this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
597 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19102 readers
3287 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.

Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.

The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.

The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons "inconsistent" with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

So what's your solution? Who has a better shot at winning the election in November if they started campaigning today? I want a specific name and why you think it would work. You know better than everyone, this should be easy for you (everyone else, watch for this sidestep and refusal to actually answer or back up anything).

You're really good at claiming (almost to a point of preference) that Biden will lose and why we shouldn't support them but not once have you provided anything of value that people can take action on. Everything you post appears to be designed to make people more apathetic and less likely to be involved, why is that?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (9 children)

Its not my job to give you a solution. I just need you to be real about the probability of failure of the strategy that you seem to be pot-committed to. And to be clear, we haven't had a convention yet, so there is still time to change.

I'm offering you an analysis that makes a conclusion, that based on current polling, Biden can't win this election. You might find it unpalatable, but that's not my problem. Hope is a false

But this isn't new news'. Biden has been struggling in this way for over a year, before Israel/ Gaza became hot. Biden's chances have gone from "rough" to "very unlikely". He's actively working to distance himself from the positions of his base. Instead of rejecting Trump's policy positions, he adopts them. Biden is catering to a non-existent center. It seems like he genuinely thinks that some republican voters are going to show up for him. There is 0 evidence from the previous three elections that any voters are convertible.

On the other side, maybe he gets laughed at, but Trump is going to the places that voters are and trying to get them (the sneaker thing, libertarian convention). Trump is trying to win this election. You win elections post 2016 by growing a base and driving them out to vote. It worked for Trump in 2016. It worked for Biden in 2020: Biden took on the most progressive platform in recent history to grow his base to include progressives.

Whats Biden's platform in 2024? I don't know about you but I have no fucking clue based on the campaigns messaging. Its all, just like you are parroting here, about how bad Trump is. And while you might find that convincing enough, there are obviously enough voters out there (about 12%) who don't and that you can't win the election without.

So I'm sorry. It hurts if he's your hucklebee, but the guy can't win right now. He's statistically lost at this point. If beating Trump really is your goal, then you need to come up with a better candidate. Continuing to push for Biden when he can't win dooms us all.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (51 children)

See… this is the problem with discussing these things with people like you. You were asked a simple question as a rebuttal to your suggestion that people not vote for Biden, and you have no answer.

I’ve asked this same question to nearly every one of you that I’ve spoke with on the subject.

None of you can answer it.

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)
[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

Yep. Predictably unbelievable. They think we don’t know what they’re up to and keep sticking to the bit. They’re like… bad telemarketers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

She’s not running. Try again.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

That you can’t understand implied meaning isn’t my fault. You came in here with the intent to disrupt by answering a question unrealistically.

You’re proving my point for me.

None of you have anything to offer yet want even to not vote for Biden.

No one is wondering why anymore.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (49 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You keep saying Biden needs to be replaced but there's literally no candidate to replace him with that beats Trump. If you're so sure we need to ditch Biden, and you're not advocating for Trump to win, it seems pretty fair to ask what you think should happen. Until you do that it's pretty clear you're just spewing bullshit in bad faith.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Until you do that it’s pretty clear you’re just spewing bullshit in bad faith.

Sigh.. Just because some one is pointing out the flaws in your approach to electoralism doesn't mean they are acting in bad faith. Pretending that everyone who has a perspective you disagree with is out to get you is a poor way to go through life.

Recognizing that Biden can't win is step one. There really is no point in a discussion around alternatives until that point is accepted. We can't turn this ship until collectively, people understand that this guy isn't going to win the election. It has to show up in mass, in the polling, and in the collective conversation.

As far as determining an alternative, there is a straightforward mechanism for that. Its called a convention, and conveniently, there is already one scheduled. Supreme court decided post 2016 that Dem's can do whatever the fuck they want. So delegates go to the convention unaffiliated and we figure it out there.

It really doesn't matter who the nominee is, so long as its neither Biden or Hillary. Any generic Democratic governor or senator will do fine. Trump is deeply unpopular. The problem we're up against is that some how, Biden has managed his presidency in such a way as to be more unpopular than Trump.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (5 children)

And I'm telling you, there is no viable candidate you can nominate that has a better chance than Biden. "Generic Democrat" isn't a candidate. Who's polling better and is willing to run?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Gretchen Whitmer, plus she can win Michigan, which has been lost to the genocide.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

ROFL! She’s not even running. My god man… you people really need representation. You’re al over the place. How on earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you answer a question about who can beat Trump in the 2024 election….

And your answer is someone that’s not even running?

Get someone to speak for you if you want to be taken seriously.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

The question:

So what's your solution? Who has a better shot at winning the election in November if they started campaigning today?

I answered it. Now, you’re moving the goalposts and they have to be running? And you want me to take you seriously? Lol

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)