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
There won't be a Gaza to level by the time the next term starts. "Uninstructed" and similar campaigns are trying to get Biden to influence his policies now, not make a statement about which man will be better in the next genocide.
There's been a Gaza for decades, it's not going to stop just because the genocidal Bibi tries to, even if it is being turned into rubble. The primary uncommited campaign is good, and I support it, but people saying that they're gonna vote for Trump over Biden / that they'll abstain entirely are just not going to help either present or future atrocities — wiping your hand clean doesn't save lives.
Saying they won't vote for Biden is the only leverage they have to exercise to prompt policy changes. "Uncommitted" scoring big in Michigan was effectively the first time Biden even started to pay attention to anti-genocide voters. Again, the goal is to make Biden change his stance so that he wins the election. Threatening his election is the leverage, not the end goal.
Yes, but it only works so much as that leverage exists. When the alternative is Trump, that leverage isn't gonna be realistically useable come November — and there are definitely folks who don't just say they won't vote for Biden over this issue (which is imo good, since that's the whole point of a democracy). I just worry that this strategy actually does extend to the general election and make even more people suffer even more... IMO, focus should be on bottom up — specifically the legislative branch, where there's quite a few especially in the House where a primary campaign could do well and force the issue at hand.
Trump is an enormous amount of leverage. Biden basically has to adapt if he cares about stopping Trump.
The ones that will suffer most under Trump are the ones threatening to get him elected. The Dems know this. If anything, that's leverage Biden has and is using, unfortunately.
Leverage against who?
Against people that want to see the people of Palestine not be constantly bombed into oblivion. Trump's US will be significantly worse for women and minorities, so most people in those groups will end up better off under Biden because at the very least the Democratic Party aren't literally white supremacist fascists. Those that don't vote for Biden will largely be doing so as a protest vote or through apathy, which is significant (especially when you can see the size of the uncommitted vote, which is quite significant, and I hope grows), but also self-defeating — so it makes sense for the Democrats to pander to the type of person that would vote for Nikki Haley (which unfortunately somehow has a demographic much bigger than the left) instead, since they wouldn't necessarily be endangered as harshly by Trump and so need incentives to vote for Biden.
There is no evidence of anyone crossing between parties.
At the end of the day though we just have to see whether current strategy works out come election day, I feel. Or if/when, God willing, a peace is attained.
That voters are a single unit that will in the end have to choose between Trump and Biden is a false assumption, because people aren't objective robots and the representatives you see online or leading campaigns are just the tip of the iceberg. Many Muslim voters aren't going to stay home because they don't think there's a difference between Trump and Biden, they'll stay home because they're mad as hell and maybe voting wasn't that essential to them in the first place. The people speaking out, and the political junkies online, are probably all going to end up voting for Biden (at least in states where voting for president matters), but they're in tune with and representing sentiment for voters within their communities that aren't reachable by a cold argument about relative value.
The Democratic party can't berate voters into supporting them, they need to actually do things that make them believe in them. There are too many out there for whom politics is a vibes thing and who will never have a direct conversation with a political advocate to tell them about strategic voting for lesser evils. Biden could lose because of Gaza, but that's not because some politically active people organized a opposition campaign. The voters he's losing are being lost because he's adamantly rejecting the position of the majority of his party while genocide and starving children are playing on the nightly news. That doesn't go away if all these advocates just pretend it's not happening. They're putting a spotlight on the danger, not causing it.
Trying to make this an election issue is moronic. Neither side is with Gaza, making his a moot point. Not to mention this is an election for the American presidency, not for president of Earth and Gaza. Deal with this outside of the election, through Congress and the Senate, but to make this an election issue only helps Trump and will hurt Gaza in the long run
Ah, the genocide-apologia account pops in with the clarion call of "protest some other time in some other place in a way that doesn't impact the target of your protest". And we've all seen your posts. We know sure as shit you don't give a fuck about "helping Gaza in the long run".
This isn't an election issue, this is a "right now" issue with a warning for danger in the election if he continues. Biden not changing his tack is what helps Trump. He's the active party in all this. The campaign didn't "make it an election issue", they're just trying to make him recognize it.
You're mistaken in thinking this issue somehow gets solved before the election. An issue that has persisted for the entire length of isreals existence.
In this gambit to "stop Biden from supporting genocide" they have over played their hand and guaranteed Trumps win. The opposition will make certain this issue is at the forefront until election day despite any action from Biden.
You can argue all you want because I pray that I am wrong.