turn out in the requisite numbers.
Oh I see.
It's not exactly what you're looking for, but there.
In late November.
In late December.
Yes, which is why Trump won in 2016. And change in that trend is how Biden won in 2020. Which is why if Biden can't secure those votes he'll lose in 2024. It could be a lose-lose situation, but from that perspective it seems like Biden is digging his own grave.
Like, don't get me wrong, I would love if public sentiment turns against the war in Israel, but right now, it's just... not.
I rather think this issue is a lose-lose situation in terms of losing voters. Which is one of the reasons I think it's even more important that Biden take steps away from support of Israel - if you're gonna lose voters either way, might as well make the decision that is both moral and strategically better for America.
And yet, we're blamed for HRC losing. So which is it?
I mean, for HRC's loss the margin was razor-thin, but realistically it was due to her ignoring several states in favor of running up the margins in Cali to make her eventual win look more 'legitimate'.
Huzzah electoral college. /s
That has nothing to do with what I asked.
I... don't really know what answer you're looking for. As I said, I'm not blaming young people for HRC's loss, but her own strategic choices.
I believe the electoral college is blamed for HRC losing. Sure, it wasn't the only factor, but it's a pretty big deal that you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.
Plenty of people blame progressives, leftists and young people as well. Then they turn around and act like they don't need us when they pick procorporate trash candidates in the primaries.
Can't have it both ways.
Okay yeah but if we sit these Democrats down and explain to them the threat of an Israel Iran war, they will see how assinine of an idea pulling support for Israel would be.
And if Trump gets elected because those youngsters don't vote... I guess they'll learn the hard way that elections have consequences. How insignificant the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will seem if Trump becomes the first dictator in US history.
Make better choices in the primary Boomer. Stop electing procorporate trash candidates.
It would have been a game-changing political realignment if Bernie had won the primary instead of Hilary. He could have beat Trump in 2016, soaking up a lot of the populist and working class vote in the Rust Belt, and the trajectory of US politics would have been very different.
Alas, that didn't happen and a lot of left-leaning people stayed home rather than vote for Hilary. This is a longstanding problem in the Democratic party. Right-wingers always go out and vote Republican, no matter the candidate. Whereas, the left is fickle. Hilary may have been a typical corpo politician, but she was still better than Trump. Even if all she did was make some some incremental progress on public health care and appointed some reasonable SC judges, the US would be a better place right now. Instead, the whole world is facing the possibility of a Trump dictatorship.
Centrists are just going to have to accept that they can't get everything they want at all times, even if it means they don't get to support genocide anymore.
If they're mad because Biden stops supporting genocide, it's because they're russian troll children astroturfer shill bots who don't know how anything works and want Trump to win. Pro-genocide centrist Democrats need to stop being such purity ponies. They need to grow up, shut up, and vote blue no matter who. After all, voting is a chess move, not a love letter.
Sauce for the goose.
There may be many factors but to just throw your hands up and say every issue is equally important is just plain foolish.
It's a matter of what factors get activated enough for it to be a leading one. If Noone was talking about the border and instead the discussion would be about something else.. the "something else" would be a major factor, not the border. Maga extremists are pushing the border narrative hard and pivot to it each appearance they have. Hence its an important issue.. in what snippets I see flying past.. its border security and finances on one side.. Trump lawsuits and Ukraine on the other. Israel comes up less frequently.
The media and public debate play a big role in what factors get activated for it to be decisive.
Or he is disgusted with how Netanyahu is waging genocide. The U.S. can’t just say “alright Israel, you’re on your own” because it would possibly lead to a nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran. Shit would get out of hand real fast when the militants try to storm Israel thinking it’s go time. I hate Netanyahu as much as I hate Khamenei and Hamas
It's never bothered him before.
I’m sure it did. Dude wouldn’t hire a bunch of people sympathetic to the Palestinians if he hated Palestine. It’s a fragile relationship to balance and abandoning Israel outright would have some severe global consequences
So we should just sacrifice millions to the whims of that murderous bastard because he's politically useful?
It’s politically useful? No the fuck it isn’t politically useful. It’s a major divisive topic in politics today. You can underestimate the threat Iran poses to regional security and international trade all day and night, but you also lose the ability to bitch and moan about the cost of living when their actions directly implicate those things.
Israel also has a chance to overcome the far right shitstain that is Netanyahu and his supporters and elect a leader who would be committed to reforming relations with the PA. Iran is making it nearly impossible to do so (which is their plan) but it is possible. You can blame Israel for this 100% but Iran shares an equal part of the blame for supporting terrorists across the region
As if Iran can't possibly be responsible for it's own actions.
If Iran wants to invade that's a problem with Iran, not the US.
Iran wouldn’t invade. They’d use their proxies abroad to stage an assault, and Israel may escalate without the U.S. holding it back by striking Iran directly
Iran wants to invade. They think (incorrectly) that they will win. Israel will turn Tehran into a parking lot before that happens.
Oh they want to invade, but they’re also aware how quickly they would get leveled. They’re hoping their pawns can do enough damage for them, and to hell with who gets hurt along the way, whether it be Palestinians, the Lebanese, or Yemenis. It’s why to me, it takes a monster to openly cheer for one side or the other. Israel is wrong for what it’s doing to the Palestinians, but to praise Hamas/Iran is just unconscionable. It’s one of the times when it’s totally fair to blame both sides for the mess that’s going on lol
Yeah, this is why I don’t get the ‘war will erupt’ reason to not stop funding for genocide, Iran doesn’t a stand a chance against Israel, US stopping funding won’t make Israel magically defenseless, but it’ll surely put pressure to stop killing innocent civilians
Iran doesn't know that though. They literally think they will win. They are fucked up insane religious zealots who think Dog is on their side and that they were preordained by an all powerful being to wipe out the Jews. It's stupid, but that's what the power structure there is built on. They won't win, but what will happen is that there will be tens of millions of dead, tens of millions of more refugees, and the complete destabilization of the middle east, north Africa, eastern Europe. It would be a cascade of failed states that would almost certainly kill many, many more people over the next hundred years. There is no peace with Iran. All the West can do is try to contain it, plug holes, and sometimes smash it back into its hole when it sticks its head out, such as when its proxy Hamas does a massive terrorist attack.
Ive given up on humanity.
I favor nuking everyone.
Oh, no. A politician doing what the people want in order to save his job.
That's how it's supposed to work. It's better than the usual m.o. where the politician does whatever they want and screw the people. Yes, it would be nice if they did what you want from the get-go, but I will vote for the one that changes their stance due to popular pressure over one that "sticks to their guns" no matter who it's hurting.
(I'm speaking in generalities here. Obviously Biden hasn't changed his stance yet.)
Except he's not doing what the people want. He's doing what Israel wants and then making a big show out of being frustrated they aren't doing what he wants. For all we know, he's told them to not worry about what he's saying, he's just trying to win back support to avoid losing the election.
He could cut off the aid or add conditions to it at any time. Or even just not veto UN resolutions.
I agree. Please read my last sentence.
The statement, however, indicated that they were more annoyed that a politician would change their stance because of poling numbers rather than because it's the right thing to do. My point is that our political system is designed for just that. Politicians have always done what is best for themselves, and expecting different from any politician is naive. Our system is deliberately designed to allow people to put pressure on politicians to (try to) keep them from sacrificing the people they are supposed to govern for their own gain.
I was talking more to the general sentiment of the statement, not to these specific circumstances. Don't blame a politician for bowing to political pressure from the people. That's what they're supposed to do to keep your vote. Allow them to change their policy, even if they don't change their stance. Instead, blame the ones that double-down on harmful decisions because they don't want to appear "weak."
This is all theoretical, of course. Recent elections have shown that too many people are willing to be sacrificed to allow those in charge to appear "strong."
That's not what's happening at all. If anything it's the opposite and the Biden people are being much harder on Netanyahu behind closed doors than in public. All of the reputable reporting and analysis indicates this.
If the military aid valve is still fully open, I'm going to take any suggestion that he's trying his hardest behind closed doors with a grain of salt. He's got three levers that should have big impacts: access to purchase weapons, the money being used to buy those weapons, and the military support to discourage the other regional powers from stepping in.
It all makes me wonder what levers Israel is pulling on the leaders of the West.