Saw this today, and … well, I’m not going to be so forgiving to people suggesting to vote Third Party rather than vote for Biden. If Trump wants me to do something, and you want me to do that same something, that tells me you’re aligned with Trump.
Oh, you mean like all of those “I can’t bring myself to vote for Biden because he’s not doing enough for Palestine” comments everywhere?
It’s not even clever. It’s the same strategy as 2016 promoting Jill Stein.
And Jill Stein all those other times too…
But how else can someone feel morally superior while simultaneously assisting the candidate that will accelerate any genocides going on in other countries?
the candidate that will accelerate any genocides going on in other countries?
Or, indeed, in Palestine itself. Trump, after all, is the candidate who wants Netanyahu to “finish the job” of killing them off.
Better, I’ve gotten some of these:
“Because of YOU PERSONALLY I am going to vote for Trump but was going to vote for Biden before”
I saw a couple of those just today.
looking to try to find ways to divide voters they fear will back President Joe Biden, by boosting other candidates and wedge issues in the Democratic Party.
That’s been the Republican platform for several decades.
Right? I was thrown off by the word “secretive” in the headline.
Its basic strategy in any campaign. Also, I’m not super convinced that RFK jr is really taking any votes from the left. The campaign seems to think they are, but isn’t releasing any data on this.
The polls I’ve seen with/without RFK seem to be pretty back and forth. I wouldn’t be surprised for them to be aware of how he impacts votes in very specific counties they feel they need to win.
Yeah, the campaign was talking about snatching New York from Dem’s and I was like ok yeah sure.
But honestly, RFK is polling around 10%. He could snatch a state. If that happens, Democrats lose, certainly.
Snatch a state, as in get the electoral votes?
Yeah. The RFK campaign was discussing it earlier this week. Basically that it would hurt Biden, but not Trump.
What state is realistically in play?
Their words not mine, but I can get you a clip.
Here is what I’m talking about. It might just be speculation, but it did come from the campaign.
doesn’t help that polls have been basically broken since 2019. that happens when a million people die with a bias for older people and they were the last to have landlines and answer unknown numbers.
I think Biden supporters are uhh… plenty divided. No need for help…
Not really on basic principles. Just on methods and approaches. There’s general agreement that the civilian casualties in Gaza are too high, for instance. The debate is do we try to maintain some influence over Netanyahu to try to sway him, or do we just cut them off and then whatever happens over there is whatever happens, we’d wash our hands of it.
Then the people that go after him more hardcore aren’t exactly the strongest “supporters”.
that go after him more hardcore aren’t exactly the strongest “supporters”.
Yeah that’s just patently untrue. The people going hard in the paint on Biden from the left are your hardcore progressive and leftist base. People that actually volunteer on campaigns, donate, go door to door, sign people up to vote and otherwise do work to get people elected. Think our revolution, justice democrats, extinction rebellion etc… Its not people passively engaged in politics that are activated and engaged in these organizations which are fundamental to getting any Democrats elected. Its activated, deeply engaged, strongly opinionated people who do the work of getting Democrats elected.
And this highlights the divide in Biden’s support. You have armchair centrists who basically do almost nothing and are only minimally engaged in the political process wagging their fingers saying “Any Blue Will Do” at the cohort of individuals who are being critical of Biden, but whom are also operate the cranks of the actual machines that gets Democrats elected. Any leftist worth their salt understands strategic voting, but that’s not the point. The point has been that this neo-liberal, technocratic approach to voting that Democratic centrists are insisting on, is losing and will continue to lose this election. The only thing that has kept Biden in this game was an activist rebellion within the Democratic primary system that forced his response, and he’s only really offered a papier-mâché stiffening of his rhetoric on Israel, but has done basically nothing to fix the underlying issue. IF Biden doesn’t fundamentally shift his position on Gaza and Israel now, this is over. He’s lost this election.
In this vein, the only thing that can actually save Biden from him self is a complete and total rebellion within the DNC voter base, and to basically drag Biden to a better policy position. Otherwise he will lose this election. The lame ass excuse of “Well Trump would be worse” is actually working against Biden right now, because Biden is actually the president, not Trump. The phrase “The buck stops here” is so apropos in this situation, that its almost comical.
The people going hard in the paint on Biden from the left are your hardcore progressive and leftist base.
That seems to be the central point of your argument, and then you claim all the centrists are not really helping in the trenches. It seems to me this has no basis in fact, and there are plenty of more moderate dems that volunteer, donate, are politically active, etc.
I imagine the confusion stems from moderates not protesting at as high a percentage, since protests draw a lot of attention, where a lot of the other work is less dramatic. The core of the democratic party isn’t just excited young progressives though, it’s also educated soccer moms with time on their hands.
edit: Consider it this way: When Hilary ran against Bernie, did she just have no volunteers on her side, because they were all with Bernie?
You obviously have no clue who is involved or works on political campaigns.
Both left and right, its people who care deeply about something. You don’t do that kind of work if you are on the fence on issues. You do that kind of work when you have a strong belief about something.
The problem I have with your argument is the implication that people who care deeply about helping the Democratic party are extreme leftists/progressives and not extreme neoliberals.
When you volunteer for a campaign, you aren’t volunteering for the “Democratic Party”, you are volunteering for a candidate, whom you may agree with somethings on but not others. However, people who want to make a difference are strategic about how they use their time. You pick whoever you are ideologically aligned with that you can stomach and you think has a chance of winning and you sign up and start dialing/ knocking on doors/ etc.
You’re just assuming that there aren’t people that care about having moderate policy positions.
edit: Here’s another question to get at the heart of that. Are all moderates just “on the fence” between two extremes that draw the only people that feel strongly? Or is centrism its own philosophy, that someone can believe deeply in, even if you personally may not see the appeal?
Are you asking rhetorically or do you need basic instruction in the political philosophy and hegemony of the previous 100 years of US history?
Because none of this is unknown or really up for debate.
I don’t know, I think you’re just spinning together a bunch of bullshit to hide the fact that there kinda is a large, more moderate faction in the country, that doesn’t like any extremist politics. They’re not all disengaged or apathetic, they’re the Bill Clinton supporters, and now Joe Biden supporters.
This group is far larger than either the far left or right, often middle aged, employed, often with kids. They’re not disaffected, and actually pay quite a bit of attention.
Of course, the existence of this group completely destroys the entire DNC conspiracy theory bullshit people like to lean on to attack democrats, just like it destroys MAGA people’s happy illusions that they’re the ones that are actually the “average American”, so I understand why it’s so distasteful to some.
But yeah, they’re out there. So go ahead I suppose, what do you got?
So you support apartheid, you just draw the line at too many dead children?
Stupid hot-take. Israel has been an ally of the United States for decades. Biden is trying to walk a fine line between maintaining relations with them (despite their current despicable right-wing government, which might not last long, given the huge calls for a new election in Israel) and pressuring them to stop. Trump would gladly suggest paving Gaza over and turning it into a parking lot, and voting for any third-party candidate is identical in result to voting for Trump.
This you? Biden vows ‘ironclad’ US commitment to Israel amid fears of Iran attack
The outrage (can we even call it that) is purely performative.
Will you address the fact that Trump is much, much worse for Palestinians? You and the rest of your ilk have been dodging that. Address it directly, or GTFO.
Threatening people is never a good look.
I didn’t like Biden in the 80s when he voted on a constitutional amendment for states to over turn Roe v Wade. I didn’t like Biden in the 90s when he reinforced the war on drugs and drastically increased the prison population. I didn’t like Biden in the 2000s when he supported the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, and removed the ability to default on student loans. And I still don’t like him today when he claims he’ll undo some of the awful shit he did if we vote for him just one more time, all while supporting a genocide and inching us closer and closer to an all out war in the middle east.
So no, I won’t be bullied. If your candidate sucks, and you parties policies suck, that’s on you.
OK, filing you away under “textbook example of what the article is about.”
Have a nice life.
Yes, Biden sucks. Nobody disagrees. But that’s still not addressing the problem of the only other viable candidate—Trump—being considerably worse.
Biden, who once said “I’m a Zionist, if Israel didn’t exist, we’d have to create it” is walking a fine line? Give me a break.
They’re projecting what they wish Biden believed onto what he actually believes.
Biden is a Zionist. His words, not ours.
On this we agree.
I just want to make you aware that your argument is that Biden is basically not responsible for his position on Israel. Like I really want you to actually notice what that does rhetorically, because you are effectively ceding the position that Biden is bad, but Trump would be worse (maybe).
So is Biden the President or is he not? Like, the fucking point is that Biden can do better right now and is choosing not to. Is he the President and capable of such a thing or is he not? With whom does the buck stop?
You need to start understanding that the consequence of the “Any blue will do argument” is the recognition that Biden is a weak, unfit leader that doesn’t have accountability, and that this rhetorical structure is what is losing Biden this election. Making excuses for Biden on this policy position weakens him as a candidate, and further ensures a Trump victory.
That’s a blatant misreading. He is fully responsible for his position, but due to the circumstances of this situation, his position is necessarily nuanced. It has to be, to avoid destabilizing the entire Middle East.
Imagine he just declares Israel no longer an ally, and tells them they’re on their own. How long before Iran attacks? How long before other Muslim-majority countries are dragged into it? How long before it becomes a broader conflict, with Israel fighting basically everyone?
How long before we end up dragged into it anyway?
Biden is trying to pressure Netanyahu with what leverage he has, and he is trying to prevent it from become a large regional conflict. I’m sure he wishes BiBi wasn’t the one in charge there - most Israeli citizens certainly seem to want him gone, too - but wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up faster.
With Biden, we have someone in the White House who actually gives a shit whether Palestinians get to live. That’s a hell of a lot better than anything Trump has to offer.
With Biden, we have someone in the White House who actually gives a shit whether Palestinians get to live.
Biden is, and always has been, a full throat-ed Zionist. He’s maybe the furthest right Democrat on this issue from his cohort/ demographic of senators. He’s hard right in this way. Further right than Trump. You are projecting nuance and your own desire to belief that Biden is good on Israel onto Biden beliefs. But by Biden’s own words and his stated beliefs, he is doing pretty much exactly what we would expect him to do in support of Zionism. If you map current actions onto his previously stated beliefs, nothing is out of order. The only change has bee some lip-service sound byte level saber rattling. There is no need to project deep nuance onto the situation if you just look at Biden’s words and policy positions and map them to what he does. He lines up as a squarely Neo-conservative Zionist in rhetoric (preter Israels advancement of the genocide of the Palestinian people post October) and has lined up squarely as a Neo-conservative Zionist in action. He makes decisions and acts like the person he said he is.
The alternative is Trump. Tell me Trump’s position on Palestine.
So, if Biden doesn’t win, Trump WILL.
What’s Trump’s plan?
Arm Israel and expand the genocide.How can you possibly think you have any kind of moral high ground when you’re willing to let someone win that will make the problem worse?
This is a literal example of the trolley problem.
If you do nothing and don’t vote, millions of children die.
If you vote, thousands of children will die.
But you know who’s killing those children?
Benjamin Netanyahu
Yet you fuckers act like Biden is over there doing it with his bare hands.Get your morals straightened out, because if Trump wins, that blood is on your hands as well as his, and I’d rather only have a little blood of my hands than a lot.
Its like you are dis-interested in actually winning this election…
Stop scapegoating Benjamin Netanyahu, he’s a symptom not a cause.
Oh, then who’s ordering around the IDF?
Let me guess, you think it’s Biden don’t you?
The Knesset, the will of the Israelis?
I think that few people are Biden supporters and more are “We have to get Biden in so that Trump doesn’t get in and hopefully someone younger will come by for the next round but he’s still better than the alternative by a mile”.
We could have elected a shoe into office in 2020 the anti-Trump sentiment was so strong. Its not as strong now, and Biden is a worse candidate than he’s ever been.
Neither points are true.
I don’t know how “secretive” the scheme is. Seems pretty out in the open to me.
Indeed, how is it here?!
Secret? Their playbook literally has four bullet points and this is #2.
Fuck Trump but the Democrats did this to Republicans in the last two election cycles. They specifically boosted MAGA Republicans in the Primaries because they knew they’d fail in the General. This isn’t some secret evil scheme that Republicans pulled out of their ass, it’s turnabout. As for boosting wedge issue both parties have literally been doing that for a hundred years!
Modern journalism is a raging dumpster fire.
The difference is the electoral college in the pres election requires 270. Primaries don’t. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
deleted by creator
It’s all over lemmy, every thread has massive amounts of genocide Joe or vote 3rd party comments.
Jesus Christ. “If Biden supports genocide, and you’re aligned with Biden, that tells me you support genocide”. Is that how your logic works?
deleted by creator
I’m asking OP if he applies this logic to his own views.
I will not be voting for the genocide suppier no matter what you say.
Suppier? Guess it makes more sense in the original russian?
You morally should vote as effectively as you can EVERY TIME. EVERY vote on the left moves the conversation left.
What you’re advocating is a disastrous take, and you’re falling for classic voter suppression tactics. If you vote for Trump he backs Israel AND Russia. If you don’t vote at all, or throw away your vote, you’re helping politics move towards the right. It’s like a game of tug of war and you’re giving up before it starts.
Rush said it best “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”
This is what I can’t stand about these “I will not vote for Biden” Neanderthals. They’re not making a point by abstaining; they’re indirectly aiding Trump while pretending they have the moral high ground.
I used to be them in my youth. They think it’s like the free market: if I don’t buy any spaghetti sauce because I don’t like classic or meaty then eventually someone will fill the gap and get me the chunky sauce I’ve been wanting. Unfortunately that simply doesn’t work in politics.
Once you see it for what it is, a game of tug of war, you realise that you have to play everytime. Even if the current leader doesn’t want to go as far as you want every step in the right direction is a victory in itself. It also shifts the center for the next election. You get what you want through steadfast victories over time not through instant change towards an ideal world.
If only they understood the reality of having a FPTP electoral system with only two viable parties.
In a more sane system where every vote actually mattered, by all means, vote for someone else or abstain. But in this current system, 30% of the population could vote third party, and that third party might not even get a single seat. Each and every one of those hypothetical votes which ultimately didn’t matter could have went towards pushing away an insurrectionist lunatic.
Grow up.
Ah the great anonymous source. I’m sure it isn’t someone in the democrat campaign! They would never!
It’s a source talking to the NYT. If these were journalists with a long track record of deception, then I would raise questions, but the NYT is generally decent.
Anon sources are totally cool, but only if they’re being cited by someone that is trustworthy.
It’s a source talking to the NYT.
Yes.
If these were journalists with a long track record of deception
Yes.
the NYT is generally decent.
I had a good laugh, thanks!
Anonymous sources aren’t totally cool, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel of journalism.
They should absolutely not be used for opinion, and normally need to be backed up by third party evidence.
The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. […] We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information.
The reporter is the third party who confirms the evidence, either by finding corroboration with another source or who knows enough about the source to know if they could have that knowledge.
This does require reporter to be trustworthy, but that is true about anyone who provides evidence.
That is not true of anyone who provides evidence in the sense that non anonymous sources can be verified by third parties. That’s precisely why anonymous sources are considered the bottom of the barrel of journalism.
How do you trust the third parties when they say they verified something that can’t be replicated in a lab, like on the authenticity of an email?
Why doesn’t that criteria apply to journalists?
Huh, I don’t trust the authenticity of an email until I’ve seen some cryptographic proof (like DKIM, GPG, S/MIME)
That criteria totally does apply to journalists.
Where do you ever see that level of detail on emails you don’t personally receive?
Prove them as a completely unreliable source then. Should be easy for you.
(This person won’t and will probably only deflect or provide a single article that was corrected)
We’re you alive during the Iraq war? Jesus fuck.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
The New York Times and Frontline report that an Iraqi general witnessed the Iraqi military training Arab fighters to hijack airplanes. Mother Jones later reports general to be bogus Chalabi plant
You can start on Wikipedia of all places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
Anonymous sources aren’t totally cool, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel of journalism.
I heard from an anonymous source that you sniff butts.
Kind of proving the point aren’t you. I eat ass, I don’t sniff it.
You don’t take in the bouquet of a fine wine before sipping?
Found one.
